McMinnville UFO photographs real or fake ?

Originally posted by jritzmann

Originally posted by JimOberg

... that happened to have a line of sight that from two positions criss-crossed beneath an overhead wire, that another photo from the sequence shows one of his kids, grinning, standing on a stepladder beneath that wire.

All meaningless coincidence, of course.

Jim- If you have such a photo, I'm sure we'd all like to see it. Please?

The photo of the kid on the ladder doesn't show clearly that he's under the wires because we can't see the wires until the next photo....

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/42b0f386da1f.jpg[/atsimg]

Here are the wires, and the ladder is lying on its side now.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/1902b7e3ba56.jpg[/atsimg]

What do you reckon mom is showing us the size of here...is this about how big the saucer was? If not that, then what?

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/969c0c1d4cf4.jpg[/atsimg]

If that's the size of the saucer then you have an idea of how big to make your model!

Edit to add: Thanks Jim Oberg, for posting the link to these photos:

Originally posted by JimOberg
Look at these views here:

(Original link Jim posted didn't work due to the colon so I edited the link here):
More photos from McMinnville

[edit on 10-10-2009 by Arbitrageur]

reply to post by Arbitrageur

Thanks for those photos.

Could you tell us where did you got them? Thanks.

Originally posted by ArMaP
Could you tell us where did you got them? Thanks.

'Life' magazine bought all rights. In recent years they've been putting images they never published on that website.

1. The supple line would be a requirement because the kinks that would present in the other wire would have broken up the background in a different way and been noticeable. I've already tried a practice shot with my SLR on this. I haven't taken a picture yet with the Roamer,so I could be wrong on what it will pick up.
2. The choice of the Roamer 1 is different from the one Trent said he was using. (A Kodak of some kind). Roamer 1 is the larger possibility given the shot and film type.

As far as the sequence of black-and-white photos above, what clearly happened was this:

1. Boy was on ladder with a grin.
2. Ladder fell over with boy on it.
3. Mom was speculating how far boy bounced on impact.



And I have every intention of trying thread for a multi point suspension shot. This is the big theory for debunkers, I would be amiss to not attempt it.

[edit on 10-10-2009 by Arrowmancer]

BY THE WAY.

The pics were taken in 1950. May 11 to be exact. The car in the background is a 1951-52 Hudson Hornet. So, either these are not all from the same series or the Trent's were time-travelers, as well.

in the first photograph, it is a 1951 Hornet, as is evidenced by the shorter bumper extensions and lower 1/3 trim. Later versions had enlogated, curved bumper extensions and 1/2 trim (located above the fender wells, running full length.)
1951 Hudson Hornet
1952 Hudson Hornet...IT'S DOC! FROM CARS!

Originally posted by ArMaP
Could you tell us where did you got them? Thanks.

Sorry for not including the link Jim Oberg provided us with initially, I should have re-referenced it, and edited my post to show that. Thanks again to Jim for the interesting link.

Originally posted by Arrowmancer
1. The supple line would be a requirement because the kinks that would present in the other wire would have broken up the background in a different way and been noticeable. I've already tried a practice shot with my SLR on this. I haven't taken a picture yet with the Roamer,so I could be wrong on what it will pick up.

Are you sure the 1950 era nylon monofilament line couldn't be used for hanging models without kinks? It might kink when fishing, but it wouldn't have kinks when you bought the line then would it?

Another variable besides the camera, might be the film. Obviously any leftover 1950 era film would probably be useless now, but I suspect there have been improvements in the film emulsion over the years. The grain size, structure, and sensitivity made a lot of advancements but I don't know the exact timing of all those. I just point this out in the event that modern films might have better grain structure and sensitivity than 1950 era film.

Originally posted by Arrowmancer
The pics were taken in 1950. May 11 to be exact. The car in the background is a 1951-52 Hudson Hornet. So, either these are not all from the same series or the Trent's were time-travelers, as well.

The photo you linked to of a 1951 Hornet shows the front bumper, then a single horizontal grille bar, then 2 curved grill bars above that.
The car in the McMinnville photo shows the front bumper, then a single horizontal grille bar, then 1 curved grill bar above that, so it doesn't look like a match to your photo of the 1951 Hornet.

Just a question about these photos without the UFO: were they taken by Trent or by a different photographer (apparently called Loomis Dean, according to what the LIFE pages say) at a different time (June 6)?

The photo you linked to of a 1951 Hornet shows the front bumper, then a single horizontal grille bar, then 2 curved grill bars above that.

Excellent eye. I've ruled out Dodge, Chevy,Ford, Plymouth. The body style, molding,and shape of the front brass work (the shiny bits) all conform to the 51 hornet. I'm looking up options and replacement grills/bumpers that might account for this. I'm still checking through 51 and older vehicles as well. Cranbrook and the predecessor to the Hornet are ruled out due to body configurations. With the exception of the single horizontal bar in the grille, this car is match.

I understand that with the film, developing, and specifics of the photos I'm not going to able to get perfect. The goal is to get as close to it as I can.

The photos I took with the older mono filament and wiring showed the break-up of the background extremely well, even with a weighted end. Unfortunately the wires I used were about 50 years old so there's a good chance that it was caused simply by aging.

Probably going to rule out the Hornet,as well... Looks like the hoods are different. Any chance I can get a high-rez photo for closer examination of that specific pic?

[edit on 10-10-2009 by Arrowmancer]

1949 Ford Custom

There is the match.... I am deflated Guess those pictures can still be used! I chose this link because it shows the front configuration and split windshield, and solid-body instead of rear well extensions. The stock sidebody trim on this model was 1/3 trim centerwell to the rear. But isn't this one beautiful car?!

EDIT

The advertisement



[edit on 10-10-2009 by Arrowmancer]

Originally posted by ArMaP
Just a question about these photos without the UFO: were they taken by Trent or by a different photographer (apparently called Loomis Dean, according to what the LIFE pages say) at a different time (June 6)?

I'm not sure, maybe somebody else will know.

reply to post by Arrowmancer

Good! I'm releived that the car they owned could have been obtained without time travel! Yes that's a nice car and a much closer match than the 1951 Hornet. A 1949 car is still pretty new in 1950, so I guess those folks had a little extra money after all in contrast to previous discussions in this thread suggesting they couldn't afford to buy much film.

assuming the car was theirs.

All the same, I was really hoping for a good defense with the Hornet idea. Ah well, such is the way of truthers, gotta admit you're wrong even when it supports your idea lol!

reply to post by Arrowmancer

That's one of the reasons I asked about who was the photographer of those other photos, as far as we know that car could be the car of the LIFE photographer, right?

Agreed, I see your point and a good one.

I was hoping for a Highdef picture gallery. Anyone got the coordinates to this location? I have an unusual thought swimming about that would have alot to do with the geography.

The salient point about the photo analysis would seem to be the reflected light from the disk. It is asserted and so far, i haven't seen a scientific rejection of this , that. The light reflected off the disk is too bright, to be as close to the camera as being slung from a wire under the telephone cables.

The light reflected from the disk seems to be , wholly conversant, with it being both quite large and at quite a distance.

I will have a look through a few old UFO books i have on sightings. It was not that uncommon for people to, have taken , what at the time they thought were perfectly decent pictures of a UFO sighting. On reporting it they, in good faith handed the film to the military, to either, never see it again, or receive it back with a message saying, it was blank.. I will see if i can find a few specific cases.

reply to post by Arrowmancer


According to this site, the coordinates are 123 19' 502W, 45 06' 152N, and this is how it looks in Google Earth.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/files/01bc548a6888a969.jpg[/atsimg]

reply to post by gortex


Nice photos. I always see thumbnails of these.

Well, I can't prove their not real, and I'd like to believe they are real...

Sure looks applicable to the times it was photographed in though eh?
ie: late model 40's UFO w/ antenna sticking up in the middle...

Not sure if someone else mentioned or posted information on the twin craft captured on film in 1954, four years after McMinnville (1950)?

Anyway, here's the link which I believe supports McMinnville as being the real deal and perhaps vica-versa:

Link: 1954 Pic of very similar craft in France:
homepage.ntlworld.com...


Decoy

reply to post by Decoy


Excellent find Decoy
Looks like I got some reading to do , but from what I just skim read it looks interesting

reply to post by Decoy


Decoy that is an interesting post! It does look the same! (or at least very similar). And I never noticed that what people were calling the "antenna" was off center until I read that. The author you linked to is calling it a "tail fin". It almost looks like a handle to me, especially in the 1954 photo!

So does this really confirm it's the real deal, or that a same or similar model was used in both photos? At least it would suggest that both photos did not use independently made homemade models or the appearance might not be so similar, unless, the 2nd photo was made from a model that copied the first? As for it being the "real deal", I think everyone agrees it's a real object in the McMinnville photos, the questions revolve around how big and far away was it and did it have its own propulsion system, or was it suspended by thread?

Seeing that "antenna" off center starts to make me wonder if it could be a handle of some kind, it almost has a handle shape in the 2nd photo you linked to.

Originally posted by Arrowmancer
Might I suggest an experiment?

The camera was MOST LIKELY a Roamer 1 made by Universal Camera Corps. Trent stated that it was probably a Kodak. Still, a forgiveable mistake for an amateur.

The Roamer 1

This is gonna sound crazy, but I actually have one of these as a decoration in my den. (There's a photographer in the house. It ain't me.)

Suggestions on how I might recreate the image? If I can find the film for it.

I wonder if this guy (Tom Sawyer) had the same idea:

www.virtuallystrange.net...

He bought a roamer 1 off of ebay for $75 and wrote that post years ago, but he still hadn't taken pictures with the camera yet when he wrote that. He said he found a source claiming that the shutter speed on the roamer I was about 1/50s (not adjustable) but he hasn't been able to confirm that.

He may have been thinking about doing the same experiment as you, but I'm just speculating about that based on the fact that he bought the roamer I camera and wrote about it being used in the McMinnville photos. There is another post called "Re: Trent experiment - Maccabee"

www.virtuallystrange.net... (See Oct 18)

and I tried to read the other messages on that archive but most of the other links don't work so I can't see what they did in their experiments, but it would be interesting reading, especially since some posts there were by Bruce Maccabee. I checked his site and he has 3 links there about this:

brumac.8k.com...

See The Trent Farm Photos, the appendix, and The McMinnville Photos links.

I know Robert Sheaffer doesn't agree with Maccabee on this but it's interesting to read his research whether you agree with his conclusions or not, as he's pretty detailed in his research and documentation. In fact "The McMinnville Photos" link appears to be something of a rebuttal to Sheaffer's analysis as I skimmed through it, and he does present evidence that clouds can make more distinct shadows than I thought.