McMinnville UFO photographs real or fake ?

deleted -- oops!

[edit on 1-10-2009 by JimOberg]

Originally posted by draknoir2
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.

Good approach, but recognize its constraints. A camera such as the one used wouldn't detect something thin like fishing line. Test this.

This 'coincidence' always seemed to bother me about the pictures.

The photographer moved during the series of images. The lines of sight to the object seem to coverge beneath an overhead wire -- a wire that is usually cropped out of the published versions of the photographs.

Hypothesis: one of the kids used a ladder to hang something from that overhead wire -- either directly, or with two diagonals. Then they took the photos for fun.

What sort of evidence would add to the likelihood of this hypothesis?

First of all I will conclude that I can not prove that they are fake, despite the given thought I speculate that such saucer crafts depict nothing more than a synthetic modern era saucer.

Its probably not even that large, having said that It could very likely be a thrown frisbee with a near side building added to fuel extra credibility.



[edit on 10/1/2009 by krystalice]

[edit on 10/1/2009 by krystalice]

Let me ask again. I offer a hypothesis -- one of the kids used a ladder to hang a thingumajob from the overhead wire -- you know, the wire that is usually cropped out of published versions of the photos.

What evidence would anybody suggest might be suggestive support for such a hypothesis?

reply to post by JimOberg


Anything that looks like a wire in the photo?

Or if the craft seems to be blurred as if shaking fast, that could be from the jiggling up and down while strung to a wire.

In defense of my original claim: Debunkers will find anything they can to say 'This is fake'. They will cling to anything no matter how crazy it may seem. Using LOGIC, let us analyze this.

The technology at the time was capable of producing a spoof, I will conceed this. However, the equipment necessary at that time would have been extravagantly expensive. These photographs were taken by FARMERS. They didn't have the cash for such equipment, nor the ability to use it if they did. Aside from the photographs, the photographers' backgrounds were investigated. The character of the photographer and his wife were impeccable. Neither had ever attempted anthing in the way of a hoax in any way shape or form. Not before this incident, not after. The photographers never tried to sell the photos, cash in on it, or even indicated that they cared one whit wether anyone through these were real or not.

IN the end, there are conflicting views. People will trash my opinion, no matter how well thought out it was. If they can't nail me on the logic, they'll hit me on the layout of my thoughts. If they can get nothing there, they'll attack my grammar and spelling. If your mind is made up, there's nothing I can do to change it.

Debunking information can be found here...

After reading that, keep in mind that every single item on the agenda for debunking these photos is a maybe and can be annihilated by opposing testimony. I posted this because it's the most complete debunk I've seen yet on the issue. ANd it's massively flawed.

Originally posted by Arrowmancer
The technology at the time was capable of producing a spoof, I will conceed this. However, the equipment necessary at that time would have been extravagantly expensive.

What equipment are you talking about?

There is no need for sophisticated equipment to make a photo that looks like these.

reply to post by ArMaP


*sigh*

No, you don't need special equipment to make photos like these. You don't need special equipment to draw a goofy grinning face, either.

These photos have yet to be debunked to the satisfaction of even most debunkers. That may have been too much... I'll try it in simpler fashion. For these photos to have been made in 1950 and still be able to withstand EXTREME scrutiny by the scientific community means that either A: THey are GENUINE or B: They were manufactured using special equipment.

Please read the thread before making a comment based on absolutely nothing.

reply to post by Arrowmancer


Perhaps Sheaffer's "debunking" effort is the valid explanation but as the leading UFO skeptic he still is not sure when he says: "Of course, this does not prove" that the photographs do not show an extraordinary flying object". In a nutshell! No irrefutable evidence, untenable conclusion.

Originally posted by JimOberg
Hypothesis: one of the kids used a ladder to hang something from that overhead wire -- either directly, or with two diagonals. Then they took the photos for fun.

What sort of evidence would add to the likelihood of this hypothesis?

The photographer was credible, simple country folk.

Dr. Robert Nathan, at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasedena, CA searched for, and failed to find, indications of a suspending thread. In recent years the original negatives have also been studied by interested persons at the Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico and also at the Brooks Institute of Photography in Santa Barbara, CA.

None of these independent investigations has turned up evidence of a hoax.

www.nicap.org...



[edit on 2-10-2009 by Schaden]

These are fake as can be. Several methods could have been employed at that time such as multiple exposure and printing multiple images in the darkroom to a single piece of paper., in camera multiple exposure techniques to make 1 piece negatives of multiiple imagery. Horribly fake and easy to do at that for anyone who has participated in large format/darkroom photography.

[edit on 2-10-2009 by reasonable]

Originally posted by reasonable
These are fake as can be. Several methods could have been employed at that time such as multiple exposure and printing multiple images in the darkroom to a single piece of paper., in camera multiple exposure techniques to make 1 piece negatives of multiiple imagery. Horribly fake and easy to do at that for anyone who has participated in large format/darkroom photography.

[edit on 2-10-2009 by reasonable]

Only they have been tested and retested for exactly those sort of things and they haven't had anything of the sort done to them...

What would be the implication of a photo of one of the Trent kids grinning next to a stepladder?

Meanwhile, to the original point: what would be the significance of the lines of sight to the object, taken from different places in the yard, converging under the overhead wire?

Also -- the sheer arrogance of the line, "Simple country folks can't fool smart people like me," a line often used by Allen Hynek -- is breathtaking. Rural folks often dupe city folks just for the sport of it, except it's too easy to really count for much standing.






[edit on 2-10-2009 by JimOberg]

Originally posted by JimOberg
What would be the implication of a photo of one of the Trent kids grinning next to a stepladder?

Meanwhile, to the original point: what would be the significance of the lines of sight to the object, taken from different places in the yard, converging under the overhead wire?

Also -- the sheer arrogance of the line, "Simple country folks can't fool smart people like me," a line often used by Allen Hynek -- is breathtaking. Rural folks often dupe city folks just for the sport of it, except it's too easy to really count for much standing.






[edit on 2-10-2009 by JimOberg]

Using the same eyes that have given you a hard time with your other conclusions through the years and without going into detail since I'm running on empty, what one sees in the Trent photos is not the result of kids' hijinks or any hijinks by anyone. Let your eyes see the details that do not have to be pointed out. Enough testings has been done, as pointed out ad infinitum, to indicate that whatever the object is it is real, big and at a distance.

Originally posted by FireMoon

Originally posted by reasonable
These are fake as can be. Several methods could have been employed at that time such as multiple exposure and printing multiple images in the darkroom to a single piece of paper., in camera multiple exposure techniques to make 1 piece negatives of multiiple imagery. Horribly fake and easy to do at that for anyone who has participated in large format/darkroom photography.

[edit on 2-10-2009 by reasonable]

Only they have been tested and retested for exactly those sort of things and they haven't had anything of the sort done to them...

Sounds like all the cellphone company tests.. test after test prove cellphones cause no harm.. in rolls an independent study showing all of their tests were flawed. I have not looked at the tests regarding these fakes but often they will say 'we can find no evidence of this or that'.. doesn't mean it is legit. I've seen copynegs of multiple objects -hell even Ansel Adams did it a few times and you can't detect anything was staged. If I were going to pull off fakes like this I would likely shoot two images, then using a copyneg system, sandwich the two negs and create a new negative. With enough skill it can be completely undetectable and be made with spare parts lying around (such as an old slide projector or photo enlarger..

[edit on 3-10-2009 by reasonable]

how did delta shaped wings that skipped on the surface of the water turn in to sauser like shape in the first place ?

seams like there is a communication error.

reply to post by reasonable

Reasonable and firemoon
it seems to me like you're making this way more complicated with multiple exposures than it needs to be.

As far as I know, a simple clear thin fishing line would simply not show up in these photographs unless the sun happened to hit the line at just the right angle so it reflected into the camera. But the day doesn't look very sunny so I don't think that was an issue. All you'd really need is a disc on a string and a kid on a ladder to push the disc to make it swing so you can photograph it in different positions. No fancy exposure techniques needed, right?

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
reply to post by reasonable

 

Reasonable and firemoon
it seems to me like you're making this way more complicated with multiple exposures than it needs to be.

As far as I know, a simple clear thin fishing line would simply not show up in these photographs unless the sun happened to hit the line at just the right angle so it reflected into the camera. But the day doesn't look very sunny so I don't think that was an issue. All you'd really need is a disc on a string and a kid on a ladder to push the disc to make it swing so you can photograph it in different positions. No fancy exposure techniques needed, right?

From everything I've seen, all the professional testing has come up with is that this is a real object in the frame. There's no way to tell how big the object is, and at what distance it's at, so discounting the easiest explanation (that being Arbitrageur's example above) in favor of intelligent alien aircraft is a pretty big leap of faith.

I'm a good person, never had any problems or done anything wrong, but I like to play pranks once in a while. What would I do if one of those pranks got a bit out of hand? I don't know, I've not been in that situation, but it seems reasonable that they just got embarrassed and clammed up about it.

Either way, it's not proof of aliens in any way. Neat pictures, though.

Originally posted by Arrowmancer
For these photos to have been made in 1950 and still be able to withstand EXTREME scrutiny by the scientific community means that either A: THey are GENUINE or B: They were manufactured using special equipment.

It looks like I wasn't clear enough.

When you say that there are only two possibilities, "genuine" or done with "special equipment", what do you mean by those two things?

Does "genuine" mean a photo that shows exactly what the people were looking at, with no further actions than the ones used to make a simple photo?

What type of "special equipment" do you think is needed to fake a photo to make it look like these photos?

Please read the thread before making a comment based on absolutely nothing.

I read the whole thread, please stop trying to guess what I have done or what I think, you are not a good psychic.

reply to post by reasonable

Multiple exposures is so easy to do that it's the first thing they look for when analysing photos, and they are relatively easy to detect, unless the photographer had a lot of trouble preparing things to make the photos.

Also, with two photos the possibilities of something like a double exposure are less likely, because they have doubled the possibilities of being detected.

Edited to add: I think the analysis were done on the negatives, not on the printed photos.

[edit on 3/10/2009 by ArMaP]