UFO Images

Creepy Green Light

Don't mistake lack of talent for genius
Even if I used my Wayback Machine and went to the Trent farm that exact day and saw that it really was a truck mirror - and then brought it back with me and used it for my attempt at replication there would still be some detail that someone, somewhere will dispute.
You hit the nail on the head and are 100% correct :)
 

Creepy Green Light

Don't mistake lack of talent for genius
You can't help but wonder about the really, really weird ones. Didn't he describe the occupants as 'Italian looking' with dark jumpsuits? Or am I mixing weirdnesses?
Here's an old episode of Project UFO/Project Blue Book that is based around the "pancake incident";

 

Creepy Green Light

Don't mistake lack of talent for genius
"There's no way that happened by __________________ "

Haven't we heard this before in other cases? The example I am thinking of right now is (sorry) Bigfoot again. There's just no way a bear could bend limbs like that! Oh yes there is ..... and Todd Disotell can tell you what the bear had for lunch.

Have you done any testing to show that taking those photos with a thrown object and that camera is in fact impossible or what the actual statistical likelihood really is? If we're going to be all sciencey and stuff and things that should be addressed. What if it turns out they just got lucky or it's easier than you think?



It's not easy but I've done it many times, and the more you do it the better at it you get - like taking pictures of planes. As a kid (in a UFO club) I threw all sorts of frisbees, container lids, whatever the hell I could find out in the barn and took photos with my crappy little 110 camera. I remember some interesting results - which I just might have here somewhere. Where exactly is another matter. My film budget was based on lawn mowing (at $3 per lawn) so it wasn't like I was burning through dozens of rolls to do this.

I do have to wonder why they just sat on that film roll until it was finished. Also as I said earlier, coming from a long line of waste-nothing fix-it-yourself very practical salt 0f the earth types you bet your left nut that my grandad would have been off to the drug store like a shot if he thought he took a picture of an alien spacecraft.

And just to give the rotting horseflesh another kick - so what if it's an unexplained photograph? Does it help? Did the Patterson-Gimlin film settle any debates or create new ones? The nonsense over this photo is still simmering in 2018 and ..... so what? This is why I said that it's going to take some unequivocal evidence that can be readily understood to make any difference. If photographs were going to help they would have done so.
The truck mirror is hanging from fishing line - so no need to try and duplicate the photo by throwing a truck mirror.
 

nivek

As Above So Below
Even if I used my Wayback Machine and went to the Trent farm that exact day and saw that it really was a truck mirror - and then brought it back with me and used it for my attempt at replication there would still be some detail that someone, somewhere will dispute. That's why I think UFO photos are cool but generally not helpful.

As long as there's still grass and dirt embedded in its edges from hitting the soft farming soil after it was chucked into the sky then I would have no disputes...:Whistle:

...
 

Creepy Green Light

Don't mistake lack of talent for genius
trent vs mirror.jpg truck mirror ebay.jpg truck mirror 3 ebay.jpg truck mirror.jpg

To me it's like taking a side profile of a Toyota pickup truck and a side photo of a Ford pickup truck & then arguing that they aren't pickup trucks because their lines aren't an identical match. Yes, we know they are different models but of the same type of object/vehicle. Just like I don't need to know the manufacturer name or model number to know that Rex Heflin's flying saucer is a model train wheel.
 

pigfarmer

tall, thin, irritable
As long as there's still grass and dirt embedded in its edges from hitting the soft farming soil after it was chucked into the sky then I would have no disputes...:Whistle:

...

I'll make a note of it to Mr.Peabody when we have lunch tomorrow
upload_2019-1-17_21-4-24.png

If we come up with anything Prof.Whoopee will put it p on the 3D BB
upload_2019-1-17_21-5-49.jpeg
 

humanoidlord

ce3 researcher
View attachment 5379 View attachment 5380 View attachment 5382 View attachment 5383

To me it's like taking a side profile of a Toyota pickup truck and a side photo of a Ford pickup truck & then arguing that they aren't pickup trucks because their lines aren't an identical match. Yes, we know they are different models but of the same type of object/vehicle. Just like I don't need to know the manufacturer name or model number to know that Rex Heflin's flying saucer is a model train wheel.
wow those picture are very close! even the antenna is at the right slant and lenght!
 

pigfarmer

tall, thin, irritable
View attachment 5379 View attachment 5380 View attachment 5382 View attachment 5383

To me it's like taking a side profile of a Toyota pickup truck and a side photo of a Ford pickup truck & then arguing that they aren't pickup trucks because their lines aren't an identical match. Yes, we know they are different models but of the same type of object/vehicle. Just like I don't need to know the manufacturer name or model number to know that Rex Heflin's flying saucer is a model train wheel.

Thing is, TRM is right in that we don't really know what the hell is in the photo. I think the Hannah McRoberts is damned weird and really have not much to say about it other than that. It's on one side of my highly subjective personal threshold. The Trent photo is on the other side and yeah, it looks so much like a mirror to me I have no real interest in spending time picking it apart. Pictures alone only carry so much weight. I don't even know why I had to comment on this again gratuitously - I think probably because I was looking at some ghost videos under the 'analysis needed' thread and know that people believe what we want to for their own reasons and inevitably others will disagree for their own reasons.

Let's concentrate on 21st century pics and videos at least.
 

Creepy Green Light

Don't mistake lack of talent for genius
wow those picture are very close! even the antenna is at the right slant and lenght!
That's what I've been saying. The tilt of the mast always bugged me. Then once I saw that side profile picture of the truck mirror it instantly clicked & I thought "Bingo. That's why there's a list."
 

pigfarmer

tall, thin, irritable
That's what I've been saying. The tilt of the mast always bugged me. Then once I saw that side profile picture of the truck mirror it instantly clicked & I thought "Bingo. That's why there's a list."

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.

Agreed.
 

Creepy Green Light

Don't mistake lack of talent for genius
wow thats a bad fake
in fact its not even supposed to be a fake, just a stock photo that someone put a caption into
It's got the same tell-tale markings as Ed Walter's garbage fake photos. Things like trees, etc. look rock solid but the craft itself looks translucent.
 
That's what I've been saying. The tilt of the mast always bugged me. Then once I saw that side profile picture of the truck mirror it instantly clicked & I thought "Bingo. That's why there's a list."
That little "Bingo" you're hearing is the sound of your own confirmation bias ringing in your ears.

I naturally considered the same possibility, but the moment that you take an impartial look at the data, it's clear that there are problems with that hypothesis (and the fishing-line hypothesis as well which you're still advocating, and which we've already gone over ad nauseum but apparently I have to say this yet again: a steel mirror hanging from those power lines would've made them bend - that's obvious...painfully obvious actually). Anyway, if you take more than a fleeting glance at the profile of Trent's truck mirror, you can clearly see the flange that accommodates a ball joint for the post on his side-view mirror. There's no flange in the image of the object. Even the modern mirror image that you shared, where the ball joint is completely recessed within the mirror (an innovation that I doubt even existed in 1950) reveals three screw heads protruding from the mirror; no such screw heads can be found on the profile of the object in question. And finally, all of the circular side-view mirrors that I've seen have the post centered - it's not centered on that object. So anyone looking at this impartially actually finds more differences than similarities.

I don't know what that object is, and unless you can find an actual match to some prosaic object, neither do you. The difference between us is that I have the intellectual honesty to admit that I don't know, but you don't.

In any case I don't find the Trent case to be particularly compelling, so it's tedious to keep debating it. The Hannah McRoberts case is far more compelling, and yet you've been totally and absolutely silent about that one. Why is that? It took me awhile to realize the answer: you're not interested in finding the truth (like the rest of us) - you're only interested in the cases that you think are easily debunked - the low-hanging fruit.

Prove me wrong right now: what's your take on the Hannah McRoberts photo? Or don't you have one yet, because you're waiting for Robert Sheaffer to tell you what to think? The same Robert Sheaffer, btw, who promoted the faked "debunking" overlay by David Slater, which I exposed as a fraud earlier in this thread - that is who you're depending on for your opinions: a man who disseminates hoaxed "debunking" data because it suits his own confirmation bias...a poor "authority figure" indeed.
 
Last edited:

Creepy Green Light

Don't mistake lack of talent for genius
That little "Bingo" you're hearing is the sound of your own confirmation bias ringing in your ears.

I naturally considered the same possibility, but the moment that you take an impartial look at the data, it's clear that there are problems with that hypothesis (and the fishing-line hypothesis as well which you're still advocating, and which we've already gone over ad nauseum but apparently I have to say this yet again: a steel mirror hanging from those power lines would've made them bend - that's obvious...painfully obvious actually). Anyway, if you take more than a fleeting glance at the profile of Trent's truck mirror, you can clearly see the flange that accommodates a ball joint for the post on his side-view mirror. There's no flange in the image of the object. Even the modern mirror image that you shared, where the ball joint is completely recessed within the mirror (an innovation that I doubt even existed in 1950) reveals three screw heads protruding from the mirror; no such screw heads can be found on the profile of the object in question. And finally, all of the circular side-view mirrors that I've seen have the post centered - it's not centered on that object. So anyone looking at this impartially actually finds more differences than similarities.

I don't know what that object is, and unless you can find an actual match to some prosaic object, neither do you. The difference between us is that I have the intellectual honesty to admit that I don't know, but you don't.

In any case I don't find the Trent case to be particularly compelling, so it's tedious to keep debating it. The Hannah McRoberts case is far more compelling, and yet you've been totally and absolutely silent about that one. Why is that? It took me awhile to realize the answer: you're not interested in finding the truth (like the rest of us) - you're only interested in the cases that you think are easily debunked - the low-hanging fruit.

Prove me wrong right now: what's your take on the Hannah McRoberts photo? Or don't you have one yet, because you're waiting for Robert Sheaffer to tell you what to think? The same Robert Sheaffer, btw, who promoted the faked "debunking" overlay by David Slater, which I exposed as a fraud earlier in this thread - that is who you're depending on for your opinions: a man who disseminates hoaxed "debunking" data because it suits his own confirmation bias...a poor "authority figure" indeed.

You know what they say about people that use their full first name, last name along with their middle initial right? Anyway...Never heard of the Hannah McRoberts case. I'm sure your PhD & Play-Doh skills have helped you determine that it's a real flying saucer from another world.
 
Top