APIGuy
Independent Field Investigator
Does anyone know the source of this photo, and who investigated?
bird or insect passing near camera view fieldUFO Caught By Oz City Worker's Digital Camera - Whittlesea, Australia - January 15, 2004
View attachment 4563
look at that "fin" at the top, its a birdHave any photography experts ever looked at this one? The object sure has the classic domed saucer shape that has been appearing in daylight pictures for decades.
exactlySorry, but that could easily be a bird. I have seen scores of very similar images.
its from a old ufological newsletter, possibly APRO or one of those ones by ray palmerDoes anyone know the source of this photo, and who investigated?
Sorry, but that could easily be a bird. I have seen scores of very similar images.
I say this is not only very convincing, but much more so than any other pic I have seen...
I seem to recall at the time that Australian photo was taken that someone disproved it. I tried to find that article but was unsuccessful.UFO Caught By Oz City Worker's Digital Camera - Whittlesea, Australia - January 15, 2004
View attachment 4563
no idea
That's a cool image, but I'm suspicious about it because the disc seems to have sharper edges than the building in the background (and perhaps even the tree limbs), which makes me think that it's a small object close to the camera. But I know nothing about photo analysis.
I think that's a bad idea - we may not have a way to make use of that data now, but maybe someday we'll have some kind of AI that can analyze photographic evidence, sift the wheat from the chaff, and possibly even extract useful signatures from authentic photos of these things. Digital memory is cheap these days, so it seems worthwhile to save all the data we can, in case there's something we can use it for later.Maybe I should just delete the lot of them.
In my mind - it is debunked.
I agree. Seems legit.Hi CGL, if you wouldn't mind could you produce the evidence that convinced you matey? ... because I've followed this case for as long as I can remember, and haven't come across anything that remotely debunks this classic [and imho the best photographic case of all time] set of UFO's caught on camera. Otherwise, back to reality, the evidence as been on display for 68 years and still very much counting.
Cheers buddy.
Scroll down about 1/4 of the way through the page until you get to the side by side comparison of the "flying saucer" and the truck mirror Bad UFOs: Skepticism, UFOs, and The Universe: Special Report: The Trent UFO Photos - the "Best" of All Time - Finally Busted? and also look at the pics at the bottom of this post.Hi CGL, if you wouldn't mind could you produce the evidence that convinced you matey? ... because I've followed this case for as long as I can remember, and haven't come across anything that remotely debunks this classic [and imho the best photographic case of all time] set of UFO's caught on camera. Otherwise, back to reality, the evidence as been on display for 68 years and still very much counting.
Cheers buddy.
Scroll down about 1/4 of the way through the page until you get to the side by side comparison of the "flying saucer" and the truck mirror Bad UFOs: Skepticism, UFOs, and The Universe: Special Report: The Trent UFO Photos - the "Best" of All Time - Finally Busted? and also look at the pics at the bottom of this post.
There are some things that always bugged me about these photos (which people here have already heard what I have to say previously);
1) not one person on Earth (that we know of) have photographed a structured UFO (that hasn't been a proven fake). That includes todays era where everybody has a camera in their pocket & their are surveillance cameras everywhere. Yet we are supposed to believe that Paul Trent in 1950 had a flying saucer hover over his farm & he had the presence of mind & time to run back into the house, look for the camera, cross his fingers there was film in it (there was! whew!) run back outside & hope the flying saucer was still hovering there - and get pics.
2) they are right underneath electrical/telephone wires
3) the list on the "mast" of the flying saucer. It's always bothered me. Then look at the "list" on the truck mirror. That's when it makes perfect sense.
4) the photo's were taken from a position of being squatted down - what would the reason be for this?
Again - 800 trillion cameras around today including in everybody's pocket - & no structured flying saucer pic. Yet, lucky Paul Trent pulled it off in 1950 with and old fashioned camera & film....& the flying saucer just happens to looks exactly like an old truck mirror. Don't buy it.
I've been doing some poking around and I think I've got a live one for you.Scroll down about 1/4 of the way through the page until you get to the side by side comparison of the "flying saucer" and the truck mirror
Any Bruce Maccabee analysis is bogus in my mind. He thought the Guardian flying saucer was real. He authenticated the red light coming from an optical mouse as a real flying saucer. He thinks the laughable Gulf Breeze UFO photo's were the real deal. He's discredited himself with several ridiculous analysis so I won't listen to anything he has to say.Hi CGL, thanks for the reply matey.
I suspected that the erroneous Sheaffer/Klass debunk that was taken up by various other 'sceptics' [near and far] that ran with it without even checking the veracity of their "scientific methodology" ! .. and of course it is only natural for the genuinely ETH-sceptical people to see that this 'explanation/debunk' is so ubiquitous online, therefor must be correct! ... but fortunately for the sake of accuracy and justice to the spirit of true ufological studies, the madly biased views of these two arch enemies of even-handed-investigation have been challenged and comprehensively denounced by many unbiased authorities in technical investigation. ... here is a sample of that false debunking's debunking by two well respected and eminently qualified professional scientific evaluators, ... in the interest of fairness I declare that Bruce Maccabee is a tenuous proponent of the ETH, and the second commentator Brad Sparks is quite firmly a ETH detractor that still demands even handed investigation.
UFO Report
Have you not heard about the 1958 Trindade photos? The Trinidade Island Photographs
Above not beneath.
The unorthodox look of the UFO bothered me for years too, I always expected the Hollywood classic smooth looking flying saucer, but have learnt over the years that Hollywood representation is not really a documentary.
As for the truck mirror? Yes i'm aware of this wild theory, but am also aware that there are many prosaic things that have similarities in shape to just about anything you could think of... besides, the dimensions don't match the debunkers distance to size ratio!
Only in the 'debunked' debunking.
Well if that's your opinion, then fine it's your opinion. and you are very entitled to have it, [all that I hope is that you view the 'debunked claims' with the same pedantry parameters as you would a positive claim..] ... But in my opinion, there have been some undeniably intriguing photographs in the past , not too many 'authentic ones' i'll admit, but some nevertheless. And i'll warrant that there'll be more to come.
Cheers buddy.
Let’s not forget, Maccabee was once secretly briefing the CIA on the UFO situation.Any Bruce Maccabee analysis is bogus in my mind. He thought the Guardian flying saucer was real. He authenticated the red light coming from an optical mouse as a real flying saucer. He thinks the laughable Gulf Breeze UFO photo's were the real deal. He's discredited himself with several ridiculous analysis so I won't listen to anything he has to say.
Like I said earlier, in my mind the McMinnville photo's are bogus.