McMinnville UFO photographs real or fake ?

Originally posted 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.

Guessing is not evidence. There is no evidence the Trents hoaxed the pictures. At best, the hoax hypothesis is a mere presumption for which no evidence exists other than that the Trents shot two pictures of a supposed UFO, which the irrational pseudoskeptics deem unacceptable. I think that argument is self-defeating.

And as for those fake youtube vids, I think most - if not all - would not stand a chance when confronted with serious scientific analysis.

Originally posted by SeenMyShare
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.

This is supposed to be a serious argument?

I still call HOAX.

Did you bother to read Maccabee's papers on the case? They address all this nonsense drivel of yours. Nope? Thought so. You're a dime a dozen pseudoskeptic. How's that?

reply to post by jclmavg


Actually, I'm not a skeptic, and I didn't have to resort to name calling to get my point across.

Yes, women do see things from a different perspective than men. Are you trying to say that because I stated that farm women in 1950 canned, and the object looks just like a canning pot lid of the era, I can't be taken seriously? Or is it because I'm a woman that I can't be right?

So, prove to me that Maccabee's analysis is correct! I read his papers and I still happen to believe that they hoaxed these photos.

Originally posted by jclmavg
Guessing is not evidence. There is no evidence the Trents hoaxed the pictures.

I think the evidence is mixed. The fact that the location seems to be under the wire suggests a hoax (that is evidence). The diffusion of the image suggests a more distant object (that is also evidence).

Originally posted by jclmavg

Originally posted by SeenMyShare
I still call HOAX.

Did you bother to read Maccabee's papers on the case?

I did, did you? Bruce Maccabee wrote this:

The McMinnville Photos

As I pointed out in the discussion at the end of the main text of this paper, the photos tend to be equivocal on the hoax hypothesis because one could imagine a way in which they could have been hoaxed and perhaps the Trents could have hoaxed them with some effort and a lot of "luck." (Luck: they hung a small model which just happened to diffuse light coming from the sky above in such a way that the bottom became a nearly uniform source of light; this "luck" requires that the model be constructed from translucent materal rather than a simple "hang a pie pan" approach; more luck - they suspended the model with a thread that was very thin or else the thread happened to match the color of the sky background.) If they were lucky in making a model, then their good luck was partly offset by bad luck: they allowed the photos to show the overhead wire from which the model was hung.

If the photos were hoaxed and if they were good hoaxers they probably shouldn't have shown us the wires the model was hung from, as Maccabee points out.

I think SeenMyShare made an interesting contribution to this thread by showing us a similarly shaped object. Also interesting is the fact that she said her mothers canning pot lid had even more blue and white speckles on it. I could see where the larger number of blue and white speckles could make the object appear more diffuse, even at a closer distance, with the light colored speckles actually lightening the object more than we might expect. However if the lid is not translucent, I think it might have to have more speckles or as the analysts put it, "a different albedo" on the underside of the lid than on top of it to produce the effect seen.

Or maybe as Maccabee suggested they used some kind of translucent lid, that would give the same results and could make them "lucky" enough to give the object appear to have more distance than it actually has.

While I do understand the diffuse light analysis, even Hartmann prefaces his analysis of that with the phrase

"to the extent that the photometric analysis is reliable"

files.ncas.org...
If he thought such analysis was 100% reliable I'm not sure such a preface would be needed and even Maccabee admits a translucent lid or model could render the analysis inaccurate.

It's too bad the evidence is so contradictory. we can't say with 100% certainty that it's a hoax and we can't say with 100% certainty that it's real. So, I think we have to agree with the experts that the status isn't determined. But I have to agree with Maccabee, maybe the Trents got "lucky" as he puts it and it is a hoax. Using a translucent lid might not take that much luck.

And if it's real, why does it seem to appear under the wires? Let me put it this way:

If the object did not appear to be under the wires, I would find it easier to believe that it's not a hoax. And even the most eager believer has to admit that creates some room for doubt about the authenticity.

[redacted]

reply to post by ArMaP


LOL. I don't think a lot of people understand that Photoshop the software was designed to recreate the physical techniques used to manipulate photos in an actual dark room, or photo shop, hence the name.

Believe it or not, it was possible to manipulate photos and films prior to the advent of computers. lol