UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

Status
Not open for further replies.
tsig said:
Once again you are basing your conclusions on the character of the witness rather than the credibility of the statement.
Click to expand...
Is there any scientific realm in which the character of the witness is a determining factor?
 
I've been reviewing the Trent photos, and it occurs to me that they could easily depict a plate/pot lid/generic industrial device of some kind, thrown into the air twice in succession and photographed both times.

There is no need for wires to be suspended under this hypothesis, and it also explains both the slight size difference between the objects in the two photos, and the atmospheric haze, if any, since the object could have been thrown farther in the second photo.

It can therefore easily said to be "mundane" in all probability, and therefore no recourse to extraterrestrials, deities, magical beings or any other "alien" explanation is required.
 
BTW, that was my 1000th post.

Also, sorry for spoiling the party mood. Now, back to the discussion on exactly how "dumb" one has to be in order to be hoaxed by people one considers too "dumb" to toss a pie plate in the air, snap a picture of it and create five decades of continuous speculation by the credulous and unimaginative.
 
Stray Cat said:
And that fact that they DID do it hardly adds to the credibility of Maccabee.
Click to expand...
And let's not forget motive.

Evelyn Trent had witnessed (and discussed) seeing UFOs on 3 previous occasions before the "money shot".

Of course Maccabee and Hartmann dismiss this as a motive to hoax a shot in order to regain some credibility.
 
You guys really are screwing up my dream of being abducted. I thought the mirror was a nazi built ship and just wasted an entire week of searching for better photographic evidence. I think my odds of living a fantasy may be better left at the lottery plan. I hope you're all happy and may a non-existent omnipotent entity bless you.
 
Vortigern99 said:
BTW, that was my 1000th post.

Also, sorry for spoiling the party mood. Now, back to the discussion on exactly how "dumb" one has to be in order to be hoaxed by people one considers too "dumb" to toss a pie plate in the air, snap a picture of it and create five decades of continuous speculation by the credulous and unimaginative.
Click to expand...


Congratulations mate. Looking forward to reading your next thousand.


1000Posts.jpg
 
chuck4842 said:
You guys really are screwing up my dream of being abducted. I thought the mirror was a nazi built ship and just wasted an entire week of searching for better photographic evidence. I think my odds of living a fantasy may be better left at the lottery plan. I hope you're all happy and may a non-existent omnipotent entity bless you.
Click to expand...


Apparently your best chance of finding a UFO these days is in Brazil. Or on the side of an old truck.

Maybe both. Correa will give you directions.
 
Correa Neto said:
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".
Click to expand...
Absolutely… Happy Wife, Happy Life.

But this isn’t a thread about reality…

(and that’s “Her Royal Highness, Queen of the Universe” by the way)
 
I couldn't find the frisbee / pantyhose egg photos, but (silver lining in every cloud!) I'm going to ask my mom to look through my old photos. This could be really interesting.
 
Rramjet said:
But perhaps it is simply that you have no understanding of what the JREF actually represents?
Click to expand...
A place to discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly and lively way?

I could be wrong though...
 
Stray Cat said:
Towards the back of the garage (level with the word 'sighting line', you can see Maccabee has drawn in a line which he has then for some reason decided not to use. This is where the back of the garage actually is if you overlay the aerial photo over it. And whilst you have the aerial photo overlayed, you will notice the gap between the house and the garage is much too big, so you need to move the house over to the left by about 5 little squares... then measure halfway along the house and draw a line between the garage and the house... see where the sight lines cross?"
Click to expand...

To understand where Stray Cat went wrong we first must note what Dr Maccabee wrote here: (http://brumac.8k.com/trent2c.html - located following figure ADD84B)

”One of the important "successes" of my original photogrammetric reconstruction was a "prediction" that the garage was unexpectedly long, perhaps more than 25 ft long from front (north) to back (south). This prediction was confirmed by the aerial photos which indicate the garage was a least 25 ft and perhaps about 28 ft long.

(NOTE 2000: measurements of the garage show that the walls form a rectangle 18 ft wide by 24 ft long. The roof overhang adds about a foot at each end and 1/2 ft at each side, making the roof dimensions, as seen from above, about 19 ft by 26 ft.)​

The major reason for undertaking the original reconstruction of the back yard was to determine whether or not the overhead wires passed over the sighting line crossover point (SLCP) (as described in Appendix B). The new reconstruction of the back yard combined with the previously determined sighting directions shows that the SLCP was about 4 ft northwest of the overhead wires, which is reasonably close to the original reconstruction which indicated 5.5 ft if the wires were 3/16" in diameter. The decrease from 5.5 ft to 4 ft resulted from better scaling and from a decrease in the distance from the corner of the house to the point where the wires were fastened to the house. I had initially estimated that the distance was 12 ft, corresponding to a house width of 24 ft using a photo supplied by Hartmann. However, the aerial photos suggest that the house width was only 22 ft as seen from above so I have adjusted the scaled map accordingly. Other reconstructions can be attempted by moving the relative locations of the house and the garage. However, it must be remembered that the most accurate positioning of the camera locations 1 and 2 are based on the assumed separation of the house and garage, so one cannot simply "slide" the house or garage to create another map without also moving positions 1 and 2.”

We must then note carefully, as Dr Maccabee wrote above, that in 2000 he measured the size of the garage walls (18 by 24 ft). Now, if we combine that measurement with the roof overhang size (as seen from above in the aerial photo), this actually makes the garage 19 by 26 ft as seen from above. In the drawing that was made based on the aerial survey, Dr Maccabee used 28 ft - It should therefore be corrected to a length of 26 ft.

Stray Cat has noted that moving the house to the left (west) making it closer to the garage moved the wires to the left and, if the SLC does not move, then one can move the wires to a point close to the SLC. What Stray Cat hasn't realized is that the locations 1 and 2 of the cameraman are determined by the directions from the camera to the end of rafter A of the garage AND from the camera to the corner of the house roof. (The corner of the house roof appears in the newspaper version of the two photos.)

If one keeps the garage fixed in position on the map the sighting lines from the camera to the garage remain constant. (Actually, start at Rafter A and draw a line in the direction opposite to the sighting line, i.e., from the garage to the camera, for each photo.) One then positions the house as desired and draws the sighting line directions starting at the house corner. That is, one starts at the corner of the house and draws a line in the direction 180 degrees - opposite - from the sighting line direction.

For photo 1, a line from the garage projected toward the camera crosses a line from the house corner projected toward the camera. The camera is at the crossing of these two lines. In this way the camera position 1 is located by the measurements from the first photo. Then do the same thing with sighting lines to the garage and the house corner from photo 2. This locates position 2. It is important to realize that when the house is moved relative to the garage (because the exact spacing is not known, but it is within the range 16 - 19 ft), the positions 1 and 2 will also move because they depend upon the location of the house. In particular, if the house is moved to the left relative to the garage, the positions 1 and 2 and ALSO the SLC will move to the left. The wires move to the left also, but by a smaller amount. The net result is that the SLC still does not pass under the wires!

To demonstrate this I have attached a new scaled diagram based on the updated measurements and the assumption that the spacing between the house and garage is 16 ft, a foot less than the minimum suggested by the aerial photos, and the assumption that the back of the house is 2 ft north of the front of the garage. The angles come from the table in the above URL. When this construction is carried out the gap between the wires and the SLC is about 4 ft.

picture.php
 
Astrophotographer said:
Perhaps my use of the "stupid hicks" remark is a bit harsh but you did not answer the question. Are you stating that the Trent were not bright enough, smart enough, clever enough, to create such a hoax? It appears fairly straight forward IMO. You suspend an object using some fishing line or thread and then take a few pictures of it. You then claim it was a UFO to your friends as a practical joke (not revealing it was a hoax). It appears in the community and suddenly somebody picks it up nationally and it becomes big news. Now you are stuck with sticking to a story that was initially a practical joke or admitting you lied to your friends and the community. This would not be the first time that this has happened (I can think of many examples of hoaxers who had no reason to commit a hoax and told a convincing story - see Condon case 7 and 24)
Click to expand...

As you say, a “bit harsh”…

No I am not stating any such thing. All I am saying is that according to everyone who knew the Trents (including Hartmann and Maccabee) they were honest, down-to-earth, hardworking people, who’s characters indicated that it was unlikely for them to have been the perpetrators of such a “hoax”. Indeed while being open to questioning, they tended to shy away from media interest and did not receive any payment whatsoever for their photos or story.

You are simply speculating here Astrophotographer – making up a story from whole cloth. As for the other examples you supply of alleged “hoaxes”, the first… well …misnumbering does occur… and also given what we know about military involvement in disinformation/misinformation campaigns aimed at UFO groups, how do we know that this military pilot was not part of something like that (Well, if YOU can indulge in speculation – I can too!). As for the second case, we have no character assessment of the man and boy (apart from the fact that they stuck to their story under close questioning). But for all we know of their real characters, they might have been exactly the type of people who would perpetrate a hoax…
 
This doesn't change a thing. It's a four foot difference where we'd expect the parallex on something out there in the distance to be hundreds of yards at least. All this means is that they didn't hang their pie pan/mirror/hubcap from the wires, but strung their own fishline, there was a breeze blowing, or it's a kid on a ladder or the roof with a fishing pole. Less than four feet difference, but still right between the buildings, right where we would expect it to be if it was just hung there, rather than floating around in the distance. Debunking debunker fail...

A
 
Andrew Wiggin said:
This doesn't change a thing. It's a four foot difference where we'd expect the parallex on something out there in the distance to be hundreds of yards at least.
Click to expand...
Certainly well within the margins of error… oh wait, none are given.

And Maccabee calls himself a scientist…
 
Access Denied said:
Certainly well within the margins of error… oh wait, none are given.

And Maccabee calls himself a scientist…
Click to expand...
Wait, no margin of error?

I seem to recall Rramjet having no problem with a lack of error margin once before.

Now what was that about? I forget......
 
Rramjet said:
To understand where Stray Cat went wrong we first must note what Dr Maccabee wrote here:

<wrong stuff>
Click to expand...


First up we need to ascertain that Stray Cat went wrong at all. The fact is, we think he's perfectly correct.

We also think that you're completely wrong. It seems that we really have nothing left to discuss at all, do we?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom