UFO Images

humanoidlord

ce3 researcher
Inexplicata-The Journal of Hispanic Ufology: Mexico: UFO Sighting "Is The Most Shocking" in Recent Memory

I have to say are we for real? Mind you this could be a high strange vehicle it could also be a over head street light. I seem to recall an "event" 2-3 years back around Houston where a similar case was making the rounds and I think it was merely a reflection in the cars light.t

And I still have to ask, why the light show cases? Why can't you do whatever you want to do without putting on a display that wouldn't be out of place in a fourth of July show?

Maybe it's me, maybe it's a double entendre joke "most shocking" ??? please, hire a real writer.
yep just lamps: (4:09)
 

humanoidlord

ce3 researcher
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. :Thumbsup: 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.
very weak "debunk" of the debunk, most of his points are still valid
i don't agree either on his position that there aren't any structured craft pics, but everthing else he says is pretty solid and frankly all the evidence points to a truck mirror , in fact there is another piece of evidence that CGL forgot, one of the pictures that the TIME magazine took of the "crime scene" shows that the trents had a ladder hanging in the middle of their farm, i wonder why :Whistle:
 

humanoidlord

ce3 researcher
I've been doing some poking around and I think I've got a live one for you.

This is a photo taken by Hannah McRoberts at a rest area on Vancouver Island in 1981. She took a picture of a mountain peak surrounded by some clouds because she thought it looked like a volcano, and she didn't even notice the disc-shaped object in the upper right-hand corner of the frame until the photos came back from development.

I haven't dug into this case deeply, but I learned about it from Dr. Peter Sturroch's book called The UFO Enigma, and he described the fairly exhaustive examinations of the negative and the image by Dr. Richard Haines, as well as the interviews conducted with Mrs. Roberts and her family, and the analysis of the incidental factors in this case, and all of it seems to pass the smell test.

I'm also intrigued that this object fits a very similar description in the 2004 incidents off the coast of California, provided by USS Nimitz CSG radar operator Trevor, who saw the optical gun-camera footage of an F-18 intercept of a disc-like craft with a flat bottom and a domed top, which he said could be seen "relocating" from one position to the next so quickly that the transitions between positions couldn't be seen on intervening frames of the footage. It could be a coincidence, but perhaps not.

Here's an enlargement of the craft in her photo:

image.jpg


Here's the complete photo:

Newfoundland-LQ1.jpg


And here's an overview of the case:

The Hannah McRoberts UFO Photograph

So I think this might just be the one you've been looking for - a very compelling photo taken by a very credible photographer of a structured craft of unknown origin.
one of my favorite UFO photographs, not only you can see the cockpit of the UFO, but you also can see a chair!, look closely, do you see the white rectangular object inside the UFO? its position is in the perfect location when we compare it to CE3 events in the past, proving that its definitely a chair of some kind
 

humanoidlord

ce3 researcher
I have seen a sequence of photos I thought were credible of an egg-shaped craft, but there were no details of any investigation available. Quality was so-so, but they were clear and had none of the red flags of a hoax.

Still without the investigation and a chain of custody, a clever fake remains distinctly possible.

The best I have investigated is only about 20 pixels wide, but I had 2 eyewitnesses and knew exactly when and where the images were taken and who took them. I also had a pretty good estimate of the cloud ceiling that the object was below. My analysis showed the the object was probably very far away and quite large. No corroboration ever surfaced, but I would expect someone else saw the same thing. I've never published the full details, but perhaps I will.
i think i remenber that picture you are talking about, an egg shaped craft with blue rotating blades, right?
VJB Olmos
he is a quite strict skeptic, so i think he agreed with the truck mirror explanation
View attachment 4712

This brief description was posted by Alexander at Paranormal Borderline - it sounds like he might know more about it. Here's the link to that page:
The Paranormal Borderline: UFO photographs - Las Cruces, New Mexico, March 12, 1967
thats pretty much the same information i have avaliable at the time, i think he is asking for the original newsletter wich the picture appeared in
I like that image for a couple of reasons. Granted, it’s quite blurry. I’m trying to see a bird there but I don’t – I’m not ruling it out, I’m just saying that I can’t make out a bird there. The blur seems to indicate fast lateral motion.

Now compare that object from the Whittlesea, Australia, January 15, 2004 photograph:

s1600


…with the object that I posted yesterday from the October 1981 Vancouver Island photograph taken by Hannah McRoberts:

image.jpg


I mean, that could be the same object: the shape is indistinguishable, and even the hues and values look very similar (also, a dark and somewhat dull metallic finish is a common feature of AAV descriptions).

And in both of those cases, the photographer didn’t see the object in the frame at the time the picture was taken. That’s a really weird coincidence, right? And on top of that, consider the testimony of the USS Nimitz CSG radar operator Trevor, who said that the optical gun camera footage that he saw showed a domed object with a flat bottom darting from one position to the next so quickly that the transitions couldn’t be seen.

This is highly speculative of course, but what if all three cases are related to the same kind of technological devices that don’t really “fly” as much as they jump from one position to the next at speeds so fast that they’re optically invisible when they change position? That hypothesis could explain all three of these cases quite neatly, because it would explain why neither photographer saw the object at the time the images were taken – the object could’ve simply been within the frame for a fleeting moment, too brief to be noticed by the camera operator.

It’s an interesting thought anyway.
the australian picture is definitely a bird, notice the motion blur and white wing (wich some have taken to be the UFO dome)
it also doesn't have the same level of detail that the very interesting vancouver picture has
There are two photographs I offen wonder about. My husband does not know what they are. let us look and see.
Gemini 10.

View attachment 4714

My husband thinks this is fake. "Black knight"

View attachment 4715

Blessed be
Rikki
the first picture is one of the many film blemishes that NASA pictures usually contain, some are dirt and emulsion bubbles, others are cosmic rays, the list goes on
the second is as others have already pointed a thermal blanket that was lost by a astronaut
Much more interesting are the photos from Skylab 3.
  1. No one suspects a hoax at all. All three astronauts saw the object.
  2. It's not a photographic anomaly.
  3. Satellites aren't red, except when passing through the Earth's penumbra, which takes only about 15 seconds.
That said, I disagree with Bruce Maccabee's analysis of the size. It mightn't be very large at all. James Oberg is also wrong in his handwaving attempt to debunk it. I dug up the old orbit elements and calculated the beta angle, to make a long story short.

We don't know the shutter speed used, but it was a good Nikon film camera. I expect we are seeing a bit of motion blur in this picture:

View attachment 4717
another interesting case
one of the many shots george stock took of a saucer UFO in 1952, note the obvious similarity with the vancouver picture, some people that have seen this photo up close, told me that there appears to be 2 figures peeking out of the dome, i think its only pareidolia however
I've never seen an analysis of this one, but if I find one I'll share it with you. Here's the original photo:

http://tothemoon.ser.asu.edu/data_g/G10/Maurer/full/S66-45774_G10-M_f.png
wow, how you found that picture so easily?
there seems to be a subtle shine around it, could it be a lens flare?
Yes, he’s referring to the Trent McMinnville photos.

Brad Sparks also very adeptly analyzed the faux-scientific IPACO report on the McMinnville case and dismantled it completely. I’ll post his lengthy and rigorous analysis of their 2013 document below, because it merits repeating.

This doesn’t prove that the case wasn’t a hoax – it simply proves that if it was a hoax, the IPACO document failed to prove it, and it is in fact a completely worthless document.

This is representative of what I’ve said before: just because somebody or another has claimed to debunk every widely popularized UFO photo ever provided to the public, that doesn’t mean that they actually did so. Because it’s one thing to say that anything photographed “could have been” a hub cap or a rearview mirror or whatever at close range to the camera (which you can say about any photograph of anything) – it’s another thing entirely to actually prove that argument. And the burden of proof in on the claimant. So when they fail to do that, their argument is void.

But first let’s look at the photo comparison that you offered:

View attachment 4734

I printed each image at a best-fit scale and then drew a clean silhouette of each object so we could compare them in overlay – here’s what I found:

View attachment 4730 View attachment 4731 View attachment 4732

There’s no doubt about it: those aren’t the same object. The flat area on the left-hand side is 1.73 times larger in the Trent UFO image than the same flat region on the mirror. And you can clearly see that the curvature doesn’t match; the UFO image has a steep and flat conical rise to the flat plane on the left-hand side, whereas the mirror arcs gently and spherically in that same region. And the placement and size and shape of the mirror’s mounting post is drastically different than the protrusion we see on the object in the photo.

The object in the photo might have been a rearview mirror, but it’s definitely not that rearview mirror. So that explanation fails.

Here’s what Brad Sparks had to say about the IPACO analysis:


From: Brad Sparks
Date: Mon, 19 Aug 2013 06:56:32 -0400 (EDT)

The IPACO Debunkers Attack the Trent Photos (McMinnville, Oregon, May 11, 1950)
<AOL - login>
The IPACO team has jerry-rigged its case and cherry-picked its figures to coincide with its convenient but grossly contradictory hoax model. Contradictory modeling is IPACO's number one fault violating the laws of physics, optics and geometry -- and they do claim to use "mathematics and physics" (p. 3). They have thrown together so many simplistic "simplifications" (p. 11) or bald assumptions to streamline and "clarify" the case that their patchwork of questionable parameters hide gross errors. They conveniently assert that these self-serving simplifications "do not impact significantly upon the results" (p. 11).

This points up the fundamental error in their overall methodology: Instead of creating a comprehensive and integrated computer 3-D reconstruction model of the Trent backyard site and postulated objects where every adjustment of a parameter is automatically adjusted throughout the reconstruction, they have created a patch-work "tool" that allows gross errors to creep in and get taken advantage of in order to debunk the UFO case.

For those needing a refresher on the famous McMinnville photo case read my summary below, or else skip to the next section.

CASE SUMMARY (from BB Unknowns Catalog) May 11, 1950. 8 miles SW of McMinnville, Oregon (UFO at 45.1043° N, 123.3335° W). 7:20 p.m. (PST). Evelyn Trent was feeding the rabbits in her backyard just before sunset when she spotted an object to the N in the distance and called out to her husband Paul Trent, who was in the house at the back door, asking him to retrieve their camera. She went into the garage to look for the camera but Paul found it in the house, ran out into the yard toward where his wife had been standing, then he saw the rapidly approaching large metallic object to the N heading almost directly towards them, tipped up its flat underside towards them, felt a gust of wind seemingly from the object, snapped a photo of the object at azimuth 335° (about NNW) elevation 14°, angular size 1.67°. Paul Trent was at 45.1007° N, 123.3335° W, in his back yard between the house and garage. Then as the object turned on a W heading he walked 5 ft to his right to compensate for object's motion to the left, snapped a 2nd photo about 30 secs after the 1st, which shows a metallic pie-pan shaped object 1.46° angular size with a large off-center tilted antenna or pole projecting from the top, at azimuth ~317.5° (about NW) 12° elevation. Evelyn had joined Paul by the time he started taking pictures and later described the arc covered between photos as about 15° (close to actual figure ~17.5°). Distance and size of object estimated by the witnesses as about 1/4 mile distance and 20-30 ft diameter, or "parachute-sized" (about 24-28 ft), which size/distance figures translate to a maximum angular size 1.3° (close to the photographically measured 1.46°-1.67°). AF Colorado Project and Bruce Maccabee estimated distance about 1 mile and object diameter about 100 ft but methodology is mistakenly based on excess brightness of what was supposed to be dark shadow of the bottom of the object (in fact the bottom was not in shadow but caught bright near-sun sunset sky illumination at near grazing angle 2° off of direct sunlight). Several other witnesses reportedly saw the object. (Sparks; Condon Report pp. 396-407; Bruce Maccabee; Hynek UFO Rpt pp. 244-5; etc.) Duration 2-3 mins



The Fatal Flaw -- The Dilemma of the 5-inch Hoax Model versus the 6-inch Model

The IPACO debunkers never consistently follow through on a numerical result throughout the rest of their analysis to see if it fits and is physically consistent. They cannot make up their collective minds whether the UFO hoax model is 0.4 ft or 0.5 ft (about 5 inches or 6 inches). It cannot be both! It is a crucially important parameter and it is based on the most accurately determined parameters in all of the two photos, namely the angular diameters of the UFO's base (1.67° and 1.46° in Photos 1 and 2, respectively). If the hoax object was 5 inches in diameter then the closest distance to camera, which is in Photo 1, must be about 14 ft according to the geometry of the angular size (angular size is roughly the size-to-distance ratio). This is mathematically locked and cannot be fudged or adjusted or obscured -- as IPACO attempts to do. (I will call these debunkers collectively as "IPACO," and in the singular or the plural regardless of grammar, for ease of reference.)

TECH NOTE: Angular size is approximately the size to distance ratio, as I mentioned above. That means the object -- no matter what it is whether a pie tin, a UFO or a planet in space -- must exactly fit mathematical laws of geometry. If it is 1.67° is angular size then it must be exactly 34.3 times farther away than its size (1 / [2 tan 1.67°/2]).(to the three-digit precision I am using). If it is 1 ft in size then it must be exactly 34.3 feet in distance. If 1/2 foot in size then its distance must be ~17.15 feet. These are exact mathematical rules and cannot be broken at the whim of those who find it inconvenient. Similarly, in Photo 2 the angular size is 1.46° and hence the distance must be 39.2 times its size. If 1/2 foot in size then the distance must be exactly 19.6 feet.


Since the wire that IPACO claims the hoax object was hung from (by a thread) was about 14 feet from Trent's camera (p. 9) the 14-foot distance set by the 5-inch diameter of the hoax model would seem to fit just about perfectly. So why do they bother to keep bringing up the 0.5 ft (6-inch) figure for the UFO hoax object when that would result in distances of about 17 feet and 20 feet?

The reason is that the UFO increases distance from the first to the second photo by a very exactly determined amount of about 14%, established mathematically by the object becoming smaller in apparent (angular) size. IPACO points out that that would mean the hoax model had to increase in distance 2 ft, going from 14 ft (where the wire was located) to a distance of 16 ft in the second photo. But the height of the wire above the object, and thus the approximate length of the alleged suspension thread, is only about 2 feet.

This 2 foot distance increase is about the same as the purported length of the 2 ft pendulum thread! If the alleged hoax model was "swaying" on a pendulum thread it would have to swing so violently that the model would be suspended horizontally and away from Trent's camera in Photo 2. Imagine if you were swinging in a children's swing and you managed to get as high as the bar holding up the swing! It would be very unstable from a dynamic physics standpoint and a geometrically impossible position because the UFO model would also be about 2 feet higher above the ground too and it is manifestly not. (The angular space between the UFO and the wire above, which are supposed to be about the length of the suspension thread, are about 9° to 8° in the two photos but this 2 foot swing away would reduce the spacing to about 0° in the second pic and it obviously is not! See IPACO p. 8 for diagrams and angular figures.)

This is why IPACO fudges the numbers throughout by injecting the 6-inch hoax object diameter where it does not belong, since it increases the scale of dimensions and thus the length of the suspension thread to almost 3 feet. A 2 ft swing backwards on a 3 ft long thread is not so enormous and violent. IPACO insists throughout that there was only gentle "swaying" of the hoax object in a "light wind."
But IPACO can't have it both ways! The UFO model can't be 5 inches in diameter for some situations and 6 inches for others!

So why doesn't IPACO just stick with a 6-inch diameter for the UFO model and use that throughout? Because it would run into the same problem of a 3-foot thread swinging backwards by about 3 feet and worst of all, it would be 3 to 6 feet away from the wire it is supposed to be hanging from! (The wire at about 14 feet and the 6-inch object at about 17-20 feet.) Obviously it cannot possibly be 6 feet away while connected with a 3-foot thread! Maybe the hoax model was capable of sustained flight -- like a UFO!

So why doesn't IPACO get rid of the 6-inch diameter figure altogether? Because they need to slip it in whenever there is a problem with the 5-inch model swinging too wide and high, and they just obfuscate the more severe problems with the 6-inch model by not running through all the logical consequences of that bigger size.

Here is a classic example of IPACO obfuscation where they mix inconsistent numbers from the 5-inch model with the numbers from the 6-inch model in their General Conclusions:

Revised IPACO Report, June 2013 (released Aug 2013, p. 23, emphasis added):

"Explanation 1
"The UFO is a model hanging ca. 3 ft under the lower power wire, at a distance of ca. 14 ft from the camera.
"Its size (diameter of its circular base) is ca. 0.5 ft.....
"Between both shots, its distance from the camera increases by 2 ft."
The 3 ft and 0.5 ft (6-inch) figures belong to the 6 inch model's parameters, of course. The 14 ft and 2 ft figures only apply to the 5-inch diameter object. IPACO has slyly mixed inconsistent numbers from two different scenarios and size scales.

TECH NOTE: If as stated it was really a 6-inch diameter (0.5 ft), then the distances from camera would be 17 to 20 ft not 14 feet and the increase in distance (from 17 to 20 ft) would of course be 3 ft not 2 ft. (20 - 17 = 3 ft.)


IPACO is caught on the horns of a dilemma. A 5-inch would have to swing up too high and too violently and it simply is not seen in that position in the photographs. A 6-inch model would be much too far away, so far away that it would not even be connected to the thread!

Could the violent swing be reduced to more manageable and viable proportions by splitting the total swing between a swing towards the camera in Photo 1 and a swing away in Photo 2 -- as IPACO seems to obscurely be reaching for at one point in their almost unintelligible discourse (p. 11)? No, because the 5-inch model would be at about the same distance as the overhead wire, 14 ft, in Photo 1, and thus hanging directly below the wire not swung towards the camera.


IPACO Claims to Discover a "Thread" in the McMinnville Photos -- But it would be Nearly 1 Inch Thick!

The IPACO debunkers claim to have discovered something -- a purported thread above the UFO -- that no one else has been able to see in 63 years, including high-tech image processing by the Jet Propulsion Lab director Robert Nathan, by Bruce Maccabee and others, that never found a thing. Naturally, IPACO did not conduct a control study to see if this was just noise in the film or photoanalysis. They checked only 60° or 1/6th of a full 360° circle. They did not check underneath the UFO -- because obviously they know it's a hoax and so it cannot be something absurd like a thread below the object. But that's how one makes scientific checks. If an absurd result emerges then it tells you the analysis is wrong. I can already see other "threads" in their data, which would make nonsense of their findings.

But worst of all, the purported IPACO "thread" -- which cannot be seen visually -- would be almost 1 inch in thickness (using the half-value width as a rough thread width; it is about 0.2° in angular width or about 1/7 or 1/8 of the width of the supposedly 5 or 6-inch object). What kind of "thread" is that and why wouldn't a 1-inch thick line -- more like a rope or heavy cord -- not be painfully obvious in the photos?


Another Typical Example of Error in IPACO Assumptions -- The Two Power Wires are Not Vertically Stacked

IPACO's assumptions from the very start are in error. Early in their report they say:

Revised IPACO Report, June 2013 (released Aug 2013, p. 5, emphasis added except bold-only is in original):

"In the first steps of the analysis, we concentrated on the following elements of the scene:
The UFO, localized in space by the center of its base, which is assumed to be nearly circular (seen as nearly an ellipse from the camera),
The two power wires above the UFO, assumed to be motionless.
"It was possible to check, from the already mentioned detailed map of the site established by Maccabee, and from a picture published in Condon report™s Plate 25 (Hartmann 1967), that these two power wires were one above the other (i.e. in the same vertical plane). Therefore, if the UFO is effectively a model, it should logically be hanging from the lower power wire."


The two wires in fact are not vertical except at the back of the house. LIFE magazine photographer Loomis Dean visited the Trents and took dozens of photos in mid-June 1950. Dean's photos show that the two wires twist in the air gradually to attach almost horizontally (not vertically) to the roof edge of the garage at the south end. The lower wire is attached about a foot down and east from the peak of the garage roof where the top wire is attached. That means that in the middle of the gap between the house and the garage the wires are not situated directly above each other in a "vertical plane" but are rotated and offset by roughly 30° from vertical. That makes the lower wire closer to the camera and still more distant from the sighting line crossing point, and thus makes a hoax model even more difficult. You can even see in Condon project astronomer William Hartmann's photo of the backyard that the two wires immediately narrow as you follow them from the house into the space to the garage, which space is where the UFO was photographed.


Debunker "Science" -- Confusing Thermal Physics with Optical Physics

These French debunkers have incomprehensibly asserted that the UFO and wires are "black bodies" to which they apply "radiometry" -- which is the science of measurement of heat. They claim to derive an estimate of distance from this. They apparently have no idea what they are talking about. Yeah, the Trent farm and nearby objects are "black bodies" but at around room temperature emitting heat in the far infrared (about 9,000 nm) invisible to the eye and invisible to the ordinary camera and thus unseen on visible-light optical photographs (visible light is about 300 to 700 nm wavelength). Visible light "radiometry" would be at about the temperature of the sun ~ 5,000° C and a camera is not a radiometer! They have confused photometry (light measurements) with radiometry (heat measurements from black body heat radiation, thermal emissions).

But this goes far beyond a simple confusion of terminology since they repeatedly invoke "black body" radiation (p. 17; see original IPACO March 2013 report, pp. 19, 23 "behaved approximately like a black body," etc.) as somehow involved in reflection and absorption of light (not infrared) at roughly room temperatures and that they are able to determine "distances from the camera" because, you see, "a lower radiometry roughly corresponds to a lower distance from the camera" (p. 17)!!! No it doesn't!

Revised IPACO Report, June 2013 (released Aug 2013, emphasis added):

"If we assume that these elements are dark enough to be considered as sort of black bodies (i.e absorbing all the light they receive), we may compare their respective radiometric levels and infer a classification of their respective distances from the camera: a lower radiometry roughly corresponds to a lower distance from the camera.


This must be on the order of saying "if I like the object it must be closer to me and the more I like it, the closer it is!!" ROTFL. (Normally if there is a lower radiometric power received from an object -- less heat radiation -- it indicates a greater distance not a "lower distance," but hey this is trying to make some sense out of nonsense, to extract the science from pseudoscience.)

IPACO's "physics" is very much like that of William Spaulding who used to announce that he could determine the "thickness" in feet or inches of the UFO in a photograph, using "computer analysis." He confused x-rays with visible light photos. X-rays are beamed through objects and can be used to determine the linear thickness of an object, in feet or meters. But visible light photos involve light reflecting or scattering off the surface and thus cannot possibly determine the thickness of the object below the surface.

Remember, IFO's must obey the laws of physics. Unfortunately, debunkers don't care about whether their hoax or IFO scenarios grossly violate the laws of physics -- that's a problem for someone else to solve, if anyone still cares after they succeed in destroying the hated UFO case.

Brad Sparks

Source: UFO Report
frankly i don't care about the IPACO analysis, it's obviously flawed (lol "radiometry"), what is hard to debunk is the pratical evidence (see CGL's original post and my ladder comment) and the obvious similarity of the craft with a truck mirror, no obviously the truck mirror CGL showed isn't the exact same as the one used in the hoax, otherwise we probally would not be discussing this today here but its definitely similar
Big Data works and even makes money. If you apply Big Data onto physics of Hollywood movies, you get crap. If you apply Big Data onto physics in UFOs you get real physics all the way:
there have been reports in the past of UFOs coming close to the witnesses and leaving no effects in the surrounding ambient, so it definitely depends on if the "trickster" wants to leave a mark or not, trying to find patterns in UFO sightings is the way to madness, because they aren't made to make sense!
UFOs are completely closed shells and don't have windows because that would create holes in Alcubiere drive, and make warp drive leak space time ;-)
bullshit, your friend just showed a case where a UFO has a glass cockpit and there are billions of other cases where windows, portholes or cockpits where observed
 

pigfarmer

tall, thin, irritable
Yes, he’s referring to the Trent McMinnville photos.

Brad Sparks also very adeptly analyzed the faux-scientific IPACO report on the McMinnville case and dismantled it completely. I’ll post his lengthy and rigorous analysis of their 2013 document below, because it merits repeating.

This doesn’t prove that the case wasn’t a hoax – it simply proves that if it was a hoax, the IPACO document failed to prove it, and it is in fact a completely worthless document.

This is representative of what I’ve said before: just because somebody or another has claimed to debunk every widely popularized UFO photo ever provided to the public, that doesn’t mean that they actually did so. Because it’s one thing to say that anything photographed “could have been” a hub cap or a rearview mirror or whatever at close range to the camera (which you can say about any photograph of anything) – it’s another thing entirely to actually prove that argument. And the burden of proof in on the claimant. So when they fail to do that, their argument is void.

But first let’s look at the photo comparison that you offered:

View attachment 4734

I printed each image at a best-fit scale and then drew a clean silhouette of each object so we could compare them in overlay – here’s what I found:

View attachment 4730 View attachment 4731 View attachment 4732

There’s no doubt about it: those aren’t the same object. The flat area on the left-hand side is 1.73 times larger in the Trent UFO image than the same flat region on the mirror. And you can clearly see that the curvature doesn’t match; the UFO image has a steep and flat conical rise to the flat plane on the left-hand side, whereas the mirror arcs gently and spherically in that same region. And the placement and size and shape of the mirror’s mounting post is drastically different than the protrusion we see on the object in the photo.

The object in the photo might have been a rearview mirror, but it’s definitely not that rearview mirror. So that explanation fails.

Here’s what Brad Sparks had to say about the IPACO analysis:


From: Brad Sparks
Date: Mon, 19 Aug 2013 06:56:32 -0400 (EDT)

The IPACO Debunkers Attack the Trent Photos (McMinnville, Oregon, May 11, 1950)
<AOL - login>
The IPACO team has jerry-rigged its case and cherry-picked its figures to coincide with its convenient but grossly contradictory hoax model. Contradictory modeling is IPACO's number one fault violating the laws of physics, optics and geometry -- and they do claim to use "mathematics and physics" (p. 3). They have thrown together so many simplistic "simplifications" (p. 11) or bald assumptions to streamline and "clarify" the case that their patchwork of questionable parameters hide gross errors. They conveniently assert that these self-serving simplifications "do not impact significantly upon the results" (p. 11).

This points up the fundamental error in their overall methodology: Instead of creating a comprehensive and integrated computer 3-D reconstruction model of the Trent backyard site and postulated objects where every adjustment of a parameter is automatically adjusted throughout the reconstruction, they have created a patch-work "tool" that allows gross errors to creep in and get taken advantage of in order to debunk the UFO case.

For those needing a refresher on the famous McMinnville photo case read my summary below, or else skip to the next section.

CASE SUMMARY (from BB Unknowns Catalog) May 11, 1950. 8 miles SW of McMinnville, Oregon (UFO at 45.1043° N, 123.3335° W). 7:20 p.m. (PST). Evelyn Trent was feeding the rabbits in her backyard just before sunset when she spotted an object to the N in the distance and called out to her husband Paul Trent, who was in the house at the back door, asking him to retrieve their camera. She went into the garage to look for the camera but Paul found it in the house, ran out into the yard toward where his wife had been standing, then he saw the rapidly approaching large metallic object to the N heading almost directly towards them, tipped up its flat underside towards them, felt a gust of wind seemingly from the object, snapped a photo of the object at azimuth 335° (about NNW) elevation 14°, angular size 1.67°. Paul Trent was at 45.1007° N, 123.3335° W, in his back yard between the house and garage. Then as the object turned on a W heading he walked 5 ft to his right to compensate for object's motion to the left, snapped a 2nd photo about 30 secs after the 1st, which shows a metallic pie-pan shaped object 1.46° angular size with a large off-center tilted antenna or pole projecting from the top, at azimuth ~317.5° (about NW) 12° elevation. Evelyn had joined Paul by the time he started taking pictures and later described the arc covered between photos as about 15° (close to actual figure ~17.5°). Distance and size of object estimated by the witnesses as about 1/4 mile distance and 20-30 ft diameter, or "parachute-sized" (about 24-28 ft), which size/distance figures translate to a maximum angular size 1.3° (close to the photographically measured 1.46°-1.67°). AF Colorado Project and Bruce Maccabee estimated distance about 1 mile and object diameter about 100 ft but methodology is mistakenly based on excess brightness of what was supposed to be dark shadow of the bottom of the object (in fact the bottom was not in shadow but caught bright near-sun sunset sky illumination at near grazing angle 2° off of direct sunlight). Several other witnesses reportedly saw the object. (Sparks; Condon Report pp. 396-407; Bruce Maccabee; Hynek UFO Rpt pp. 244-5; etc.) Duration 2-3 mins



The Fatal Flaw -- The Dilemma of the 5-inch Hoax Model versus the 6-inch Model

The IPACO debunkers never consistently follow through on a numerical result throughout the rest of their analysis to see if it fits and is physically consistent. They cannot make up their collective minds whether the UFO hoax model is 0.4 ft or 0.5 ft (about 5 inches or 6 inches). It cannot be both! It is a crucially important parameter and it is based on the most accurately determined parameters in all of the two photos, namely the angular diameters of the UFO's base (1.67° and 1.46° in Photos 1 and 2, respectively). If the hoax object was 5 inches in diameter then the closest distance to camera, which is in Photo 1, must be about 14 ft according to the geometry of the angular size (angular size is roughly the size-to-distance ratio). This is mathematically locked and cannot be fudged or adjusted or obscured -- as IPACO attempts to do. (I will call these debunkers collectively as "IPACO," and in the singular or the plural regardless of grammar, for ease of reference.)

TECH NOTE: Angular size is approximately the size to distance ratio, as I mentioned above. That means the object -- no matter what it is whether a pie tin, a UFO or a planet in space -- must exactly fit mathematical laws of geometry. If it is 1.67° is angular size then it must be exactly 34.3 times farther away than its size (1 / [2 tan 1.67°/2]).(to the three-digit precision I am using). If it is 1 ft in size then it must be exactly 34.3 feet in distance. If 1/2 foot in size then its distance must be ~17.15 feet. These are exact mathematical rules and cannot be broken at the whim of those who find it inconvenient. Similarly, in Photo 2 the angular size is 1.46° and hence the distance must be 39.2 times its size. If 1/2 foot in size then the distance must be exactly 19.6 feet.


Since the wire that IPACO claims the hoax object was hung from (by a thread) was about 14 feet from Trent's camera (p. 9) the 14-foot distance set by the 5-inch diameter of the hoax model would seem to fit just about perfectly. So why do they bother to keep bringing up the 0.5 ft (6-inch) figure for the UFO hoax object when that would result in distances of about 17 feet and 20 feet?

The reason is that the UFO increases distance from the first to the second photo by a very exactly determined amount of about 14%, established mathematically by the object becoming smaller in apparent (angular) size. IPACO points out that that would mean the hoax model had to increase in distance 2 ft, going from 14 ft (where the wire was located) to a distance of 16 ft in the second photo. But the height of the wire above the object, and thus the approximate length of the alleged suspension thread, is only about 2 feet.

This 2 foot distance increase is about the same as the purported length of the 2 ft pendulum thread! If the alleged hoax model was "swaying" on a pendulum thread it would have to swing so violently that the model would be suspended horizontally and away from Trent's camera in Photo 2. Imagine if you were swinging in a children's swing and you managed to get as high as the bar holding up the swing! It would be very unstable from a dynamic physics standpoint and a geometrically impossible position because the UFO model would also be about 2 feet higher above the ground too and it is manifestly not. (The angular space between the UFO and the wire above, which are supposed to be about the length of the suspension thread, are about 9° to 8° in the two photos but this 2 foot swing away would reduce the spacing to about 0° in the second pic and it obviously is not! See IPACO p. 8 for diagrams and angular figures.)

This is why IPACO fudges the numbers throughout by injecting the 6-inch hoax object diameter where it does not belong, since it increases the scale of dimensions and thus the length of the suspension thread to almost 3 feet. A 2 ft swing backwards on a 3 ft long thread is not so enormous and violent. IPACO insists throughout that there was only gentle "swaying" of the hoax object in a "light wind."
But IPACO can't have it both ways! The UFO model can't be 5 inches in diameter for some situations and 6 inches for others!

So why doesn't IPACO just stick with a 6-inch diameter for the UFO model and use that throughout? Because it would run into the same problem of a 3-foot thread swinging backwards by about 3 feet and worst of all, it would be 3 to 6 feet away from the wire it is supposed to be hanging from! (The wire at about 14 feet and the 6-inch object at about 17-20 feet.) Obviously it cannot possibly be 6 feet away while connected with a 3-foot thread! Maybe the hoax model was capable of sustained flight -- like a UFO!

So why doesn't IPACO get rid of the 6-inch diameter figure altogether? Because they need to slip it in whenever there is a problem with the 5-inch model swinging too wide and high, and they just obfuscate the more severe problems with the 6-inch model by not running through all the logical consequences of that bigger size.

Here is a classic example of IPACO obfuscation where they mix inconsistent numbers from the 5-inch model with the numbers from the 6-inch model in their General Conclusions:

Revised IPACO Report, June 2013 (released Aug 2013, p. 23, emphasis added):

"Explanation 1
"The UFO is a model hanging ca. 3 ft under the lower power wire, at a distance of ca. 14 ft from the camera.
"Its size (diameter of its circular base) is ca. 0.5 ft.....
"Between both shots, its distance from the camera increases by 2 ft."
The 3 ft and 0.5 ft (6-inch) figures belong to the 6 inch model's parameters, of course. The 14 ft and 2 ft figures only apply to the 5-inch diameter object. IPACO has slyly mixed inconsistent numbers from two different scenarios and size scales.

TECH NOTE: If as stated it was really a 6-inch diameter (0.5 ft), then the distances from camera would be 17 to 20 ft not 14 feet and the increase in distance (from 17 to 20 ft) would of course be 3 ft not 2 ft. (20 - 17 = 3 ft.)


IPACO is caught on the horns of a dilemma. A 5-inch would have to swing up too high and too violently and it simply is not seen in that position in the photographs. A 6-inch model would be much too far away, so far away that it would not even be connected to the thread!

Could the violent swing be reduced to more manageable and viable proportions by splitting the total swing between a swing towards the camera in Photo 1 and a swing away in Photo 2 -- as IPACO seems to obscurely be reaching for at one point in their almost unintelligible discourse (p. 11)? No, because the 5-inch model would be at about the same distance as the overhead wire, 14 ft, in Photo 1, and thus hanging directly below the wire not swung towards the camera.


IPACO Claims to Discover a "Thread" in the McMinnville Photos -- But it would be Nearly 1 Inch Thick!

The IPACO debunkers claim to have discovered something -- a purported thread above the UFO -- that no one else has been able to see in 63 years, including high-tech image processing by the Jet Propulsion Lab director Robert Nathan, by Bruce Maccabee and others, that never found a thing. Naturally, IPACO did not conduct a control study to see if this was just noise in the film or photoanalysis. They checked only 60° or 1/6th of a full 360° circle. They did not check underneath the UFO -- because obviously they know it's a hoax and so it cannot be something absurd like a thread below the object. But that's how one makes scientific checks. If an absurd result emerges then it tells you the analysis is wrong. I can already see other "threads" in their data, which would make nonsense of their findings.

But worst of all, the purported IPACO "thread" -- which cannot be seen visually -- would be almost 1 inch in thickness (using the half-value width as a rough thread width; it is about 0.2° in angular width or about 1/7 or 1/8 of the width of the supposedly 5 or 6-inch object). What kind of "thread" is that and why wouldn't a 1-inch thick line -- more like a rope or heavy cord -- not be painfully obvious in the photos?


Another Typical Example of Error in IPACO Assumptions -- The Two Power Wires are Not Vertically Stacked

IPACO's assumptions from the very start are in error. Early in their report they say:

Revised IPACO Report, June 2013 (released Aug 2013, p. 5, emphasis added except bold-only is in original):

"In the first steps of the analysis, we concentrated on the following elements of the scene:
The UFO, localized in space by the center of its base, which is assumed to be nearly circular (seen as nearly an ellipse from the camera),
The two power wires above the UFO, assumed to be motionless.
"It was possible to check, from the already mentioned detailed map of the site established by Maccabee, and from a picture published in Condon report™s Plate 25 (Hartmann 1967), that these two power wires were one above the other (i.e. in the same vertical plane). Therefore, if the UFO is effectively a model, it should logically be hanging from the lower power wire."


The two wires in fact are not vertical except at the back of the house. LIFE magazine photographer Loomis Dean visited the Trents and took dozens of photos in mid-June 1950. Dean's photos show that the two wires twist in the air gradually to attach almost horizontally (not vertically) to the roof edge of the garage at the south end. The lower wire is attached about a foot down and east from the peak of the garage roof where the top wire is attached. That means that in the middle of the gap between the house and the garage the wires are not situated directly above each other in a "vertical plane" but are rotated and offset by roughly 30° from vertical. That makes the lower wire closer to the camera and still more distant from the sighting line crossing point, and thus makes a hoax model even more difficult. You can even see in Condon project astronomer William Hartmann's photo of the backyard that the two wires immediately narrow as you follow them from the house into the space to the garage, which space is where the UFO was photographed.


Debunker "Science" -- Confusing Thermal Physics with Optical Physics

These French debunkers have incomprehensibly asserted that the UFO and wires are "black bodies" to which they apply "radiometry" -- which is the science of measurement of heat. They claim to derive an estimate of distance from this. They apparently have no idea what they are talking about. Yeah, the Trent farm and nearby objects are "black bodies" but at around room temperature emitting heat in the far infrared (about 9,000 nm) invisible to the eye and invisible to the ordinary camera and thus unseen on visible-light optical photographs (visible light is about 300 to 700 nm wavelength). Visible light "radiometry" would be at about the temperature of the sun ~ 5,000° C and a camera is not a radiometer! They have confused photometry (light measurements) with radiometry (heat measurements from black body heat radiation, thermal emissions).

But this goes far beyond a simple confusion of terminology since they repeatedly invoke "black body" radiation (p. 17; see original IPACO March 2013 report, pp. 19, 23 "behaved approximately like a black body," etc.) as somehow involved in reflection and absorption of light (not infrared) at roughly room temperatures and that they are able to determine "distances from the camera" because, you see, "a lower radiometry roughly corresponds to a lower distance from the camera" (p. 17)!!! No it doesn't!

Revised IPACO Report, June 2013 (released Aug 2013, emphasis added):

"If we assume that these elements are dark enough to be considered as sort of black bodies (i.e absorbing all the light they receive), we may compare their respective radiometric levels and infer a classification of their respective distances from the camera: a lower radiometry roughly corresponds to a lower distance from the camera.


This must be on the order of saying "if I like the object it must be closer to me and the more I like it, the closer it is!!" ROTFL. (Normally if there is a lower radiometric power received from an object -- less heat radiation -- it indicates a greater distance not a "lower distance," but hey this is trying to make some sense out of nonsense, to extract the science from pseudoscience.)

IPACO's "physics" is very much like that of William Spaulding who used to announce that he could determine the "thickness" in feet or inches of the UFO in a photograph, using "computer analysis." He confused x-rays with visible light photos. X-rays are beamed through objects and can be used to determine the linear thickness of an object, in feet or meters. But visible light photos involve light reflecting or scattering off the surface and thus cannot possibly determine the thickness of the object below the surface.

Remember, IFO's must obey the laws of physics. Unfortunately, debunkers don't care about whether their hoax or IFO scenarios grossly violate the laws of physics -- that's a problem for someone else to solve, if anyone still cares after they succeed in destroying the hated UFO case.

Brad Sparks

Source: UFO Report

I think there's a larger issue with just about any UFO photo. Debate over their authenticity follows the same pattern as a number of other topics; Bigfoot being one that came to mind immediately. Bear with me here a bit (if you'll pardon the expression).

Hannah McRoberts - very, very interesting, and thanks. Hadn't seen that one. The outline overlay - also nicely done. Problem with me is, I see a truck mirror. That overlay could say 'look at the differences' or just as plausibly 'they are virtually identical' depending on what you might want to prove or disprove, and who you were trying to convince.

In some thread here on AE a podcast called Wild Thing was recommended and I second that. A Bigfoot primer with the sound and feel of an NPR program because that's Laura Krantz's professional background. I am enjoying it. She's a shirt tail relation to Grover Krantz, an anthropologist and all around interesting individual. His approach to Sasquatch included a spotlight and a rifle. When asked what the first thing he'd do after taking a shot at a Bigfoot his comment was "reload." My kind of guy. His opinion was that only a corpse could settle the debate. Environmental DNA analysis may provide some evidence but I bet that for the foreseeable future that will be the case.

OK, this is a bit of a reach but when I was a kid and the dog would tangle with a skunk we'd run to the local diner for giant cans of tomato juice to wash her in. Did it work? Not really, but it gave us something to do we thought was helpful while we waited for the stench to fade. I love looking at UFO photos and videos and find some to be compelling but think that debating the authenticity of decades old photos is basically a tomato juice bath. Doesn't really change anything just give us something to do while we wait. And I think we'd need something truly stunning and public and readily understandable to everyone without lengthy explanation to significantly change the debate.
 

karl 12

Noble
The Black Triangle made it's entrance in grand style in Belgium, that's for sure. Still, I wonder if it was ever reported prior to that?

I think they go back a lot further than that mate, can't seem to locate the Omar Fowler research at the mo but there's an excellent David Market presentation below.



Cheers
 

Creepy Green Light

Don't mistake lack of talent for genius
You can't proove it, but you are prepared to risk your life on it. That's not very promissing as a rational approaceh.

If a stem of grass is exposed to microwaves, internal water just boils off and stem explodes at a specific weakest point, to joint between two streight parts of grass. If somebody trumples on the stem with a plank than stem breaks like a mechanical failure anywhere along the streight parts of grass. So these two failure modes are completely different and can easily be recognised.
Sometimes you "just know". I know it's a truck mirror........vs. a flying saucer from another planet.
 

Creepy Green Light

Don't mistake lack of talent for genius
But once again....what is more probably & likely?; Paul Trent is the one guy in the history of time to capture a structured flying saucer on film - where he had to spot the UFO, run into the house, look for the camera, made sure it had film in it, and then come back outside and it's still there for him to take photos of from a crouching position OR it's an object that looks remarkably like a truck mirror - complete with a listed "mast" that is suspended from the telephone wires above (and he took the pics from a crouching position - nobody would ever do that if there was a legit out of this world space craft flying above).

So out of those two scenarios - which is more likely?

I mean I hope nobody is using the train of thought of (regarding Heflin); "It's amazing how the flying saucer he saw looks identical to a model train wheel what a coincidence!" And same w/ Trent.....Trent's is even more obvious then Heflin's in my mind because of the listed "mast".
 

Creepy Green Light

Don't mistake lack of talent for genius
yep just lamps: (4:09)

I posted this earlier. In one video, the guy went down from California to that town & found them. Sadly, we are back to square one with videos & pictures. We have two categories; blurs, smudges, blobs, balls of light, streaks of light etc. OR we get sharp pictures showing a structured object that turn out to be hoaxes. I'm hoping for (but pretty much gave up on) seeing something similar to Meier's photo's but have them the real deal - and yeah, I know I sound like a broken record with that statement. I just hope I live long enough to find out the visitors exist & are real.
 

APIGuy

Independent Field Investigator
BTW, I found my old Skylab 3 notes today, and somewhere I have the book about Skylab I used as a reference. Now to make sense of them. I also have the TLEs I requested from CelesTrak.
 
I think there's a larger issue with just about any UFO photo. Debate over their authenticity follows the same pattern as a number of other topics
Well, exactly – this is why ordinary photos play an insignificant role in science: they’re a highly imprecise and generally insignificant source of useful scientific data that can easily be hoaxed/manipulated/misinterpreted/etc. Astronomers have managed to make good use of it only because they’ve developed highly sophisticated optical systems that are extremely expensive and bolted to huge pads of concrete. Smartphones and security cams and even commercial 35mm cameras are worthless by comparison, and that’s all we have to collect photographic data of UFOs. It’s like trying to study bullet dynamics with a stopwatch and a Polaroid – they’re simply the wrong tools for the job.

Hannah McRoberts - very, very interesting, and thanks. Hadn't seen that one.
That’s a fascinating case. By all indications it’s the real deal.

The outline overlay - also nicely done. Problem with me is, I see a truck mirror. That overlay could say 'look at the differences' or just as plausibly 'they are virtually identical' depending on what you might want to prove or disprove, and who you were trying to convince.
You have to look at this stuff scientifically. The Heflin photos are a perfect match to the train wheel, so that explanation is empirically proven. The Trent photos appear visually similar to a truck mirror, and maybe that’s what we’re seeing in those photos, but it hasn’t been proven, because it’s not a match. A general resemblance doesn’t prove anything. If it was a truck mirror, then why hasn’t anyone, ever, found a truck mirror that actually matches that object? That’s not too much to ask – there are a limited number of types of truck mirrors from that era, and there are lots of auto mechanics and body shops who would be familiar with them, so somebody should’ve been able to find an exact match without going to too much trouble. That never happened, so that explanation remains unproven.

There are also some very valid arguments against that explanation to consider. The truck mirrors from that era were steel, so they were heavy. So why don’t we see a sharp kink in the electrical line directly above that mirror, with the entire cable sagging under its weight? Why haven’t the skeptics taken a photo of a steel truck mirror suspended from that cable, or one with the same characteristics, to show that it could be done without bending the cable? And look at the clarity and contrast of all the objects in the yard – they’re all much sharper and clearer than the object in Photo 2. It looks like it’s further away, washed out with significant atmospheric haze, which indicates a substantial distance away from the camera. Why didn’t the skeptics take a photo of a similar kind of truck mirror hanging from the cable and show us how that’s possible with an object in the yard? All of this would’ve been very easy to do, to actually make their case, but they did none of it. All I see is shitty, lazy pseudoskepticism masquerading as a valid argument.

So we don’t actually know what’s in those photographs. Sure, it looks like some kind of truck mirror to me too. But that should be very easy to prove, if that’s true. And yet either nobody has bothered to make the effort, or they've made the effort and failed, so it remains unproven. And that’s maddening because a proper scientific effort would’ve settled it one way or the other. Instead, we’re left with two unproven hypotheses with people picking sides based on their own biases.

His approach to Sasquatch included a spotlight and a rifle. When asked what the first thing he'd do after taking a shot at a Bigfoot his comment was "reload." My kind of guy. His opinion was that only a corpse could settle the debate. Environmental DNA analysis may provide some evidence but I bet that for the foreseeable future that will be the case.
Honestly I tend to think that any humanoid creature that could evade us this well, for this long, appears to be in some very real sense more intelligent than we are, so we have zero right to murder one. That would be like murdering the neighborhood kid who’s been trespassing on your lawn to take a shortcut home, just to prove that he’s been cutting across your lawn. Morally despicable and in my mind, that's first-degree murder. If these creatures have the good sense to avoid all contact with humanity like the plague, then we have zero right to kill one just to satisfy the curiosity of a handful of people with an idle curiosity about them.

I love looking at UFO photos and videos and find some to be compelling but think that debating the authenticity of decades old photos is basically a tomato juice bath. Doesn't really change anything just give us something to do while we wait. And I think we'd need something truly stunning and public and readily understandable to everyone without lengthy explanation to significantly change the debate.
Okay but these are two completely different concepts: waiting, and getting the hard data to change the debate. We’ve been waiting for 70 years and the debate is still raging – so clearly just waiting around for the enigma to resolve itself is a losing strategy. Knowledge doesn’t just spontaneously fall out of trees – it has to be sought using the proper application of the scientific method.

What we need is a proper and rigorous scientific investigation; professional scientists in several disciplines, a research facility, and the deployment of all the various kinds of technology that we can devise to best capture the high-quality scientific evidence that we need to conduct a proper analysis of the subject, and write quality peer-reviewed papers about it. That’s how we’ve made huge headway in every other area of study. So that’s what we need to do here too.

Sadly, we are back to square one with videos & pictures. We have two categories; blurs, smudges, blobs, balls of light, streaks of light etc. OR we get sharp pictures showing a structured object that turn out to be hoaxes. I'm hoping for (but pretty much gave up on) seeing something similar to Meier's photo's but have them the real deal - and yeah, I know I sound like a broken record with that statement. I just hope I live long enough to find out the visitors exist & are real.
So you’re just going to ignore the excellent Vancouver Island photo that I posted for you here:

UFO Images

And the Nellis AFB video that I posted here:

UFO videos

You can’t rationally complain about an alleged dearth of photographic evidence if you’re deliberately choosing to focus on hoaxes like the Heflin case, while ignoring the best and most credible evidence that we have.

Besides, photos aren’t even the best form of evidence that we have: radar-visual cases are the best evidence. Because radar is actual empirical scientific data, like the particle tracks recorded at the Large Hadron Collider; it’s quality physical evidence. And visual confirmation eliminates those rare instances when a radar track is a systemic malfunction. So radar-visual cases are the most compelling scientific evidence possible, short of actually capturing one of these things (which is probably impossible given their vast technological superiority over our best military technologies).

This is why a powerful radar-visual case, the 1986 Japan Airlines case, went all the way to the Director of the FAA, and got the CIA and the FBI and the top management of the FAA so excited about the case. Here’s John Callahan, a Division Chief at the FAA at the time, explaining what happened in that case (and nevermind that this was posted by Greer’s dreadful organization – it’s the man and his testimony and his supporting evidence that matters):

 
Last edited:

Dejan Corovic

As above, so bellow
The Trent photos appear visually similar to a truck mirror, and maybe that’s what we’re seeing in those photos, but it hasn’t been proven, because it’s not a match.

Sceptics are stuck in their trenches out of pure spite. We should aim to make some progress, find some promissing line of research and stick to it, or start YT channel and spread the what you know, and possibly make some beer money you can feel proud about.

Trent case is one of the top ten UFO cases. I read a detailed report and first impressions from the guy who discovered the case. The owner and editor of the local newspaper, said about Trent family that (I appologise, it was very harsh) they were so stupid and backward, that not in 100 years they could have came up with such an elaborate hoax. Trents were poorest of the poor American farmers, surviving from one day to another in a tiny shuck at a time when small farms were gobled up by banks and forever wiped of the map. When reporter entered their hous, Trent wife had trouble finding polaroids becase some were thrown amongst their kids' toys and some photos were stuck in a pillow gap on a sofa. If Trents planned on getting rich from photos, they would take better care of them.


Honestly I tend to think that any humanoid creature that could evade us this well, for this long, appears to be in some very real sense more intelligent than we are, so we have zero right to murder one. That would be like murdering the neighborhood kid who’s been trespassing on your lawn to take a shortcut home, just to prove that he’s been cutting across your lawn.

100% agree with this one. One can not shoot susquatch. All evidence suggests that it is a hybrid between human and monkey, so at least half human, which should make it a criminal offence and call for capital punishment.
 
Last edited:

humanoidlord

ce3 researcher
I think they go back a lot further than that mate, can't seem to locate the Omar Fowler research at the mo but there's an excellent David Market presentation below.



Cheers

nick redfern made a article about this subject too, where he showed a black triangle sighting from 1963 wich was virtually identical to modern ones
 

1963

Noble
I think they go back a lot further than that mate, can't seem to locate the Omar Fowler research at the mo but there's an excellent David Market presentation below.



Cheers


Excellent video Karl. :Thumbsup: ... This guy is well worth the listening.
As to the earliest Triangular UFO's,... well who knows? But I remember seeing quite a number of historical mentions of TC's when reading through blogs by people such as yourself, Soul Drifter , Albert Rosales etc. Not to mention the 'bigger cases' in which the shape of the UFO seems to be peripheral to the weight of the encounter itself. eg... The first craft witnessed in the eminently famous "Operation Mainbrace" case of 1952 ...
Naval personnel aboard several ships in the Atlantic filed reports about a large, blue/green triangle-shaped UFO flying low, at a speed of approximately 1,500 mph.
And the very famous "Lubbock Lights" case in which the UFO's were witnessed by masses of people over a period of 'weeks' in 1951 [not the ordinary fleeting glance eh!] before disappearing into the history books. They were first sighted on August 25 in Lubbock by a group of scientists that were hanging out in a colleagues backyard one evening. And for a sample from Ed Ruppelt's book 'The Report On UFO's' , ..among the myriad of eye witness testimony is this one from an outspoken rancher and his wife...
described it as “an aeroplane without a body” that had wings covered in glowing blue lights
but what makes this already fascinating case even more awesome is the often maligned photos taken by Carl Hart, Jr are still to be debunked 67 years later. ... By the way, Hart describes the UFO as being "something like a group of 18-20 white lights in a "v" formation" and the scientists described it as "20-30 lights flown in a "u" formation" which may indeed rule out a TC, but the rancher and his wife's description of "aeroplane without a body that had wings covered in glowing blue lights" and the photos themselves to my mind make this a good possibility of being a large triangular UFO similar to the one described in the 'Stephenville or Phoenix Cases' ...
image-placeholder-title.jpg


And there is many ancient reports of 'other-than-circular-UFO's' that can easily be interpreted as being of the triangular UFO kind, the oldest of which [that I know about] is recorded by Plutarch of the incident in which a great battle between " Lucullus and Mithridates VI of Pontus was interrupted by a wine-jar [pithos] shaped silvery object
it was most like a wine-jar, and in colour, like molten silver.
came between the two armies.

so, no the Belgian wave of triangular UFO's weren't the first time that Triangular UFO's have been reported Rick.

... ps, is this the Omar Fowler link that you referred to Karl?
file:///C:/Users/cunli/Desktop/Flying%20Triangle%20Mystery%20-%20Omar%20Fowler.pdf

file:///C:/Users/cunli/AppData/Local/Microsoft/Windows/INetCache/IE/1VJ7L33Q/Flying%20Triangle%20Mystery%20-%20Omar%20Fowler.pdf


Cheers Buddy.
 
Last edited:

Creepy Green Light

Don't mistake lack of talent for genius
Well, exactly – this is why ordinary photos play an insignificant role in science: they’re a highly imprecise and generally insignificant source of useful scientific data that can easily be hoaxed/manipulated/misinterpreted/etc. Astronomers have managed to make good use of it only because they’ve developed highly sophisticated optical systems that are extremely expensive and bolted to huge pads of concrete. Smartphones and security cams and even commercial 35mm cameras are worthless by comparison, and that’s all we have to collect photographic data of UFOs. It’s like trying to study bullet dynamics with a stopwatch and a Polaroid – they’re simply the wrong tools for the job.


That’s a fascinating case. By all indications it’s the real deal.


You have to look at this stuff scientifically. The Heflin photos are a perfect match to the train wheel, so that explanation is empirically proven. The Trent photos appear visually similar to a truck mirror, and maybe that’s what we’re seeing in those photos, but it hasn’t been proven, because it’s not a match. A general resemblance doesn’t prove anything. If it was a truck mirror, then why hasn’t anyone, ever, found a truck mirror that actually matches that object? That’s not too much to ask – there are a limited number of types of truck mirrors from that era, and there are lots of auto mechanics and body shops who would be familiar with them, so somebody should’ve been able to find an exact match without going to too much trouble. That never happened, so that explanation remains unproven.

There are also some very valid arguments against that explanation to consider. The truck mirrors from that era were steel, so they were heavy. So why don’t we see a sharp kink in the electrical line directly above that mirror, with the entire cable sagging under its weight? Why haven’t the skeptics taken a photo of a steel truck mirror suspended from that cable, or one with the same characteristics, to show that it could be done without bending the cable? And look at the clarity and contrast of all the objects in the yard – they’re all much sharper and clearer than the object in Photo 2. It looks like it’s further away, washed out with significant atmospheric haze, which indicates a substantial distance away from the camera. Why didn’t the skeptics take a photo of a similar kind of truck mirror hanging from the cable and show us how that’s possible with an object in the yard? All of this would’ve been very easy to do, to actually make their case, but they did none of it. All I see is shitty, lazy pseudoskepticism masquerading as a valid argument.

So we don’t actually know what’s in those photographs. Sure, it looks like some kind of truck mirror to me too. But that should be very easy to prove, if that’s true. And yet either nobody has bothered to make the effort, or they've made the effort and failed, so it remains unproven. And that’s maddening because a proper scientific effort would’ve settled it one way or the other. Instead, we’re left with two unproven hypotheses with people picking sides based on their own biases.


Honestly I tend to think that any humanoid creature that could evade us this well, for this long, appears to be in some very real sense more intelligent than we are, so we have zero right to murder one. That would be like murdering the neighborhood kid who’s been trespassing on your lawn to take a shortcut home, just to prove that he’s been cutting across your lawn. Morally despicable and in my mind, that's first-degree murder. If these creatures have the good sense to avoid all contact with humanity like the plague, then we have zero right to kill one just to satisfy the curiosity of a handful of people with an idle curiosity about them.


Okay but these are two completely different concepts: waiting, and getting the hard data to change the debate. We’ve been waiting for 70 years and the debate is still raging – so clearly just waiting around for the enigma to resolve itself is a losing strategy. Knowledge doesn’t just spontaneously fall out of trees – it has to be sought using the proper application of the scientific method.

What we need is a proper and rigorous scientific investigation; professional scientists in several disciplines, a research facility, and the deployment of all the various kinds of technology that we can devise to best capture the high-quality scientific evidence that we need to conduct a proper analysis of the subject, and write quality peer-reviewed papers about it. That’s how we’ve made huge headway in every other area of study. So that’s what we need to do here too.


So you’re just going to ignore the excellent Vancouver Island photo that I posted for you here:

UFO Images

And the Nellis AFB video that I posted here:

UFO videos

You can’t rationally complain about an alleged dearth of photographic evidence if you’re deliberately choosing to focus on hoaxes like the Heflin case, while ignoring the best and most credible evidence that we have.

Besides, photos aren’t even the best form of evidence that we have: radar-visual cases are the best evidence. Because radar is actual empirical scientific data, like the particle tracks recorded at the Large Hadron Collider; it’s quality physical evidence. And visual confirmation eliminates those rare instances when a radar track is a systemic malfunction. So radar-visual cases are the most compelling scientific evidence possible, short of actually capturing one of these things (which is probably impossible given their vast technological superiority over our best military technologies).

This is why a powerful radar-visual case, the 1986 Japan Airlines case, went all the way to the Director of the FAA, and got the CIA and the FBI and the top management of the FAA so excited about the case. Here’s John Callahan, a Division Chief at the FAA at the time, explaining what happened in that case (and nevermind that this was posted by Greer’s dreadful organization – it’s the man and his testimony and his supporting evidence that matters):


The JAL case is another bogus case IMO.
 

Creepy Green Light

Don't mistake lack of talent for genius
Yes, he’s referring to the Trent McMinnville photos.

Brad Sparks also very adeptly analyzed the faux-scientific IPACO report on the McMinnville case and dismantled it completely. I’ll post his lengthy and rigorous analysis of their 2013 document below, because it merits repeating.

This doesn’t prove that the case wasn’t a hoax – it simply proves that if it was a hoax, the IPACO document failed to prove it, and it is in fact a completely worthless document.

This is representative of what I’ve said before: just because somebody or another has claimed to debunk every widely popularized UFO photo ever provided to the public, that doesn’t mean that they actually did so. Because it’s one thing to say that anything photographed “could have been” a hub cap or a rearview mirror or whatever at close range to the camera (which you can say about any photograph of anything) – it’s another thing entirely to actually prove that argument. And the burden of proof in on the claimant. So when they fail to do that, their argument is void.

But first let’s look at the photo comparison that you offered:

View attachment 4734

I printed each image at a best-fit scale and then drew a clean silhouette of each object so we could compare them in overlay – here’s what I found:

View attachment 4730 View attachment 4731 View attachment 4732

There’s no doubt about it: those aren’t the same object. The flat area on the left-hand side is 1.73 times larger in the Trent UFO image than the same flat region on the mirror. And you can clearly see that the curvature doesn’t match; the UFO image has a steep and flat conical rise to the flat plane on the left-hand side, whereas the mirror arcs gently and spherically in that same region. And the placement and size and shape of the mirror’s mounting post is drastically different than the protrusion we see on the object in the photo.

The object in the photo might have been a rearview mirror, but it’s definitely not that rearview mirror. So that explanation fails.

Here’s what Brad Sparks had to say about the IPACO analysis:


From: Brad Sparks
Date: Mon, 19 Aug 2013 06:56:32 -0400 (EDT)

The IPACO Debunkers Attack the Trent Photos (McMinnville, Oregon, May 11, 1950)
<AOL - login>
The IPACO team has jerry-rigged its case and cherry-picked its figures to coincide with its convenient but grossly contradictory hoax model. Contradictory modeling is IPACO's number one fault violating the laws of physics, optics and geometry -- and they do claim to use "mathematics and physics" (p. 3). They have thrown together so many simplistic "simplifications" (p. 11) or bald assumptions to streamline and "clarify" the case that their patchwork of questionable parameters hide gross errors. They conveniently assert that these self-serving simplifications "do not impact significantly upon the results" (p. 11).

This points up the fundamental error in their overall methodology: Instead of creating a comprehensive and integrated computer 3-D reconstruction model of the Trent backyard site and postulated objects where every adjustment of a parameter is automatically adjusted throughout the reconstruction, they have created a patch-work "tool" that allows gross errors to creep in and get taken advantage of in order to debunk the UFO case.

For those needing a refresher on the famous McMinnville photo case read my summary below, or else skip to the next section.

CASE SUMMARY (from BB Unknowns Catalog) May 11, 1950. 8 miles SW of McMinnville, Oregon (UFO at 45.1043° N, 123.3335° W). 7:20 p.m. (PST). Evelyn Trent was feeding the rabbits in her backyard just before sunset when she spotted an object to the N in the distance and called out to her husband Paul Trent, who was in the house at the back door, asking him to retrieve their camera. She went into the garage to look for the camera but Paul found it in the house, ran out into the yard toward where his wife had been standing, then he saw the rapidly approaching large metallic object to the N heading almost directly towards them, tipped up its flat underside towards them, felt a gust of wind seemingly from the object, snapped a photo of the object at azimuth 335° (about NNW) elevation 14°, angular size 1.67°. Paul Trent was at 45.1007° N, 123.3335° W, in his back yard between the house and garage. Then as the object turned on a W heading he walked 5 ft to his right to compensate for object's motion to the left, snapped a 2nd photo about 30 secs after the 1st, which shows a metallic pie-pan shaped object 1.46° angular size with a large off-center tilted antenna or pole projecting from the top, at azimuth ~317.5° (about NW) 12° elevation. Evelyn had joined Paul by the time he started taking pictures and later described the arc covered between photos as about 15° (close to actual figure ~17.5°). Distance and size of object estimated by the witnesses as about 1/4 mile distance and 20-30 ft diameter, or "parachute-sized" (about 24-28 ft), which size/distance figures translate to a maximum angular size 1.3° (close to the photographically measured 1.46°-1.67°). AF Colorado Project and Bruce Maccabee estimated distance about 1 mile and object diameter about 100 ft but methodology is mistakenly based on excess brightness of what was supposed to be dark shadow of the bottom of the object (in fact the bottom was not in shadow but caught bright near-sun sunset sky illumination at near grazing angle 2° off of direct sunlight). Several other witnesses reportedly saw the object. (Sparks; Condon Report pp. 396-407; Bruce Maccabee; Hynek UFO Rpt pp. 244-5; etc.) Duration 2-3 mins



The Fatal Flaw -- The Dilemma of the 5-inch Hoax Model versus the 6-inch Model

The IPACO debunkers never consistently follow through on a numerical result throughout the rest of their analysis to see if it fits and is physically consistent. They cannot make up their collective minds whether the UFO hoax model is 0.4 ft or 0.5 ft (about 5 inches or 6 inches). It cannot be both! It is a crucially important parameter and it is based on the most accurately determined parameters in all of the two photos, namely the angular diameters of the UFO's base (1.67° and 1.46° in Photos 1 and 2, respectively). If the hoax object was 5 inches in diameter then the closest distance to camera, which is in Photo 1, must be about 14 ft according to the geometry of the angular size (angular size is roughly the size-to-distance ratio). This is mathematically locked and cannot be fudged or adjusted or obscured -- as IPACO attempts to do. (I will call these debunkers collectively as "IPACO," and in the singular or the plural regardless of grammar, for ease of reference.)

TECH NOTE: Angular size is approximately the size to distance ratio, as I mentioned above. That means the object -- no matter what it is whether a pie tin, a UFO or a planet in space -- must exactly fit mathematical laws of geometry. If it is 1.67° is angular size then it must be exactly 34.3 times farther away than its size (1 / [2 tan 1.67°/2]).(to the three-digit precision I am using). If it is 1 ft in size then it must be exactly 34.3 feet in distance. If 1/2 foot in size then its distance must be ~17.15 feet. These are exact mathematical rules and cannot be broken at the whim of those who find it inconvenient. Similarly, in Photo 2 the angular size is 1.46° and hence the distance must be 39.2 times its size. If 1/2 foot in size then the distance must be exactly 19.6 feet.


Since the wire that IPACO claims the hoax object was hung from (by a thread) was about 14 feet from Trent's camera (p. 9) the 14-foot distance set by the 5-inch diameter of the hoax model would seem to fit just about perfectly. So why do they bother to keep bringing up the 0.5 ft (6-inch) figure for the UFO hoax object when that would result in distances of about 17 feet and 20 feet?

The reason is that the UFO increases distance from the first to the second photo by a very exactly determined amount of about 14%, established mathematically by the object becoming smaller in apparent (angular) size. IPACO points out that that would mean the hoax model had to increase in distance 2 ft, going from 14 ft (where the wire was located) to a distance of 16 ft in the second photo. But the height of the wire above the object, and thus the approximate length of the alleged suspension thread, is only about 2 feet.

This 2 foot distance increase is about the same as the purported length of the 2 ft pendulum thread! If the alleged hoax model was "swaying" on a pendulum thread it would have to swing so violently that the model would be suspended horizontally and away from Trent's camera in Photo 2. Imagine if you were swinging in a children's swing and you managed to get as high as the bar holding up the swing! It would be very unstable from a dynamic physics standpoint and a geometrically impossible position because the UFO model would also be about 2 feet higher above the ground too and it is manifestly not. (The angular space between the UFO and the wire above, which are supposed to be about the length of the suspension thread, are about 9° to 8° in the two photos but this 2 foot swing away would reduce the spacing to about 0° in the second pic and it obviously is not! See IPACO p. 8 for diagrams and angular figures.)

This is why IPACO fudges the numbers throughout by injecting the 6-inch hoax object diameter where it does not belong, since it increases the scale of dimensions and thus the length of the suspension thread to almost 3 feet. A 2 ft swing backwards on a 3 ft long thread is not so enormous and violent. IPACO insists throughout that there was only gentle "swaying" of the hoax object in a "light wind."
But IPACO can't have it both ways! The UFO model can't be 5 inches in diameter for some situations and 6 inches for others!

So why doesn't IPACO just stick with a 6-inch diameter for the UFO model and use that throughout? Because it would run into the same problem of a 3-foot thread swinging backwards by about 3 feet and worst of all, it would be 3 to 6 feet away from the wire it is supposed to be hanging from! (The wire at about 14 feet and the 6-inch object at about 17-20 feet.) Obviously it cannot possibly be 6 feet away while connected with a 3-foot thread! Maybe the hoax model was capable of sustained flight -- like a UFO!

So why doesn't IPACO get rid of the 6-inch diameter figure altogether? Because they need to slip it in whenever there is a problem with the 5-inch model swinging too wide and high, and they just obfuscate the more severe problems with the 6-inch model by not running through all the logical consequences of that bigger size.

Here is a classic example of IPACO obfuscation where they mix inconsistent numbers from the 5-inch model with the numbers from the 6-inch model in their General Conclusions:

Revised IPACO Report, June 2013 (released Aug 2013, p. 23, emphasis added):

"Explanation 1
"The UFO is a model hanging ca. 3 ft under the lower power wire, at a distance of ca. 14 ft from the camera.
"Its size (diameter of its circular base) is ca. 0.5 ft.....
"Between both shots, its distance from the camera increases by 2 ft."
The 3 ft and 0.5 ft (6-inch) figures belong to the 6 inch model's parameters, of course. The 14 ft and 2 ft figures only apply to the 5-inch diameter object. IPACO has slyly mixed inconsistent numbers from two different scenarios and size scales.

TECH NOTE: If as stated it was really a 6-inch diameter (0.5 ft), then the distances from camera would be 17 to 20 ft not 14 feet and the increase in distance (from 17 to 20 ft) would of course be 3 ft not 2 ft. (20 - 17 = 3 ft.)


IPACO is caught on the horns of a dilemma. A 5-inch would have to swing up too high and too violently and it simply is not seen in that position in the photographs. A 6-inch model would be much too far away, so far away that it would not even be connected to the thread!

Could the violent swing be reduced to more manageable and viable proportions by splitting the total swing between a swing towards the camera in Photo 1 and a swing away in Photo 2 -- as IPACO seems to obscurely be reaching for at one point in their almost unintelligible discourse (p. 11)? No, because the 5-inch model would be at about the same distance as the overhead wire, 14 ft, in Photo 1, and thus hanging directly below the wire not swung towards the camera.


IPACO Claims to Discover a "Thread" in the McMinnville Photos -- But it would be Nearly 1 Inch Thick!

The IPACO debunkers claim to have discovered something -- a purported thread above the UFO -- that no one else has been able to see in 63 years, including high-tech image processing by the Jet Propulsion Lab director Robert Nathan, by Bruce Maccabee and others, that never found a thing. Naturally, IPACO did not conduct a control study to see if this was just noise in the film or photoanalysis. They checked only 60° or 1/6th of a full 360° circle. They did not check underneath the UFO -- because obviously they know it's a hoax and so it cannot be something absurd like a thread below the object. But that's how one makes scientific checks. If an absurd result emerges then it tells you the analysis is wrong. I can already see other "threads" in their data, which would make nonsense of their findings.

But worst of all, the purported IPACO "thread" -- which cannot be seen visually -- would be almost 1 inch in thickness (using the half-value width as a rough thread width; it is about 0.2° in angular width or about 1/7 or 1/8 of the width of the supposedly 5 or 6-inch object). What kind of "thread" is that and why wouldn't a 1-inch thick line -- more like a rope or heavy cord -- not be painfully obvious in the photos?


Another Typical Example of Error in IPACO Assumptions -- The Two Power Wires are Not Vertically Stacked

IPACO's assumptions from the very start are in error. Early in their report they say:

Revised IPACO Report, June 2013 (released Aug 2013, p. 5, emphasis added except bold-only is in original):

"In the first steps of the analysis, we concentrated on the following elements of the scene:
The UFO, localized in space by the center of its base, which is assumed to be nearly circular (seen as nearly an ellipse from the camera),
The two power wires above the UFO, assumed to be motionless.
"It was possible to check, from the already mentioned detailed map of the site established by Maccabee, and from a picture published in Condon report™s Plate 25 (Hartmann 1967), that these two power wires were one above the other (i.e. in the same vertical plane). Therefore, if the UFO is effectively a model, it should logically be hanging from the lower power wire."


The two wires in fact are not vertical except at the back of the house. LIFE magazine photographer Loomis Dean visited the Trents and took dozens of photos in mid-June 1950. Dean's photos show that the two wires twist in the air gradually to attach almost horizontally (not vertically) to the roof edge of the garage at the south end. The lower wire is attached about a foot down and east from the peak of the garage roof where the top wire is attached. That means that in the middle of the gap between the house and the garage the wires are not situated directly above each other in a "vertical plane" but are rotated and offset by roughly 30° from vertical. That makes the lower wire closer to the camera and still more distant from the sighting line crossing point, and thus makes a hoax model even more difficult. You can even see in Condon project astronomer William Hartmann's photo of the backyard that the two wires immediately narrow as you follow them from the house into the space to the garage, which space is where the UFO was photographed.


Debunker "Science" -- Confusing Thermal Physics with Optical Physics

These French debunkers have incomprehensibly asserted that the UFO and wires are "black bodies" to which they apply "radiometry" -- which is the science of measurement of heat. They claim to derive an estimate of distance from this. They apparently have no idea what they are talking about. Yeah, the Trent farm and nearby objects are "black bodies" but at around room temperature emitting heat in the far infrared (about 9,000 nm) invisible to the eye and invisible to the ordinary camera and thus unseen on visible-light optical photographs (visible light is about 300 to 700 nm wavelength). Visible light "radiometry" would be at about the temperature of the sun ~ 5,000° C and a camera is not a radiometer! They have confused photometry (light measurements) with radiometry (heat measurements from black body heat radiation, thermal emissions).

But this goes far beyond a simple confusion of terminology since they repeatedly invoke "black body" radiation (p. 17; see original IPACO March 2013 report, pp. 19, 23 "behaved approximately like a black body," etc.) as somehow involved in reflection and absorption of light (not infrared) at roughly room temperatures and that they are able to determine "distances from the camera" because, you see, "a lower radiometry roughly corresponds to a lower distance from the camera" (p. 17)!!! No it doesn't!

Revised IPACO Report, June 2013 (released Aug 2013, emphasis added):

"If we assume that these elements are dark enough to be considered as sort of black bodies (i.e absorbing all the light they receive), we may compare their respective radiometric levels and infer a classification of their respective distances from the camera: a lower radiometry roughly corresponds to a lower distance from the camera.


This must be on the order of saying "if I like the object it must be closer to me and the more I like it, the closer it is!!" ROTFL. (Normally if there is a lower radiometric power received from an object -- less heat radiation -- it indicates a greater distance not a "lower distance," but hey this is trying to make some sense out of nonsense, to extract the science from pseudoscience.)

IPACO's "physics" is very much like that of William Spaulding who used to announce that he could determine the "thickness" in feet or inches of the UFO in a photograph, using "computer analysis." He confused x-rays with visible light photos. X-rays are beamed through objects and can be used to determine the linear thickness of an object, in feet or meters. But visible light photos involve light reflecting or scattering off the surface and thus cannot possibly determine the thickness of the object below the surface.

Remember, IFO's must obey the laws of physics. Unfortunately, debunkers don't care about whether their hoax or IFO scenarios grossly violate the laws of physics -- that's a problem for someone else to solve, if anyone still cares after they succeed in destroying the hated UFO case.

Brad Sparks

Source: UFO Report
BTW - that was terrific work you did with comparing the truck mirror to the Trent photo. In my mind, it proves even further that Trent photographed a truck mirror suspended from a wire. And we never said it was the exact same mirror. To me, it's like overlaying a Chevy pickup truck with a Ford pickup truck. Yes there are minor differences, but anybody can tell they are both a pickup truck with 4 wheels, a cab & a bed. Same with the Trent photos.
 
Top