McMinnville UFO photographs real or fake ?

reply to post by FireMoon

I could if we actually had a haze today. It was hot as hell and dry as a bone. No fog! I told you all before I did them that the camera had too high resolution and that the conditions outside were NOT the same. I told you all that the photos would simulate but not replicate the original due to the differences in cameras and atmospheric conditions???? Did you not read?

reply to post by SeenMyShare

Originally posted by SeenMyShare
reply to post by FireMoon

 

I could if we actually had a haze today. It was hot as hell and dry as a bone. No fog! I told you all before I did them that the camera had too high resolution and that the conditions outside were NOT the same.

Hmmm, let's see what you said...

Originally posted by SeenMyShare
The resolution is too high and the atmospheric conditions won't be the same.

Yes, that's what you said alright! I read it, but I'm not sure everybody did!

Regarding conditions for the Trent photos:

brumac.8k.com...

the McMinnville airport reported "smky" conditions, which is interpreted as meaning smoky or hazy.

I'm not familiar enough with their designations to know if they had a separate designation for fog, or if that's how they referred to fog.

The other thing I was wondering.... do you suppose it's possible that the number of those white or lighter colored speckles on the canning pot you showed can vary? It seems to me like more white speckles could mean less contrast too, since the lighter appearance from the white speckles could make it look less dark against the sky.

Originally posted by SeenMyShare
I found a photograph of a canning pot from the correct time period. Notice that the shape is a perfect match for the object. The newer ones aren't quite so tall and a bit more rounded.[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/b79c38caea7b.jpg[/atsimg]

How do the number of white speckles on the lid you used compare to the speckles in this photo, about the same?

Thanks for the photos. Considering the conditions weren't the same I found them interesting. Finding an exact match of the conditions could be tricky, especially since I'm not sure if "smky" means foggy or not. Also complicating a duplication: according to Maccabee, if the Trents were truthful about the time of day, it was about 7:30pm, just before sunset, but something is making shadows from the East, and Maccabee says it must be a cloud reflecting sunlight, though Sheaffer wonders if the shadow could be from sunlight instead. You can see the shadow here:

brumac.8k.com...
If it's from a cloud, I guess it was a bright cloud.

Sheaffer thinks the photo was taken in the morning. Just from my personal anecdotal experience, foggy conditions are a lot more likely during that time, in which case maybe that shadow isn't from a cloud after all? Though I do find Maccabee's argument somewhat persuasive I can't rule out Shaeffer's time estimate and the possibility of a cloud causing a more diffuse shadow. That shadow seems more distinct than the one in Maccabee's example.

My point is, knowing how to duplicate the exact conditions might be especially tricky since there's some debate about what those conditions are, like whether it was after sunrise, or before sunset.

[edit on 9-7-2010 by Arbitrageur]

Originally posted by SeenMyShare
reply to post by FireMoon

 

I could if we actually had a haze today. It was hot as hell and dry as a bone. No fog! I told you all before I did them that the camera had too high resolution and that the conditions outside were NOT the same. I told you all that the photos would simulate but not replicate the original due to the differences in cameras and atmospheric conditions???? Did you not read?

No you don;t understand... it is nothing to do with the conditions when you took your pictures, but the conditions the Trent picture was taken in. The haze in the Trent picture is wholly commensurate with that you would expect to see around an object at distance using that sort of film .

That is the emulsion on the film and the way the object appears to *blend in with the sky* is, as far as can be ascertained, wholly in keeping with the Trent's original story. If you cannot recreate that effect with a disc close to the camera and not actually, apparently, surrounded by and set into the, relatively, distant sky, you are wasting your time.

What is so hard to grasp about that concept?

We know you can hang a model off a wire and take pictures and it will look a certain way. Can you hang a model from a wire, no more than a few feet in distance, and then without any digital manipulation, match the object to the deep sky in the emulsion of the print and have the light fall on it in such a way it can only really be interpreted as being a deep sky object.? Then, do it for more than one photograph showing differing elevations of the object but with the same, apparent, deep sky information.

Oh and Schaeffer was a friend of Philip Klass which puts his credibility at about the same level as Stephen Greer. Klass was the ignoramus who accused the chief scientist on the Shag Harbour incident of being *certifiably mad* because 20 years after he worked on the incident, the guy suffered from Alzheimer's disease

Shaeffer and Klass thought they'd nail this one in 20 minutes and then when they couldn't, started their old trick of casting aspersions about everything but the actual evidence.

Originally posted by Arrowmancer
Oh, now I understand your poorly thought out question.

1. Lights, directional, most likely floodlamps on scaffolding.
2. Given the type of camera that was used and the angle, a specialized tripod that would have required very very specific settings for a staged shot.
3. A ladder or device for elevation to be able to use the settings that were necessary to have taken the shot.
4. A giant capable of tossing a trash can lid weighing many tons into the distance.
5. HIGHLY trained lab technicians to develop the film specifically to avoid any discrepancies that might cause people to wonder.
6. Access to the internet or some other form of mass communication to review other cases and find their flaws in order to avoid your own.

Simply look at the things that can't be disproved and ask yourself how someone in the 1950s' would have been able to pull this off. Consider the circumstances, consider the results.

Some people try to hard to over complicate things in a effort to obfuscate the reality of simplicity with unnecasary details used as dead weight to put importance to their point.


www.iigwest.com...









And the fact that there was a photo om the same role of film from 1920 of a grinning boy next to a ladder surely does not help the case.

Hi all, OP and Karl,

The photos past the Bruce Maccabee (LINK: en.wikipedia.org... ) tests way-back when. Let's face it, back then simple people aren't going to pull or have reasons to pull-off magic.

Decoy

Originally posted by SeenMyShare
I could if we actually had a haze today.

The problem is that even with some haze or fog, the objects more affected by it are the ones farther away.

To really get the same result as in the original photos you would need a lid with a fainter colour, or at least a colour that would look closer to the colour of the hazed sky on a black and white photo.

But it was a great experiment, as it shows that the relative positions of the objects can be explained by a set up like the one you used.

reply to post by Arbitrageur

The fog - considering the fact that this is in Oregon my opinion is that this is an early morning fog. The Rockies and the Appalachians look the same in a morning fog.

Appalachian Fog
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/b4972f05d9e6.jpg[/atsimg]

Oregon Fog
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/27376700606e.jpg[/atsimg]

Oregon Fog in the Mountains
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/0711e22a27e5.jpg[/atsimg]

If the Trent photos are facing north and the sunlight is coming from the east (as noted by the shadows on the wall and the way the oil tank is lit up) then a morning fog fits. I can't replicate that fog, it just doesn't happen here.

My canning pot has very little white on it as compared with the older ones. This is what mine looks like. My mother's was a lighter blue with much more white.
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/44ff39e73354.jpg[/atsimg]

The fact that they are farmers, especially in 1950, tells me that there is an extremely high probability that the Mrs. Trent canned, and that she had an enameled canner of the era. She also worked in a cannery! Again, I'll ask how many women studied those photos or interviewed Mrs. Trent? I'll wager a guess at none, and I seriously doubt any men asked her the questions a woman looking at those photos would have asked.

Everyone keeps saying that they had no reason to hoax those photos. I ask "Why not?". People to this day are still hoaxing photos. People before 1950 hoaxed photos. It makes no sense to investigate a supposed sighting and assume the people had no reason to fabricate the scene or the story.

If they say it was evening and that the photos face north... they lied. The photos couldn't have been taken in the evening unless they'd just had a heavy cooling rain or there'd be no fog and the photos would have to be facing south.

I still call HOAX.

reply to post by SeenMyShare


The only evidence for it being early morning comes from Klass and his friend and Klass is a known liar when the evidence doesn't fit his view of it.

reply to post by FireMoon

I don't need Klass for my assumption. I just need to know what the direction was. The sunlight on the oil tank, and the eaves tells me the rest. That doesn't require a rocket scientist, just common sense.

Originally posted by FireMoon
reply to post by SeenMyShare

 

The only evidence for it being early morning comes from Klass and his friend and Klass is a known liar when the evidence doesn't fit his view of it.

I have to agree with you Klass made some obviously wrong claims, earning him a spot on the UFO hall of shame.

But I haven't found Sheaffer to agree with Klass on some of his obviously wrong explanations. And while they may have been friends, I have some friends I don't agree with too.

In fact Maccabee's example of a cloud illumination doesn't seem to match the Trent photographs. If the shadow edge is wider than from just a clear sky as he posits, perhaps there was a thin cloud the sun was shining through that diffused the shadow? Or perhaps it was a cloud and Maccabee just chose a bad example to show what a cloud can do when making a shadow.

Apparently Hartmann thought the shadow was a "possible discrepancy", he's the original source for a lot of this information since he interviewed the Trents personally.

So how come the Trents never made a cent form the photos and didn't even seek any publicity for them?

Had it not been for their banker seeing the shots and displaying them in the bank's window the chances are the public would never have even known about them.

So let me get this right, they hoaxed the pictures and then did absolutely squat to let anyone know they had?

So quite what was the point of the hoax then? Or are we to believe that the Trents were so sophisticated that was all part of the hoax?

Originally posted by SeenMyShare
My canning pot has very little white on it as compared with the older ones. This is what mine looks like. My mother's was a lighter blue with much more white.

In that case the lighter color of your mother's canning pot lid would have provided less contrast than a darker lid, so that could be part of the explanation if that's what it was.

The fact that they are farmers, especially in 1950, tells me that there is an extremely high probability that the Mrs. Trent canned, and that she had an enameled canner of the era. She also worked in a cannery! Again, I'll ask how many women studied those photos or interviewed Mrs. Trent?

Here's the original report by Hartmann, who is the only investigator whose report I've read who actually interviewed the Trents:

files.ncas.org...

Note he does mention in table 1 that "photometry suggests large distance" but a light colored lid with a lot of blue and white on it that might be a closer match to the sky probably may not have been part of his consideration.

He does note that it's under the same part of the wire in each photo which would be consistent with something hanging from the wire, but he goes on to conclude that "to the extent that the photometric analysis is reliable" the object appears more distant than the wires.

[edit on 10-7-2010 by Arbitrageur]

Originally posted by FireMoon
So how come the Trents never made a cent form the photos and didn't even seek any publicity for them?

Why are there hundreds of hoaxed UFOs on youtube? Are any of those people getting paid to hoax? Nope.

Some people just like making hoaxes I guess. Some might have financial incentives but some apparently don't.

reply to post by FireMoon
Squat? I have photos I've done squat to publicize. It's easy ... show no one. How did the banker just happen to see the photos if they weren't showing them around?

This statement makes no sense at all.

Source

As to the origin of the UFO, Witness II remarked both at the time and in 1967 that he thought it was a secret U.S. craft (1). "'...you hear so much about those things...1 didn't believe all that talk about flying saucers before, but now I have an idea the Army knows what they are'" (3). Witness II recalls finishing his roll of film on Mother's Day (4) and had it developed locally (1). Witness II mentioned his observation and showed the pictures to a few friends. He did not seek publicity about the pictures, admitting that he was "'kind of [[609]] scared of it'" (2,3), and "afraid they would get in trouble with the 'government' and be bothered by the publicity"

If these people were so afraid of getting in trouble with the government they wouldn't have shown anyone the photos!

I don't know the history to these, were they released in the 50's or were they recently discovered and released when photoshop did exist? The UFO looks kind of fake to me. I feel like they would look a lot more advanced than that. Maybe i just have high expectations of the ETs.

And how many hoaxers hand over the negatives with absolutely no conditions or restrictions? If you had any feel at all for the subject, you'd see a pattern of behaviour that is not that of a hoaxer, unless we are talking, trained black ops.

In the 1950s your banker asked you a favour, by and large, people in small towns did it. It's wholly possible they went into town to pick up the film after it was processed and visited the bank. Banker asks out of politeness what have you been up to? The Trent reply about the film processing.

in other words. Did they rush off have the film processed and then go to the press? No they didn't. SO your point about the youtube hoaxers is quite patently, utterly, irrelevant.

reply to post by FireMoon

You and I will just have to agree to disagree. I see a hoax and you see a legitimate UFO.

For the record, just because I think this is a hoax does not mean I believe all photos are hoaxed.

Edit: lol put the j in just.

[edit on 10/7/2010 by SeenMyShare]

Originally posted by FireMoon
And how many hoaxers hand over the negatives with absolutely no conditions or restrictions? If you had any feel at all for the subject, you'd see a pattern of behaviour that is not that of a hoaxer, unless we are talking, trained black ops...

SO your point about the youtube hoaxers is quite patently, utterly, irrelevant.

How about the Cottingley fairies? Those girls never asked for money either right?

Photographic experts examined the negative and the print but could find no trace of trickery.

And the photos were taken in 1917 and they didn't really get any public interest until 1919:
www.squidoo.com...

The photos did not become of interest until 1919 when Elsie's mother, Polly Wright, went to a Theosophical Society meeting in Bradford. During the lecture, which happened to be titled, "fairy life", Polly shared the details of the photographs that her daughter and niece had taken with the fairies.

In 1920 the photos then became of interest to Theosophist, Edward Gardner who believed the fairy pictures were authentic.

Well the Trent case, everyone agrees there COULD be trickery, even Maccabee doesn't rule out a hoax, he just thinks it's less likely than others. And he also relies on the veracity of the witnesses to some degree.

To claim you can understand the motivations of any and all hoaxers is overly optimistic considering the reasons people might hoax might be as varied as the personalities of hoaxers themselves. I don't think there's any one "cookie cutter" profile of a hoaxer as you seem to suggest.