Creepy Green Light
Don't mistake lack of talent for genius
Ok then - you think it's a flying saucer. That answered my question
Yep. There's a world of difference between "it could be" and "it is."
If you're willing to settle for weak approximate arguments like "it could be," then you'll accept any shitty unproven hypothesis that some jagoff can dream up from his recliner; "it was sorta egg-shaped, so it must be a pic of an egg hanging from a fishing line," "it was kinda shaped like a pie plate, so it must be a pie plate thrown into the air," or "it coulda been a model that some guy made, so it must be a model that some guy made." It never ends - with that mentality you can dismiss anything. And that's the whole point - to so completely cripple the public's capacity for analytical reasoning, that nobody will believe it when somebody catches a photo of a field propulsion device flying overhead.
I don't know what's in the McMinnville photos. But until somebody can show me how you can hang a steel rearview mirror from a thin electrical cable without making a kink in it, and show me how an object a few feet in front of the camera can appear to be an object at a significant distance through a hazy atmosphere, and ideally show me a rearview mirror that actually matches the profile of the object in those photos, then it would be foolish and intellectually dishonest of me to claim that I know what that object is, one way or the other.
Last edited:
pigfarmer
tall, thin, irritable
Yep. There's a world of difference between "it could be" and "it is."
If you're willing to settle for weak approximate arguments like "it could be," then you'll accept any shitty unproven hypothesis that some jagoff can dream up from his recliner; "it was sorta egg-shaped, so it must be a pic of an egg hanging from a fishing line," "it was kinda shaped like a pie plate, so it must be a pie plate thrown into the air," or "it coulda been a model that some guy made, so it must be a model that some guy made." It never ends - with that mentality you can dismiss anything. And that's the whole point - to so completely cripple the public's capacity for analytical reasoning, that nobody will believe it when somebody catches a photo of a field propulsion device flying overhead.
I don't know what's in the McMinnville photos. But until somebody can show me how you can hang a steel rearview mirror from a thin electrical cable without making a kink in it, and show me how an object a few feet in front of the camera can appear to be an object at a significant distance through a hazy atmosphere, and ideally show me a rearview mirror that actually matches the profile of the object in those photos, then it would be foolish and intellectually dishonest of me to claim that I know what that object is, one way or the other.
My, my, my. Thinly veiled; this apparently is a sore spot. Shitty uproven jagoff hypothesis.
Of course it's a picture of a field propulsion AAV - naturally the first thing that comes to mind and the most probable explanation. Couldn't possibly be anything else, and it has to be a truck mirror on a wire so I'll immediately begin my research in the Master Truck Mirror Database. Because it also couldn't be some other mirror or mundane object that's been thrown - because nobody ever did that to fake one of these. No doubt there is a technical aspect to the picture that my knuckles are dragging too far behind to grasp.
For all I know the people were 100% honest and so is the picture - but you can't tell shit from looking at it. It's just a point of contention and another entry in the WTF file.
Jesus. Paranoid much? My response to nivek had nothing to do with you. And you're also grossly mischaracterizing my statements about this. Apparently you completely missed the part where I very clearly stated: "I don't know what's in the McMinnville photos." I meant it; I don't know.
My problem isn't with the hypothesis itself; my problem with it is that nobody in the span of many decades has bothered to fashion a proper argument to support that hypothesis, so it remains totally worthless supposition. How hard is it to hang an old rearview mirror from an electrical cable with some fishing line, to see if it can be done without making a kink in the cable? How hard can it be to take a few snapshots on a misty day to see if the atmospheric haze effect that we see in that photo could be a product of surface reflectivity or other factors...while keeping all of the other objects at the same planar distance from the camera in sharp clarity and hard contrast? How hard would it have been to show that image to some body shop people to see if they recognized it as a rearview mirror of some make/model of vehicle? None of that was done. That's the problem. Lazy pseudoskeptics dreaming up easy speculative explanations, without doing a whiff of the work that it takes to actually prove them.
So we're left with nothing to formulate a reasonable and impartial assessment.
humanoidlord
ce3 researcher
i have to agree with CGL on this one, its way too similar to a truck mirror to not be one, the smoking gun is the slant, if it din't exist, maybe i would give the UFO theory some credence
humanoidlord
ce3 researcher
and even if its a real picture of a UFO, so what? you can't see any evidence of propulsion, not even a gravitational lens distortion around it,hell, there isn't even a cockpit where you can see a chair, like in the real canada pictureYep. There's a world of difference between "it could be" and "it is."
If you're willing to settle for weak approximate arguments like "it could be," then you'll accept any shitty unproven hypothesis that some jagoff can dream up from his recliner; "it was sorta egg-shaped, so it must be a pic of an egg hanging from a fishing line," "it was kinda shaped like a pie plate, so it must be a pie plate thrown into the air," or "it coulda been a model that some guy made, so it must be a model that some guy made." It never ends - with that mentality you can dismiss anything. And that's the whole point - to so completely cripple the public's capacity for analytical reasoning, that nobody will believe it when somebody catches a photo of a field propulsion device flying overhead.
I don't know what's in the McMinnville photos. But until somebody can show me how you can hang a steel rearview mirror from a thin electrical cable without making a kink in it, and show me how an object a few feet in front of the camera can appear to be an object at a significant distance through a hazy atmosphere, and ideally show me a rearview mirror that actually matches the profile of the object in those photos, then it would be foolish and intellectually dishonest of me to claim that I know what that object is, one way or the other.
and if we combine the 2 trent pictures we can see clearly that it appears to be swaying, like if it was attached to something....
the "foggyness" of the object can easily be explained by the fact that it was a higly reflective object and its reflecting the grey sky around it
i can't explain the non-existence of a kink in the wire, but one point to the UFO theory and various points to the truck mirror theory, who do you think wins?
Creepy Green Light
Don't mistake lack of talent for genius
Then low & behold - with that train of thought - the Trent's should win an award & be on the cover of every magazine & news service there is as the only person in the history of planet Earth to capture a picture of a real flying saucer/alien craft - whatever you want to call. But everyone should ignore the fact that it happens to look just like a truck mirror - and a truck mirror from that time period. It's not like it looks like a truck mirror from a 2017 Ford F-250. And since every other structured flying saucer photo known has been a proven fake - what are we to think about Trent's photos? He's the one guy in the history of time to pull off what nobody can do today, when everybody has a camera in their pocket. If you had to wager $$$ on either it's 1) an alien space craft from another world or 2) it's a fake - I think common sense would say you wager on fake. Again, the trace drawing/computer work that Mr. Morrison provided further solidifies in my mind its a mirror. The final nail in the coffin should be the mast that is listed. One would think if someone realizes that Heflin's UFO is a train wheel after seeing a side by side - that one would have to agree that Trent's photos is that of a truck mirror. And the same argument of "there is no way to hang a truck mirror without causing a kink in the line" is the same mentality when "experts" said "there is no way that a human could bend cornstalks this certain way - it's impossible (crop circles), blah blah etc. etc." Then meanwhile.....its two guys and a plank of wood with rope attached. Just like the "experts" said (many years ago) how Meier's photos & videos would be impossible to fake. The argument of "You show me how a guy with one arm missing would be able to operate a camera while also staging a model UFO to film & photograph. Impossible!" Meanwhile, that's exactly what he did - operate a camera with one arm while also using model UFO's with wire. I am just blown away that someone could look at Trent's photos & then the truck mirror & have their brain not make the connection. And even IF someone found the exact truck mirror - Trent' supporters would still say it's a coincidence that the aliens flying saucer happens to be the exact shape as a truck mirror. The argument would still go on & on.Yep. There's a world of difference between "it could be" and "it is."
If you're willing to settle for weak approximate arguments like "it could be," then you'll accept any shitty unproven hypothesis that some jagoff can dream up from his recliner; "it was sorta egg-shaped, so it must be a pic of an egg hanging from a fishing line," "it was kinda shaped like a pie plate, so it must be a pie plate thrown into the air," or "it coulda been a model that some guy made, so it must be a model that some guy made." It never ends - with that mentality you can dismiss anything. And that's the whole point - to so completely cripple the public's capacity for analytical reasoning, that nobody will believe it when somebody catches a photo of a field propulsion device flying overhead.
I don't know what's in the McMinnville photos. But until somebody can show me how you can hang a steel rearview mirror from a thin electrical cable without making a kink in it, and show me how an object a few feet in front of the camera can appear to be an object at a significant distance through a hazy atmosphere, and ideally show me a rearview mirror that actually matches the profile of the object in those photos, then it would be foolish and intellectually dishonest of me to claim that I know what that object is, one way or the other.
pigfarmer
tall, thin, irritable
Been staring at the Trent pics to kill time on a train. In the edge-on one you can see that it's intergalactic communicator antenna/deflector array doesn't appear to be perpendicular to the body. Maybe it's on a ball socket like a mirror would be also. Practical engineers those Zeta Reticulans.
Also, stand to the right and behind the camera and chuck the 'mundane object likely to be found on a farm in 1950' and then look at the two photos. Or consider someone behind the shed doing that in the opposite direction. I used to do stuff like that with my friend when I was a little kid with a 110 camera. I'll post them if I can find any. If it were above 10 degrees outside I might try to duplicate it. I admit if they just chucked something and snapped two pics they got very lucky with that result.
Wonder why they waited to have the film developed? My family was a bunch of rural farmers just like that and believe me, rural practicality fully factored in, if someone thought they caught a real flying saucer on film they would have had it developed and not waited to finish the roll.
Do you have a learning disability? I don’t want be unduly hard on you if you suffer from a medical condition, which appears to be the case. Because my post which you just quoted right in front of your eyes closes with:
In fact I’ve repeatedly and consistently stated in clear and simple terms that there’s insufficient data to perform a decisive assessment, so it might be a truck mirror, and it might not be a truck mirror. At this point there are credible arguments both for and against that hypothesis.
We’ve already been over this. If it’s a truck mirror, as you claim, then the burden of proof is on you to show us a truck mirror that matches that silhouette. You haven’t done that. So you’ve failed to meet the burden of proof. Simple.
“It looks like” aka “”it resembles,” proves nothing. You’re mistaking a somewhat plausible hypothesis for a proven fact. If you want to offer something more substantial than a “somewhat plausible hypothesis,” then go hang a 50’s era chrome-plated steel truck mirror from a thin power cable like that, and see if you can do it without making an obvious sag/kink in it. Then post a pic to prove it. Easy. Until you do that, all you have is a supposition, i.e. “suppose that there’s a truck mirror that looks like that.” Suppositions are worthless, because I could just as easily say “suppose that there isn’t a truck mirror which looks like that.” Both are equally valid suppositions – which is to say, both suppositions are equally worthless without evidence either way.
And the burden of proof is on the claimant, viz, “that’s a truck mirror.” It’s not my job to try to prove a negative “that’s not a truck mirror.” Because all you have to do is identify one truck mirror that matches the photo. On the other hand I would have to catalog every single side view mirror ever made up to that point in time, and rule them all out, and even then there’s always a possibility that I missed one – that’s why proving a negative is out of bounds.
Lying doesn’t help your case.
You’ve repeatedly ignored the following examples, apparently because you’ve surrendered your intellectual autonomy to the dumb, lazy, arrogant pseudoskeptics like Robert Sheaffer and his ilk – it's evident to me now that you refuse to respond to these examples that I’ve provided because those people haven’t told you what to think about them, so you have no response to:
So you’re just going to ignore the excellent Vancouver Island photo that I posted for you here:
And the Nellis AFB video that I posted here:
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.
Logical reasoning doesn’t work like that. “Common sense” is and always has been a disastrously unreliable gauge of reality. People thought it was “common sense” that the Sun orbited the Earth, and that snakes were spontaneously generated by rotting logs. So we came up with the empirical method, and that’s been vastly more successful than opinion or public consensus or frivolous wagers. If you (or anyone) could replicate those photos using a truck mirror hanging from power lines like that, then you’d have an actual empirical case to argue.
But until you do that, all you have is your belief. And a belief can be accurately defined as “something that one holds to be true without knowing it to be true.” That’s why religious thinking is so irrational and dangerous: belief is ignorance masquerading as knowledge. A rational mind holds no beliefs, because in truth, there is only that which we know, and that which we don’t know. We don’t know what’s in those photographs, but you’ve chosen to “believe” that it’s a truck mirror…with no empirical evidence that it is a truck mirror. It remains only one plausible but unproven possibility.
There are actually two forms of zealots: the believers and the disbelievers. Both groups exist by lying to themselves and others, by presenting unknowns as knowns. The Trent photos remain unknowns.
That’s a form of self-delusion, driven by your own personal cognitive bias. Like I said before, if the object in the photos resembled a plate, or a tea cup saucer, or a pie pan, then the lazy, empty-headed pseudoskeptics would say “that’s what it is.” "A passing resemblance” isn’t a credible argument. Unlike the Heflin photos, which are a perfect match to a model train wheel. If you can’t see that critical distinction then your logic is faulty.
Imagine if the burden of proof in a court of law was simply "a passing resemblance" - then it would be fine to imprison somebody for a crime they didn't commit because they had a passing resemblance to the perpetrator. Madness.
And yet you (or anyone) have failed to show us a matching truck mirror - the post on the mirror you showed us was perfectly centered, longer, and surrounded by a lip where it joined the mirror; there are more differences than similarities. So you’re deluding yourself into assuming that a matching mirror exists - you don't know that, and neither do I. Without any evidence that such a thing exists, your conclusion is based only on your bias…not evidence. So it’s merely speculation. If you could produce an image of a truck mirror that matched that image, then this would be a completely different discussion.
Do you even read the replies to you? The difference between “an exact match” and “a vague resemblance” is pivotal. The two aren’t equivalent, but you keep equating them. Stop doing that; it’s irrational and intellectually dishonest. Each case has to be evaluated on its own merits: one fake image doesn't make all images fakes, obviously. In fact 10,000 fake images doesn't make all images fakes. If even a single UFO image isn't a fake/glitch/optical anomaly, then that means that nonhuman technology has been photographed in our airspace. The importance of such a finding is far too great to dismiss all UFO images as fakes without offering a compelling empirical argument, which you've failed to provide here.
No you’re making another false equivalency which is a formal logical fallacy. We’ve been over this. I didn’t say it’s impossible to hang a steel truck mirror from a thin electrical cable without making a kink or sag in the line; I’ve simply pointed out that you (nor anyone) have not proven that it is possible. It’s a perfectly reasonable thing to ask – electrical cables aren’t solid steel rods. So until somebody can show us how your hypothesis is physically possible, it’s perfectly fair to ask for evidence that it’s possible before believing your claim.
And this next bit is a red herring – yet another logical fallacy, but two guys didn’t make all of the hundreds of crop circles all around the world. The handful that they did make consistently featured broken stalks. With many other (and far more sophisticated) crop circles, I've heard that none of the stalks were broken: they were swollen and -bent- at the nodes, by unknown means. So, once again, you’re equating two different physical examples. Until somebody can show us how they can bend grain stalks at the nodes without breaking them, then case A - two guys with a plank, has failed to explain B – bent-not-broken nodes. This should be very obvious.
This is also a false equivalency. “The experts” is not a single class of people, and obviously those individuals were poor experts, if they can be considered to be experts at all. Because other experts proved them wrong. And they did it with the empirical method, not worthless supposition and subjective opinions presented as facts.
And I’m blown away that somebody could assume that a steel truck mirror could be hung from a thin electrical line without making it sag or kink – that would appear to defy the most basic laws of physical mechanics. Those power lines are made of thin, braided copper filaments, wrapped in about .0625” of rubber – so they easily bend whenever anything is suspended from them. I see tennis shoes hung from those kinds of cables all over this city, and in every case the electrical line sags. A steel truck mirror would be significantly heavier. But you’re completely ignoring that argument because it doesn’t suit your preferred, unsubstantiated hypothesis (that’s called “cherry-picking,” btw).
Plus, the object simply doesn’t appear to be in the foreground with the shed and the other foreground elements. Reflective chrome is characterized by sharp contrast – very bright and very dark regions, typically right next to each other:
We don’t see that here. The object appears to be behind perhaps a mile of hazy atmosphere, not a few feet in front of the camera. It would be easy to run an experiment on a hazy day, to show how that image could have those characteristics. This is a perfectly reasonable, logical request: show us that it can done without any photo retouching. I’ll accept it when I see it. But not a moment sooner.
“Trent’s supporters” are an irrelevant, biased group, so their opinion is insignificant. Just as “the Trent debunkers” are an irrelevant and biased group. Neither of those groups are properly applying the empirical method.
What matters is providing the empirical evidence so that a reasonable and unbiased mind can form a conclusive assessment. If you could find a truck mirror that matches that silhouette, it would be pretty much settled as far as empirical reasoning goes. Heck, if you could hang a steel side view mirror from an electrical line like that without making it sag/kink, then the empirical argument favoring a truck mirror explanation would be very strongly supported. And if you could take a photo of a matching dangling mirror that appeared to be perhaps a mile off in the distance through significant atmospheric haze, without making an obvious kink/sag in the electrical line above it, then the case would be settled. You’d become a minor celebrity within the UFO community virtually overnight, because you would’ve actually proven the argument and disproven a landmark UFO photo case.
But as it stands, no explanation has been reasonably proven, despite what you may think personally. It’s not settled by any stretch of the imagination. Your disbelief is just as irrational and empirically unsupported as the conviction of the believers.
You may be right, and you’ve simply failed to prove it. But you may also be dead wrong. Only the empirical method can distinguish which one is true.
Last edited:
Creepy Green Light
Don't mistake lack of talent for genius
The aliens were being pretty cool that day. They saw that old man Trent spotted them & then they saw him run off into his house. They said "We should get going now, but lets stick around long enough for him to look for his camera & find it. Then once he runs back outside and snaps a few pics - then we'll hover away back into outer space."
Creepy Green Light
Don't mistake lack of talent for genius
Exactly.
Creepy Green Light
Don't mistake lack of talent for genius
That's exactly right. How anybody else cannot see that is beyond me. Unless they are being disagreeable on purpose.
Creepy Green Light
Don't mistake lack of talent for genius
Creepy Green Light
Don't mistake lack of talent for genius
They don't hand out pilots licenses to people with learning disabilities. But I'm sure you can get a sculptors license with one - if you know what I'm saying. And BTW - from the looks of whoever designed your website - you might want to ask them about disabilities (and/or see if you can get a refund if you paid for that thing - just sayin).Do you have a learning disability? I don’t want be unduly hard on you if you suffer from a medical condition, which appears to be the case. Because my post which you just quoted right in front of your eyes closes with:
In fact I’ve repeatedly and consistently stated in clear and simple terms that there’s insufficient data to perform a decisive assessment, so it might be a truck mirror, and it might not be a truck mirror. At this point there are credible arguments both for and against that hypothesis.
We’ve already been over this. If it’s a truck mirror, as you claim, then the burden of proof is on you to show us a truck mirror that matches that silhouette. You haven’t done that. So you’ve failed to meet the burden of proof. Simple.
“It looks like” aka “”it resembles,” proves nothing. You’re mistaking a somewhat plausible hypothesis for a proven fact. If you want to offer something more substantial than a “somewhat plausible hypothesis,” then go hang a 50’s era chrome-plated steel truck mirror from a thin power cable like that, and see if you can do it without making an obvious sag/kink in it. Then post a pic to prove it. Easy. Until you do that, all you have is a supposition, i.e. “suppose that there’s a truck mirror that looks like that.” Suppositions are worthless, because I could just as easily say “suppose that there isn’t a truck mirror which looks like that.” Both are equally valid suppositions – which is to say, both suppositions are equally worthless without evidence either way.
And the burden of proof is on the claimant, viz, “that’s a truck mirror.” It’s not my job to try to prove a negative “that’s not a truck mirror.” Because all you have to do is identify one truck mirror that matches the photo. On the other hand I would have to catalog every single side view mirror ever made up to that point in time, and rule them all out, and even then there’s always a possibility that I missed one – that’s why proving a negative is out of bounds.
Lying doesn’t help your case.
You’ve repeatedly ignored the following examples, apparently because you’ve surrendered your intellectual autonomy to the dumb, lazy, arrogant pseudoskeptics like Robert Sheaffer and his ilk – it's evident to me now that you refuse to respond to these examples that I’ve provided because those people haven’t told you what to think about them, so you have no response to:
Logical reasoning doesn’t work like that. “Common sense” is and always has been a disastrously unreliable gauge of reality. People thought it was “common sense” that the Sun orbited the Earth, and that snakes were spontaneously generated by rotting logs. So we came up with the empirical method, and that’s been vastly more successful than opinion or public consensus or frivolous wagers. If you (or anyone) could replicate those photos using a truck mirror hanging from power lines like that, then you’d have an actual empirical case to argue.
But until you do that, all you have is your belief. And a belief can be accurately defined as “something that one holds to be true without knowing it to be true.” That’s why religious thinking is so irrational and dangerous: belief is ignorance masquerading as knowledge. A rational mind holds no beliefs, because in truth, there is only that which we know, and that which we don’t know. We don’t know what’s in those photographs, but you’ve chosen to “believe” that it’s a truck mirror…with no empirical evidence that it is a truck mirror. It remains only one plausible but unproven possibility.
There are actually two forms of zealots: the believers and the disbelievers. Both groups exist by lying to themselves and others, by presenting unknowns as knowns. The Trent photos remain unknowns.
That’s a form of self-delusion, driven by your own personal cognitive bias. Like I said before, if the object in the photos resembled a plate, or a tea cup saucer, or a pie pan, then the lazy, empty-headed pseudoskeptics would say “that’s what it is.” "A passing resemblance” isn’t a credible argument. Unlike the Heflin photos, which are a perfect match to a model train wheel. If you can’t see that critical distinction then your logic is faulty.
Imagine if the burden of proof in a court of law was simply "a passing resemblance" - then it would be fine to imprison somebody for a crime they didn't commit because they had a passing resemblance to the perpetrator. Madness.
And yet you (or anyone) have failed to show us a matching truck mirror - the post on the mirror you showed us was perfectly centered, longer, and surrounded by a lip where it joined the mirror; there are more differences than similarities. So you’re deluding yourself into assuming that a matching mirror exists - you don't know that, and neither do I. Without any evidence that such a thing exists, your conclusion is based only on your bias…not evidence. So it’s merely speculation. If you could produce an image of a truck mirror that matched that image, then this would be a completely different discussion.
Do you even read the replies to you? The difference between “an exact match” and “a vague resemblance” is pivotal. The two aren’t equivalent, but you keep equating them. Stop doing that; it’s irrational and intellectually dishonest. Each case has to be evaluated on its own merits: one fake image doesn't make all images fakes, obviously. In fact 10,000 fake images doesn't make all images fakes. If even a single UFO image isn't a fake/glitch/optical anomaly, then that means that nonhuman technology has been photographed in our airspace. The importance of such a finding is far too great to dismiss all UFO images as fakes without offering a compelling empirical argument, which you've failed to provide here.
No you’re making another false equivalency which is a formal logical fallacy. We’ve been over this. I didn’t say it’s impossible to hang a steel truck mirror from a thin electrical cable without making a kink or sag in the line; I’ve simply pointed out that you (nor anyone) have not proven that it is possible. It’s a perfectly reasonable thing to ask – electrical cables aren’t solid steel rods. So until somebody can show us how your hypothesis is physically possible, it’s perfectly fair to ask for evidence that it’s possible before believing your claim.
And this next bit is a red herring – yet another logical fallacy, but two guys didn’t make all of the hundreds of crop circles all around the world. The handful that they did make consistently featured broken stalks. With many other (and far more sophisticated) crop circles, I've heard that none of the stalks were broken: they were swollen and -bent- at the nodes, by unknown means. So, once again, you’re equating two different physical examples. Until somebody can show us how they can bend grain stalks at the nodes without breaking them, then case A - two guys with a plank, has failed to explain B – bent-not-broken nodes. This should be very obvious.
This is also a false equivalency. “The experts” is not a single class of people, and obviously those individuals were poor experts, if they can be considered to be experts at all. Because other experts proved them wrong. And they did it with the empirical method, not worthless supposition and subjective opinions presented as facts.
And I’m blown away that somebody could assume that a steel truck mirror could be hung from a thin electrical line without making it sag or kink – that would appear to defy the most basic laws of physical mechanics. Those power lines are made of thin, braided copper filaments, wrapped in about .0625” of rubber – so they easily bend whenever anything is suspended from them. I see tennis shoes hung from those kinds of cables all over this city, and in every case the electrical line sags. A steel truck mirror would be significantly heavier. But you’re completely ignoring that argument because it doesn’t suit your preferred, unsubstantiated hypothesis (that’s called “cherry-picking,” btw).
Plus, the object simply doesn’t appear to be in the foreground with the shed and the other foreground elements. Reflective chrome is characterized by sharp contrast – very bright and very dark regions, typically right next to each other:
We don’t see that here. The object appears to be behind perhaps a mile of hazy atmosphere, not a few feet in front of the camera. It would be easy to run an experiment on a hazy day, to show how that image could have those characteristics. This is a perfectly reasonable, logical request: show us that it can done without any photo retouching. I’ll accept it when I see it. But not a moment sooner.
“Trent’s supporters” are an irrelevant, biased group, so their opinion is insignificant. Just as “the Trent debunkers” are an irrelevant and biased group. Neither of those groups are properly applying the empirical method.
What matters is providing the empirical evidence so that a reasonable and unbiased mind can form a conclusive assessment. If you could find a truck mirror that matches that silhouette, it would be pretty much settled as far as empirical reasoning goes. Heck, if you could hang a steel side view mirror from an electrical line like that without making it sag/kink, then the empirical argument favoring a truck mirror explanation would be very strongly supported. And if you could take a photo of a matching dangling mirror that appeared to be perhaps a mile off in the distance through significant atmospheric haze, without making an obvious kink/sag in the electrical line above it, then the case would be settled. You’d become a minor celebrity within the UFO community virtually overnight, because you would’ve actually proven the argument and disproven a landmark UFO photo case.
But as it stands, no explanation has been reasonably proven, despite what you may think personally. It’s not settled by any stretch of the imagination. Your disbelief is just as irrational and empirically unsupported as the conviction of the believers.
You may be right, and you’ve simply failed to prove it. But you may also be dead wrong. Only the empirical method can distinguish which one is true.
You know you're in serious trouble when the guy agreeing with you is a textbook example of the Dunning-Kruger effect. Humanoidlord believes that UFOs are real, but he thinks they're magical manifestations of an invisible, virtually omnipotent Loki-like deity that resides in an imaginary adjacent "dimension" to our own, and makes UFOs as some kind of prank upon humanity. That's who's agreeing with you.
Resorting to another logical fallacy - the particularly loathsome and despicable ad hominem attack - in lieu of an actual argument, is an admission of defeat.
And by the way I'm one of the top five sculptors in America. I wonder where you rank as a pilot, lol. And I earned my Series 7 and 63 SEC licenses at the age of 20, to become one of the youngest stockbrokers in the country - I only mention it since you seem to think that a license makes you better than other people, which it doesn't, of course. And invoking your pilot's license is actually yet another logical fallacy: an appeal to authority (and an especially awkward and irrational example, at that: "I can't be wrong - I'm a pilot!!!").
I guess we'll have to wait for Robert Sheaffer to tell you what to think, before we can get a response to any of the perfectly reasonable points that I've raised against your flagrantly biased and logically flawed arguments. Oh well.
Last edited:
1963
Noble
Hi Thomas, hope you are well my friend.
Not really any point to this post, except... well I know that you'll already be too aware, but I just read through the thread since my last post and have chuckled so much that it actually cheered an otherwise drab day up!... so much so that for some inexplicable reason I feel compelled to actually post and to point out the obvious to you mate....
btw Thomas, I have found over the years that my old tactic of accusing certain posters of suffering from the dreaded 'DKE' often sends them to the search engine and in their haste they tend to come back with something like the phrase .. " I didn't go to Yale!"
...anyway mate, unless the futility of trying to educate pork into engaging logical free thought into their analytical mentation when considering 'possibilities' instead of dutifully following the Menzel-Klass-mantra of "I did not see it, but I know that the witnesses are liars, idiots or charlatans and this is what it was... so be it!" .... then keep going and make me smile again matey.
Oh!... and I checked out your site a couple of months back, 'and it rocks' [as does your extremely brilliant artworks] ... I also checked out the interview tape on youtube 'Sculpting a Vision' and have to confess to being in awe of your god given talent Sir.
... but anyway apologies for the thread derailment and back to the Trent photos, and in summary ... the object was seen by a couple of hard working 'salt-of-the-earth' farmers who didn't know what they were seeing , but knew that it was something unusual, the photos were taken by the Trents [Paul] and eventually found their way to the local press and then national media took up the story, then after a bit of intense scrutiny by the [hired for purpose] 'Condon Committee debunker' Dr. William K. Hartmann were declared a true mystery as there was no evidence of the pictures being hoaxed. All of this is classified as being "scientifically investigated" and therefore passed as being a true anomaly. Subsequently investigated in greater detail over a great period of years by the chief optical physicist for the U.S. Navy Bruce Maccabee [as well as many others] who came to the same conclusion. .... .And then many years later, disturbed by the possibilities that their detractor-doctrine was in danger of being blown away by there actually being unchallenged evidence of anomalous flying objects in our atmosphere [flying saucers] ...Phil Klass and his young ward Robert Sheaffer decided to perform an "expert" analysis [hatchet job] on both the photographs and the character of Paul and Evelyn Trent. ... To cut a long story short, though of course their predictable 'skullduggery based hoax explanation' gained the expected traction among the other naysayers in the field, and instantly became a hit with the 'self-claimed-scientifically-minded-fortean- connoisseurs' [hard-line sceptics] whom invariably do not apply the same standards of 'onus of proof' to declare the 'debunk' as being the scientific investigation! ... ... But as anyone with the simple understanding of the phrase "scientific proof' can easily see, it was nowhere near the scientific standard of 'un-fudged investigation'! And so the Klass/Sheaffer declaration of "comprehensively debunked" has been in turn challenged and unequivocally rebutted by many qualified authorities, a couple of which, I posted earlier [Sparks and Maccabbee]
.... But then persistence of claim is the king-mantra in the closed minded professional debunking ranks, and time and again proves to be quite fruitful in adversarial conditions such as the Trent photos, and is pretty much effective it would seem, as evidenced by the fact that their profoundly unscientifically supported assertions of 'proven foul-play' are still circulating the web and literature about the case, and that there are still an unbelievable number of 'less fact discerning ' sceptics [punters] that are all too eager to believe and pass off the erroneous debunk as "FACT" without bothering to properly check if they are right or not! ... and even ignore presented legitimate literature and links that detract from their preconceived notions.
Yep Thomas, this is a pretty sad state of affairs matey.
. [but a bit funny anyway.]Cheers Buddy.
Last edited:
The shadow
The shadow knows!
a y one know if this one is fake?
Dejan Corovic
As above, so bellow
At first I was delighted by this video clip, that I've seen on the ThirdPhaseOfTheMoon YT channel. Finally there was a video of an UFO with extraordinary level of detail. Finally there was a proof for my skeptic friends. According to the story, there were even two witnesses, shooting video from two angles. Or, so I thought:
INSANE! Best UFO Sightings Of June 2015 [Breaking News] Share This!
go to 43:01
But than, before I started showing the video around, I wonted to double check that video. Because that's what anyone should always do that.
So, I spent days and weeks magnifying individual video frames and looking into details. And hurray, I was over the roof in enlightenment since, at first, I thought that I discovered some gravitational lensing just bellow the central axis of the craft. That was a potential bombshell, because it would directly link UFOs to General Relativity, warp drives etc. That would explain how UFOs can fly faster than speed of light. This is what I've seen in some of close-up frames:
As 'UFO' rotated notch disappeared and re-appeared just under the center of the mass of the craft. For weeks, I dwelled on the notion that that disappearing notch was caused by gravitational lensing just in the right place where UFO's propulsion should had been. That is, till I noticed this unusual dark brown (rusty) cylinder:
That 'cylinder' looked exactly as a rusty old SHAFT!
It was a total and utter climb down for my hopes. These two witnesses, found some metal contraption that looked just right for a saucer and mounted it on a shaft. Than they shot a video against a sky. Because sky is large area with low contrast, you just go to any video editing software and you copy & paste a patch of sky to cover the shaft. Because of the generally uniform background and low contrast of the patch, one can easily blend patch with background. Anybody experienced with video editing would know how to do that. And to do a good job, hoaxers cut-off the shaft, with the imposed patch of sky, exactly where rim of the 'saucer' would be.
And to top it off, during the interview that I found later, witness sounded so negative and unresponsive as if he was hiding something. One almost felt that he felt guilty because his hoax worked much better than he expected and that so many people (myself included) were duped and got really serious about it.
It would be nice if some mechanical engineer can actually recognize that round part. It's definitely not just a car wheel hub. It must be a part of a bigger machine.
INSANE! Best UFO Sightings Of June 2015 [Breaking News] Share This!
go to 43:01
But than, before I started showing the video around, I wonted to double check that video. Because that's what anyone should always do that.
So, I spent days and weeks magnifying individual video frames and looking into details. And hurray, I was over the roof in enlightenment since, at first, I thought that I discovered some gravitational lensing just bellow the central axis of the craft. That was a potential bombshell, because it would directly link UFOs to General Relativity, warp drives etc. That would explain how UFOs can fly faster than speed of light. This is what I've seen in some of close-up frames:
As 'UFO' rotated notch disappeared and re-appeared just under the center of the mass of the craft. For weeks, I dwelled on the notion that that disappearing notch was caused by gravitational lensing just in the right place where UFO's propulsion should had been. That is, till I noticed this unusual dark brown (rusty) cylinder:
That 'cylinder' looked exactly as a rusty old SHAFT!
It was a total and utter climb down for my hopes. These two witnesses, found some metal contraption that looked just right for a saucer and mounted it on a shaft. Than they shot a video against a sky. Because sky is large area with low contrast, you just go to any video editing software and you copy & paste a patch of sky to cover the shaft. Because of the generally uniform background and low contrast of the patch, one can easily blend patch with background. Anybody experienced with video editing would know how to do that. And to do a good job, hoaxers cut-off the shaft, with the imposed patch of sky, exactly where rim of the 'saucer' would be.
And to top it off, during the interview that I found later, witness sounded so negative and unresponsive as if he was hiding something. One almost felt that he felt guilty because his hoax worked much better than he expected and that so many people (myself included) were duped and got really serious about it.
It would be nice if some mechanical engineer can actually recognize that round part. It's definitely not just a car wheel hub. It must be a part of a bigger machine.
Attachments
Last edited: