UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

[Stray Cat]

Aerial Photo:

House and Garage marked red:

Line drawn from center of garage to center of house:

Maccabee's Diagram overlayed:

Maccabee, the precise scientist has two diagrams, both different and neither matching up to the aerial photo. From what I gather Maccabee put a lot of time and effort into working out the positions of the camera at photo 1 and photo 2... one has to wonder how he managed to get it so wrong, when the placing of all the elements at the correct size, in the correct position is the ONLY way to work out these positions.

Again, to me, it looks like another situation where Maccabee has had to alter the way he works it all out so it comes up with the answer he wants... not very scientific if you ask me.

Here's the answer... now what is the question.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

If the sightlines did cross over 4' beyond the wires, how far would a hubcap/mirror hanging from the wires need to swing around to appear in the positions depicted? About a foot? <shrug>

On a scale of 1 to Unimpressed, I'm up at the letters end.

 

[Andrew Wiggin]

Here's the answer... now what is the question.

For me, the question is why Rramjet isn't bothering to do work like this. Of course, he might be, and be keeping it to himself if it contradicts his preconcevied notion.

I'm willing to accept an intersection anywhere between the buildings as indicating a probable dangly round bit instead of a UFO, since that's the easiest place to hang something, be it by throwing a fishline over existing wires, dangling from a ladder, or from a fishing pole off of a roof. I think it's obvious to most participants in this thread that something out there in the distant sky would present very differently than this one does, and that combined with the awkward low-down camera angle, which would be required to make a dangly bit look like it was floating without getting the wires in the picture, but certainly doesn't match up with someone running about a back yard taking fast shots of a moving UFO caused this one to go on the fraud pile.

I think it's also obvious to most reasonable folks how little breeze or swing it would take to cause a dangly bit to be a few feet away from its ideal position. There's a reason why plumb bobs are big heavy lead lumps, carefully turned concentric with the axis of hang, on special braided non-twisting cord or strain-relieved non-magnetic wire. In addition, plumb bobs for critical applications are enclosed in wind-proof housings, and often damped with an oil vane. Try to mark a vertical line by hanging a pie plate from a string outside on a breezy day; it'll be all over the place. Tell me that the measurements are only good to three feet and change? Yah, real surprising. Doesn't change a thing.

A

 

[Rramjet]

Aerial Photo:

[qimg]http://i246.photobucket.com/albums/gg117/ThePsychoClown/Trent-Aerial.jpg[/qimg]

House and Garage marked red:

[qimg]http://i246.photobucket.com/albums/gg117/ThePsychoClown/Trent-Buildings.jpg[/qimg]

Line drawn from center of garage to center of house:

[qimg]http://i246.photobucket.com/albums/gg117/ThePsychoClown/Trent-Wires.jpg[/qimg]

Maccabee's Diagram overlayed:

[qimg]http://i246.photobucket.com/albums/gg117/ThePsychoClown/Trent-Diagram-Overlay.jpg[/qimg]

Maccabee, the precise scientist has two diagrams, both different and neither matching up to the aerial photo. From what I gather Maccabee put a lot of time and effort into working out the positions of the camera at photo 1 and photo 2... one has to wonder how he managed to get it so wrong, when the placing of all the elements at the correct size, in the correct position is the ONLY way to work out these positions.

Again, to me, it looks like another situation where Maccabee has had to alter the way he works it all out so it comes up with the answer he wants... not very scientific if you ask me.

Here's the answer... now what is the question.

Yes...here IS the answer (see below). The question was whether the sight lines crossed under the wires, which would be somewhat suspicious. The SLC is important because that is the ONLY position where a stationary model could be located and still have the camera position move (as demonstrated in the photos) while maintaining the UFO positions shown in the Trent photos. The UFO debunkers have claimed that Trent "hung" a "UFO" from the overhead wires. This analysis shows this could NOT have been the case.

The following again demonstrates where Stray Cat went wrong. (HINT: Stray Cat... this time please READ the analysis description contained in my post above AND in part immediately below)

(…) 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! (…)

Oh, and Chief - the question is why Stray Cat is NOT doing ANY of the necessary calculations!

ETA: The dimensions of the house and garage have been exaggerated to bring them closer to prove the point - if you move them back to their original dimensions - the sightlines STILL do not cross under the wires. No mater HOW you move the house and garage in relation to each other, the SLC does NOT fall under the wires.

 

[Rramjet]

If the sightlines did cross over 4' beyond the wires, how far would a hubcap/mirror hanging from the wires need to swing around to appear in the positions depicted? About a foot? <shrug>

On a scale of 1 to Unimpressed, I'm up at the letters end.

IF the UFO were swinging on the overhead wires (so as to allow it to swing out four feet (!) to the SLC), then getting the height of the UFO so precisely aligned between photo 1 and photo 2 - would take many attempts (that is many photos to achieve) - yet the roll of negatives was presented for examination and only THOSE two photos in sequence were present! The lateral movement is NOT "about a foot" - it IS (must and has to be) 4 feet (lateral motion) to the SLC! And that is a great deal of swing to achieve!

ETA: AND, just have a think about the attitide of the UFO depicted (for example) in photo 1. IF it was hanging from a central point above the object (form the overhead wires and swinging wildly), the fact that it lies with the lower surface tilted slightly UP and toward the camera, means that its motion (if swinging) MUST have been very rapid (and jerky), yet the photos show NONE of the associated "blurriness" that would have been present under such a scenario. In FACT the UFO is clearly IN focus.

 

[Sledge]

I wonder how many people who were on the fence have concluded UFOlogy is full of crap since Rramjet started posting?

 

[Jack by the hedge]

IF the UFO were swinging on the overhead wires (so as to allow it to swing out four feet (!) to the SLC)...

<facepalm> It doesn't have to swing 4' away from the photographer, to reach the point where the sightlines cross each other; it only has to sway left or right to reach the sightlines.

 

[Rramjet]

<facepalm> It doesn't have to swing 4' away from the photographer, to reach the point where the sightlines cross each other; it only has to sway left or right to reach the sightlines.

If it were "swinging" laterally (at right angles) to the camera position THEN you MUST please explain the depicted SIZE difference in the UFO between photos 1 and 2.

IF it were swinging at right angles to the camera, then the SIZE of the UFO MUST have been the SAME between the two photos. However, it has already been demonstrated that there is a significant difference in UFO size between the two photos of at least 10%!

You cannot have it "both ways". The size difference was initially explained by the UFO debunkers as UFO "swinging" parallel to the camera viewpoint (swing closer/bigger, swing away, further/smaller). So... how do YOU explain the size differential with your "lateral" motion?

 

[Correa Neto]

UFOlogists and cryptozoologists love to discuss blurry pictures...

 

[tsig]

Is there any scientific realm in which the character of the witness is a determining factor?

No.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

If it were "swinging" laterally (at right angles) to the camera position THEN you MUST please explain the depicted SIZE difference in the UFO between photos 1 and 2.

<double facepalm> The 10% change in distance can be accounted for by the change in position of the camera plus swaying of the "UFO".

If you don't think that's possible, kindly present your evidence, with error calculations. (I've rather lost track of how many different diagrams we've now seen, and none seems to have persuasively laid claim to be definitive.)

 

[gambling_cruiser]

If it were "swinging" laterally (at right angles) to the camera position THEN you MUST please explain the depicted SIZE difference in the UFO between photos 1 and 2.

IF it were swinging at right angles to the camera, then the SIZE of the UFO MUST have been the SAME between the two photos. However, it has already been demonstrated that there is a significant difference in UFO size between the two photos of at least 10%!

You cannot have it "both ways". The size difference was initially explained by the UFO debunkers as UFO "swinging" parallel to the camera viewpoint (swing closer/bigger, swing away, further/smaller). So... how do YOU explain the size differential with your "lateral" motion?

That's simple to explain:
Position of photo 2 taken is farther away from the powerline than the position of photo 1.

 

[tsig]

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…

They came from another star and this is the best they can do?

 

[GeeMack]

I wonder how many people who were on the fence have concluded UFOlogy is full of crap since Rramjet started posting?

At least one, Tapio. And although SnidelyW still jumps in and mumbles something now and then, he's never actually done anything to support the "UFOs = aliens" conjecture and even admitted his intrigue is based on nothing more than wishful thinking. King of the Americas was probably embarrassed to be involved. His seems to have jumped ship. Of course he was just another sycophant like SnidelyW, and never did offer anything productive in the way of supporting Rramjet's inane theory. Even Rramjet himself, if he's sane, will get over this infatuation with little green men and pretending to be a scientist when he grows up and gets out of high school. If he's lucky he'll find a girlfriend and get distracted from it all, pretty much like any other Truther. Life moves on for all but the nuttiest of crackpots.

 

[GeeMack]

If it were "swinging" laterally (at right angles) to the camera position THEN you MUST please explain the depicted SIZE difference in the UFO between photos 1 and 2.

IF it were swinging at right angles to the camera, then the SIZE of the UFO MUST have been the SAME between the two photos. However, it has already been demonstrated that there is a significant difference in UFO size between the two photos of at least 10%!

You cannot have it "both ways". The size difference was initially explained by the UFO debunkers as UFO "swinging" parallel to the camera viewpoint (swing closer/bigger, swing away, further/smaller). So... how do YOU explain the size differential with your "lateral" motion?

IF you can't explain how it wasn't a manifestation of the gods then your argument is just another little turd in an ever increasing pile of manure. You've never even attempted to debunk that "UFOs = gods" theory, Rramjet. What's the matter, is the gods theory a little too solid for you to tackle? Or does your argument from incredulity and ignorance strategy include ignorance of far superior explanations?

 

[Marduk]

IF you can't explain how it wasn't a manifestation of the gods then your argument is just another little turd in an ever increasing pile of manure. You've never even attempted to debunk that "UFOs = gods" theory, Rramjet. What's the matter, is the gods theory a little too solid for you to tackle? Or does your argument from incredulity and ignorance strategy include ignorance of far superior explanations?

Don't forget A.S.S. and P.I.S.S. either. He hasn't adressed that either and so far its explained everything

 

[tsig]

At least one, Tapio. And although SnidelyW still jumps in and mumbles something now and then, he's never actually done anything to support the "UFOs = aliens" conjecture and even admitted his intrigue is based on nothing more than wishful thinking. King of the Americas was probably embarrassed to be involved. His seems to have jumped ship. Of course he was just another sycophant like SnidelyW, and never did offer anything productive in the way of supporting Rramjet's inane theory. Even Rramjet himself, if he's sane, will get over this infatuation with little green men and pretending to be a scientist when he grows up and gets out of high school. If he's lucky he'll find a girlfriend and get distracted from it all, pretty much like any other Truther. Life moves on for all but the nuttiest of crackpots.

He'll find that his genitals fit her genitals that will be a new understanding because no one has ever had sex before.

 

[Vortigern99]

In the case of the Trent photos, rather than gods or aliens, it's highly probable that this UFO = pie plate/hubcap/pot-lid, flung twice into the air frisbee-style and photographed. This is an unfalsifiable proposition and, since we have ample evidence of the existence of pie plates etc., and none for gods or aliens, it's the best explanation for the photos -- especially taken with the fact that Mrs. Trent had reported seeing three UFOs on previous occasions.

 

[Astrophotographer]

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.

Hmmm..isn't this the kind of response one might expect from a couple of people who had created a hoax but did not want to admit it? I realize that you and Maccabee profess that you can not be fooled by an individual but that is a mistake. Even Hartmann left open the possibility that it could be hoax even after talking to the witnesses. He must have had doubts because he was willing to accept Sheaffer's work as evidence it probably was a hoax.

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…

Blah...Blah...Blah... These people were considered highly respected individuals just like the Trents. However, they got caught. What makes the Trents any better than them? Because you say so? Because Dr. Maccabee, who has a bias towards the ETH says so? Remember, Dr. Mac also has endorsed hoaxes before based on the "character" of the witnesses. So, I would consider his opinion on the matter somewhat suspect.

 

[Astrophotographer]

That's simple to explain:
Position of photo 2 taken is farther away from the powerline than the position of photo 1.

Of course, even Maccabee admits this. The numbers are 14.25 and 17 feet to the crossover point if I recall correctly. This is a 16% change in distance, which should produce a corresponding change in size.