McMinnville UFO photographs real or fake ?

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
These photos were left unresolved by the Condon report.

Robert Sheaffer wrote a report about these photos in 1969 which he says:

There exists no factual basis for rejecting the following hypothesis: at approximately 8:20 in the morning of May 11, 1950, a small asymmetrical model was suspended from overhead telephone wires by two very thin threads. It was photographed once, then reoriented either by hand or by its assumption of a pendulum-type motion, and photographed again.

Of course, this does not "prove" that the photographs do not show an extraordinary flying object, but it has shown that there is no reason to believe that they do. The non-existence of such objects, as well as that of werewolves, witches, and unicorns, can never be "proven."

I snipped some comments for brevity. I'm a skeptic, albeit an open-minded one as far as the reality of UFOs since I've had enough sightings and videotaped one. Even before I had my sightings verifying their reality, I kept an open mind as to the mystery that was being reported by millions of people.

Yet, Robert Sheaffer is the hard-on of skeptics; the most negative man on the planet. There will never be enough evidence to convince him of anything and I'm pretty sure he doubts his own existence.

The McMinnville photos have been put through the mill using ancient computer software to the present with the highest sophisticated software and nothing can be seen in the photos supporting the object in the photos. I've been wanting for an opportunity to tell Robert to his face to "Shut up!"


[edit on 30-9-2009 by Skeptical Ed]

reply to post by smurfy


Thanks for the good link, I bookmarked it.

Here's what they say about this case:

May 8, 1950 This is one of the most famous UFO pictures ever taken. Photographed by Paul Trent, and first witnessed by his wife. They were published in a local newspaper in McMinnville, Oregon shortly thereafter. Soon, the Trent photos were published in Life magazine edition of June 26, 1950. The rest is history. These photos have been deemed authentic for over 50 years.

Originally posted by colloredbrothers

Originally posted by Arrowmancer
To date, these are the only photographs that cannot be completely debunked.

What about Billy Meiers case? This guy had one arm one camera and amazing photos that also can't be debunked.

That a pretty bold statement to make imo

If someone will help me with learning how to post photos on this forum, I'll post a photo of a Meier "Beamship" showing how it is being supported by a thread or a wire. Although the "wedding cake" photos show a model that is seen on other photos as if it was going around a tree that is used on a lot of other photos.

HOWEVER, there are still some images especially the movies that have not been fully exposed. But, unfortunately, there are a lot of his photos that show models and signs of hoaxing so perhaps his movies aren't real either.

Originally posted by BlackShark
Let me scientifically debunk those photos:

Joe: Hey Bob! Can you throw that frisbee while I take a picture?
Bob: Sure Joe! Ready?
Joe: Go!



[edit on 30-9-2009 by BlackShark]

You forgot to add:
Joe: Hey Bob, What shutter speed can I use so that the frisbee doesn't look blurry? Does this camera have such a speed? And, Bob, you're gonna have to go retrieve the frisbee! I'll take a nap while you do so.

Originally posted by RuneSpider
It looks to me like maybe a hubcap or something. It's hard to gauge, but there doesn't seem to be a impression of size.

Might have been just tossed in the air and photographed.


But, as it's been said, there's no way to completely prove or debunk.

Bruce Maccabee did extensive photographic work on these photos and he has been featured on TV documentaries showing his results. See if there's anything on youtube.

I saw them analyzed on a show before... looking for things like retouching or signs of suspension line... they found neither. I guess the objects could have been tossed or hung by an extremely fine wire that the film couldn't resolve. In the end they can't be proven fake [or real], and the witnesses had nothing obvious to gain from such a hoax.

The *Trent* photos have been though just about every level of analysis that appears with new technology. So far their credibility has only been enhanced by each new re-examination.

There was, a suggestion, well actually, an outright claim that. It was something dangling on a piece of string. However, the most recent analysis showed, the *string* is in fact, a fault in the emulsion of the film.

there's a link to a few older pictures here. members.fortunecity.com...


One I can't remember the name of at the moment is the *salesman* from, i think California, who snapped a series of pics through his car window in the late 50s-early 60s. Recent analysis of his pictures have seen his story, pretty much, confirmed as he told it.

Originally posted by FireMoon
snip
One I can't remember the name of at the moment is the *salesman* from, i think California, who snapped a series of pics through his car window in the late 50s-early 60s. Recent analysis of his pictures have seen his story, pretty much, confirmed as he told it.

Are you referring to the Rex Heflin photos? If so, here is a source, there are many more: www.geocities.com...

Thanx Ed, that's the pictures i was thinking of...

Originally posted by Skeptical Ed

Originally posted by FireMoon
snip
One I can't remember the name of at the moment is the *salesman* from, i think California, who snapped a series of pics through his car window in the late 50s-early 60s. Recent analysis of his pictures have seen his story, pretty much, confirmed as he told it.

Are you referring to the Rex Heflin photos? If so, here is a source, there are many more: www.geocities.com...

The photos on the second page have to be fake.
If you look closely there seems to be a lot of sunlight coming at the right side as if it's only about 50 feet away. This could've easily been somebody throwing a hubcap into the air. We will never know...

I think the only thing that can be stated with any certainty about these photos is that the camera captured something physical. Unfortunately, everything else is hard to determine.

But lets assume that this is a real UFO. Then what? I would love for it to be a real UFO, but on the grand scale of things even if this is the real deal it doesn't really help the cause much at this point.

Originally posted by IgnoreTheFacts
I think the only thing that can be stated with any certainty about these photos is that the camera captured something physical. Unfortunately, everything else is hard to determine.

Always one step ahead of me. I was going to point this out myself.

The problem is still that the physical object that the photo accurately captures could be anything. Like others said, items on strings, Frisbees thrown (I don't really favor this option when it would be so much easier to get a clear couple of pictures by tying the object to the wire), even some actual craft. But discounting hoaxes, and playing hypothetical, even if it is a real, flying craft, there's nothing about it that proves it's alien.

Crazy 1950s secret aircraft? Maybe.

On a side note, anyone else notice how UFOs have changed over the years? They started out all fat, bulbous and matte, and evolved into sleek and shiny. Or rods.

Originally posted by EsSeeEye
Anyone else notice how UFOs have changed over the years? They started out all fat, bulbous and matte, and evolved into sleek and shiny. Or rods.

And it appears you were one step ahead of me. I was thinking about that as well... That probably means that most of these craft were in fact constructed by our military. The ones from the 1920s-40s appear bulbous as you said. Throughout the years they've probably become more sleek just as the automobile did.

Either that or the Extra Terrestrials flying them happened to have a slight technological evolution similar to that which we've had.... both are possibilities.

reply to post by drac88


I considered that they were built by our military, which is still very probable, but I think the simplest explanation is that our culture has evolved and taken the images of UFOs along with it. Back in the '50s, the heavy curves, porthole windows, and so on were a fashionable thing, nowadays it's more minimalist, simple, and sharp.

I've been waiting for the UFO with a touch screen to show up for a while now, and they've disappointed me. I bet you'll have to sign a 2-year contract to watch the video so you can debunk it anyway.

[edit on 30-9-2009 by EsSeeEye]

"UFO's constructed by our military". For what purpose? I've seen something like 4 or 5 different American wars in my time but have yet to see an after action report that included flying saucers PWNING on the enemy. Reconnaissance? Was the U-2 and the SR-71 not good enough? Satellites? What possible purpose could they serve for our military? Or anyone's military for that matter? I'm going to go with....none. NO ONE ever asks this question.....

The day you show me video of a "flying disk" dropping a laser guided bomb on a bunker will be the day that I agree that the military "may" build them. That day will never come.


Edit: " A UFO with a touch screen". What in God's name does that mean???

[edit on 30-9-2009 by Zenagain]

Why are the saucers in a high percentage of photos tilted at an angle?
The poor little guys must have all slid down to one end unless there chairs lean aswell lol

reply to post by Zenagain


Haha, the touch screen was a joke, man.

I totally agree with you. I did some time in the navy, and the technology we're using now (much of which was actually designed decades ago) is more than sufficient to do the job. They're always advancing, but the secret aircraft excuse has been used for a long, long time, and military hardware is eventually used in its intended purpose and otherwise disclosed.

That said, I work by Occam's Razor. I find secret/experimental/just for laughs military hardware a million times more believable than aliens, but even that doesn't seem so likely, for exactly the reasons you've described. Simplest solution? Misidentification.

As regards how UFOs appear. It has struck me and quite a few others that. They always seem to appear as an object we can *relate* to, but always several steps ahead of anything we have. At times, their shapes, seem to deliberately flout all logic as if they are gently mocking us.

it begs the question as to whether anyone has really ever seen just exactly what they look like for real. That is that, their appearance is actually an incredibly sophisticated form of camouflage, designed to make a point without totally giving their real identity away.

Could it be they are simply allowing us to feel accustomed to their craft until we, ourselves, reach a point in out technological and social development, where they feel they can reveal their true nature?

Originally posted by drac88

Originally posted by Skeptical Ed

Originally posted by FireMoon
snip
One I can't remember the name of at the moment is the *salesman* from, i think California, who snapped a series of pics through his car window in the late 50s-early 60s. Recent analysis of his pictures have seen his story, pretty much, confirmed as he told it.

Are you referring to the Rex Heflin photos? If so, here is a source, there are many more: www.geocities.com...

The photos on the second page have to be fake.
If you look closely there seems to be a lot of sunlight coming at the right side as if it's only about 50 feet away. This could've easily been somebody throwing a hubcap into the air. We will never know...

If you are referring to the Heflin photos, Heflin was vindicated by recent photo research. However, when I became aware of this case back in the '60s I saw photo enhancements by Ground Saucer Watch and one of the photos (through the passenger side, I think) showed a string supporting a model. However, even this has come under controversy and these "enhanced" photos are nowhere to be seen to refute the vindication.

Originally posted by Skeptical Ed

Originally posted by drac88
The photos on the second page have to be fake.
If you look closely there seems to be a lot of sunlight coming at the right side as if it's only about 50 feet away. This could've easily been somebody throwing a hubcap into the air. We will never know...

If you are referring to the Heflin photos, Heflin was vindicated by recent photo research. However, when I became aware of this case back in the '60s I saw photo enhancements by Ground Saucer Watch and one of the photos (through the passenger side, I think) showed a string supporting a model. However, even this has come under controversy and these "enhanced" photos are nowhere to be seen to refute the vindication.

I agree the appearance indicates that the object is closer than the nearest telephone pole, judging by the faded look of the telephone pole and the sharper, closer look of the object. We can't be sure of that but it sure looks that way to me also.

Originally posted by spragology
Why are the saucers in a high percentage of photos tilted at an angle?
The poor little guys must have all slid down to one end unless there chairs lean aswell lol

In the McMinnville photos the angle could be due to the string the object is tied to. When you push it up to the side to photograph it, it tilts!

Even if it's real, remember in an airplane a 30 degree bank is pretty standard and you hardly feel any tilt at all when that happens due to inertial forces. I'm not sure if saucers work the same way though, maybe they do fall off their chairs in those!

[edit on 1-10-2009 by Arbitrageur]