Stray Cat
Philosopher
- Joined
- Sep 6, 2006
- Messages
- 6,829
You're right, but sadly, that wire is clear in Trent's UFO photos and the UFO is above the wire.
- Status
You're right, but sadly, that wire is clear in Trent's UFO photos and the UFO is above the wire.
Stray Cat
Philosopher
- Joined
- Sep 6, 2006
- Messages
- 6,829
Gee thanks, I didn't think anyone had noticedDamn, you’re good...
I'm working on a few more of those at the moment too.
If you consider the photographs, noting carefully the size of the garage and the position of the overhead wires, and the fact that the garage was fitted with a pitched roof, you will see that the wires could NOT have extended to a contact point on the “middle” of the garage (Nor would they logically have done so in any case). It is clear then that Mrs. Trent meant the top-middle of the A-frame that constituted the roof at the rear end of the garage.
Your inability to understand the practical difficulties of attaching the wires to the middle of a pitched roof (and the illogical nature of conducting such an enterprise when attaching a short pole to the end of the garage would have been simple, practical and logical – not to mention standard practice for such attachments), and then the meaning of Mrs. Trent’s comment in this regard, is bordering on the deliberately obtuse.
So then the Life magazine photos DO show the wires exactly as I stated above. Which begs the question that if you knew you were wrong in your assessment, why include it in a post? This is, in my opinion complete and utter irrelevant foolishness. You are deliberately wasting your own and other people’s time Access Denied – and for that you are deserved of contempt in exact proportion to the amount of other people’s time you have so wasted.
Again you are simply wasting people’s time. It is obvious that the wires from the front of the house extend to the pole on the opposite side of the road, and that the “third” wire extends well beyond the garage. That you so deliberately waste people’s time with such obvious irrelevancies is, in my opinion, properly deserving of contempt in exact proportion to the extent you have wasted people’s time.
Interestingly, the shape of the UFO has some independent confirmation:
(http://brumac.8k.com/trent2c.html)
"Nevertheless it has been possible to estimate the locations of the photographer and the overhead wires with some accuracy just from information contained within the photographs, combined with some educated guesses as to true sizes of objects near the garage. (NOTE 2000: the following analysis has been greatly improved by using aerial survey photos not available when this paper was written. Nevertheless it is being retained for historical reasons." (http://brumac.8k.com/trent2.html)
It would be interesting if just for one a UFO debunker would actually READ the analysis instead of "cherry picking" bits and pieces that they believe might support their case.
A key thing to note is that even in the more accurately rendered diagram, the "sightlines" STILL do not cross under the overhead wires.
Access Denied
Critical Thinker
- Joined
- Oct 24, 2009
- Messages
- 338
Access Denied
Critical Thinker
- Joined
- Oct 24, 2009
- Messages
- 338
[looks at Trent's photos of the truck mirror again]You're right, but sadly, that wire is clear in Trent's UFO photos and the UFO is above the wire.
Right, so how did he suspend the fishing line between them?
Access Denied
Critical Thinker
- Joined
- Oct 24, 2009
- Messages
- 338
These and many other questions man has pondered through the centuries…
One man's “independent confirmation” is another man’s evidence that photographs of flying side rear view mirrors are pervasive...
Access Denied
Critical Thinker
- Joined
- Oct 24, 2009
- Messages
- 338
It would be interesting if just this time you would actually ANSWER the question Stray Cat asked…
“If Maccabee is so precise, how come both of his diagrams of the Trent's back yard are so different?”
The question was not...
"How come both of his diagrams of the Trent's back yard are so different?"
Again, one of these is not like the other.
Correa Neto
Philosopher
- Joined
- Aug 4, 2003
- Messages
- 8,548
That, sir, would only be possible by the use of a MIRROR hanging on a wire.when you see Uranus in the night sky let me know, I'll try to fit it into your A.S.S.
HEY!
A truck's REAR mirror!
Hanging on a WIRE!
Are you surprised that it all would boil down to A.S.S.?
Marduk
Banned
- Joined
- Apr 26, 2009
- Messages
- 10,183
I'm afraid if theres a possibility that its been identified as a mirror then it isn't A.S.S.
It is in fact Provisionally Identified Space Sighting
Correa Neto
Philosopher
- Joined
- Aug 4, 2003
- Messages
- 8,548
Nope.
Rule no. 1765:
At conversations with Her Supreme Dictatorial Imperial Majesty, the Wife, the lowly peasant known as the husband will have the final words and they shall be "Yes, Honey".
Stray Cat
Philosopher
- Joined
- Sep 6, 2006
- Messages
- 6,829
Well that still doesn't explain how the sight lines are so far off... yes it may explain the measurements of the buildings, but the positions and sight lines?
And I do wonder how a really small aerial photo can be more accurate than going there and actually measuring the life sized actual back yard... If he's so precise with everything else, one has to wonder at why using an old aerial photo actually makes anything more accurate?
Well perhaps you could save me some time and have a look at the reference that Maccabee has used for his "more accurate" drawing and tell me what you find about the length of the garage when you overlay his overhead wire drawing (either one)?
Because when you draw the garage in correctly (or as correctly as possible from such a small photo), it looks to me like it's a lot shorter (doesn't go back as far) than he's drawn it. Which in turn brings the wires forward (and more like they would be as they appear in the photo) and guess where they end up?
So you fall back on the old UFO debunker fallacy of:
"Merely because I say it, therefore it must be true".
Your statements above display a singular lack of appreciation for "the burden of evidence". Simply you need to support your assertions with evidence. Reliance on a mere belief systems to make your points is something that even the JREF tries to counter. But perhaps it is simply that you have no understanding of what the JREF actually represents?
EHocking
Penultimate Amazing
If you are referring to figure B2 (http://brumac.8k.com/trent2c.html) you have just shown me that you have not read Dr Maccabee’s analysis. This again proves Freidman correct in his assessment of UFO debunkers: “Don’t bother me with the evidence, my mind is made up”.
” Attempts at a truly accurate photogrammetric reconstruction of the sighting have been hampered by a lack of data on the distance of the photographer from the garage wall, the exact location of the overhead wires, and the distance from the garage wall to the Trent house. (All of these measurements could have been made by Hartmann when he visited the site in 1967, but he made no measurements. Unfortunately several years after Hartmann's visit the former Trent farmhouse burned down, and several years after that the garage was torn down.”
(http://brumac.8k.com/trent2.html)If you now refer to Figure ADD84B (http://brumac.8k.com/trent2c.html), then I can see nothing unusual there…perhaps you would like to point out what you mean?
If you take the width in the house in the photo compare it with the width of the house in the drawing, (Figure ADD84B - http://brumac.8k.com/trent2c.html) and create a ratio wp/wd = x, then take the length of the garage in the diagram and multiply it by x, then you should get the length of the garage in the photo. As far as I can tell…you do. So what’s your point?
If the photo is 100% genuine, then it obviously represents nothing mundane. If it is not a mundane object, then by definition it is "alien". Given other evidence (other photos, reports, etc), we can then speculate that it might represent ET.
ETA: "proof" in science is an invalid concept. We may have a "preponderance" of evidence that might seem to us overwhelming, but that is just our perspective on it and there is nothing to say that tomorrow we might find contrary evidence or countermanding factors that will force us to reassess that opinion.
Last edited:
- Status