UFO Images

Anyway...Never heard of the Hannah McRoberts case.
Of course you did. I posted about it (link below) in a response to you on November 14th, and have tried repeatedly to get a comment from you about it, but you've always demured, and you're still evading the question. I'm increasingly convinced that you're totally incapable of independent thought.

Ad hominem attacks are still a logical fallacy btw - it's what weak-minded people do when they can't formulate a rational argument.

UFO Images
 

Creepy Green Light

Don't mistake lack of talent for genius
Of course you did. I posted about it (link below) in a response to you on November 14th, and have tried repeatedly to get a comment from you about it, but you've always demured, and you're still evading the question. I'm increasingly convinced that you're totally incapable of independent thought.

Ad hominem attacks are still a logical fallacy btw - it's what weak-minded people do when they can't formulate a rational argument.

UFO Images
Ok - congratulations; Hannah McRoberts (along with Paul Trent) are the only two people to walk the face of the Earth that snapped pictures (with probably a camera from the 1940's & 1980'ish) of a genuine flying saucer from another planet.

Any photograph where the photographer says "I didn't see anything at the time I took the photo" (but they see something now on the developed film) is garbage. But nice try. Thomas R. Morrison. I can guess what the "R" stands for.
 
Any photograph where the photographer says "I didn't see anything at the time I took the photo" (but they see something now on the developed film) is garbage. But nice try.
So what you're really saying is "the data is irrelevant and I'll resort to any excuse that I can find to dismiss it, if it suggests something anomalous operating in our airspace."

That kind of bankrupt and flagrantly biased perspective is every bit as slavish and cultish as the "true believers" who think that every plane in the sky is an alien vehicle. Chances are that you just saw an image of an alien craft and are too blinded by your own bias to even see it right before your eyes. It's a perfectly reasonable possibility that the object was only within the frame of her camera view for a fleeting moment, and got captured because of the high shutter speed associated with a bright mid-day photograph.

Congratulations - you're a "true disbeliever," and your entire reasoning process is thereby crippled beyond all recognition.

I also shared this video footage in the UFO videos thread, which appears to be even more compelling than the Hannah Roberts photo (which also clearly shows a structured craft - exactly what you've been crying for over and over again here and at The Paracast forums for years...disingenuously, we can all now see). I'm sure you'll have some pathetic and intellectually vacant excuse to dismiss this as well:

 
Last edited:

Creepy Green Light

Don't mistake lack of talent for genius
So what you're really saying is "the data is irrelevant and I'll resort to any excuse that I can find to dismiss it, if it suggests something anomalous operating in our airspace."

That kind of bankrupt and flagrantly biased perspective is every bit as slavish and cultish as the "true believers" who think that every plane in the sky is an alien vehicle. Chances are that you just saw an image of an alien craft and are too blinded by your own bias to even see it right before your eyes. It's a perfectly reasonable possibility that the object was only within the frame of her camera view for a fleeting moment, and got captured because of the high shutter speed associated with a bright mid-day photograph.

Congratulations - you're a "true disbeliever," and your entire reasoning process is thereby crippled beyond all recognition.

I also shared this video footage in the UFO videos thread, which appears to be even more compelling than the Hannah Roberts photo (which also clearly shows a structured craft - exactly what you've been crying for over and over again here and at The Paracast forums for years...disingenuously, we can all now see). I'm sure you'll have some pathetic and intellectually vacant excuse to dismiss this as well:



Garbage photo & garbage "evidence". That's why I never heard of the case, because the case sucks & everyone knows its a joke. Hey! I photographed the same flying saucer Hannah did earlier today!

model ufo.jpg
 

nivek

As Above So Below

That could be the underside of one of these showing in your image:

France-206-Airship-Luftschiff-Dirigeable-La-Republique-Pc.jpg
 
Garbage photo & garbage "evidence". That's why I never heard of the case, because the case sucks & everyone knows its a joke. Hey! I photographed the same flying saucer Hannah did earlier today!
You’ve become a parody of the typical wannabe "debunker” type that Stanton Friedman loves to mock so much. Look at his breakdown of their empty-headed “fake skepticism” tactics, and then compare them to your own behavior here:

“I’ve often pointed out that the four basic rules for debunkers, no matter what the subject, are the same. That is:

1) Don’t bother me with the facts, my mind’s made up. (check)
2) What the public doesn’t know I’m not going to tell them. (you don't have any inside knowledge so this doesn't apply)
3) If you can’t attack the data, attack the people. (check)
4) Do your research by proclamation, investigation is too much trouble.” (check)

Unlike yourself, I’ve actually done some reading up on the Hannah McRoberts case. In fact I only bothered with it because at the time I thought that your pleas for a legitimate UFO photograph were genuine, and not just a duplicitous and disingenuous ploy - which is now clear to everyone here.

Dr. Richard Haines published a 19-page scientific analysis of the photograph in Dr. Peter Sturrock’s respected 1999 book on this subject, “The UFO Enigma.” I highly recommend Dr. Haines’s analysis to anyone who wants to see how a proper empirical analysis is conducted by a highly respected NASA research scientist – and anyone who wants to question his standing as a scientist can eat dirt here. All of his findings are consistent with a legitimate anomalous object in that photograph. Here’s a link to his analysis of the Hannah McRoberts photographic negatives and the related data:

Analysis of a UFO Photograph. By Richard F. Haines | Camera | Exposure (Photography)

Now if you’ll excuse me, I’m going to go have a good chuckle at how perfectly you fit the criterion for Stanton Friedman’s caricature of a typical intellectually dishonest and analytically bankrupt wannabe “debunker,” lol.
 
Last edited:

Creepy Green Light

Don't mistake lack of talent for genius
You’ve become a parody of the typical wannabe "debunker” type that Stanton Friedman loves to mock so much. Look at his breakdown of their empty-headed “fake skepticism” tactics, and then compare them to your own behavior here:

“I’ve often pointed out that the four basic rules for debunkers, no matter what the subject, are the same. That is:

1) Don’t bother me with the facts, my mind’s made up. (check)
2) What the public doesn’t know I’m not going to tell them. (you don't have any inside knowledge so this doesn't apply)
3) If you can’t attack the data, attack the people. (check)
4) Do your research by proclamation, investigation is too much trouble.” (check)

Unlike yourself, I’ve actually done some reading up on the Hannah McRoberts case. In fact I only bothered with it because at the time I thought that your pleas for a legitimate UFO photograph were genuine, and not just a duplicitous and disingenuous ploy - which is now clear to everyone here.

Dr. Richard Haines published a 19-page scientific analysis of the photograph in Dr. Peter Sturrock’s respected 1999 book on this subject, “The UFO Enigma.” I highly recommend Dr. Haines’s analysis to anyone who wants to see how a proper empirical analysis is conducted by a highly respected NASA research scientist – and anyone who wants to question his standing as a scientist can eat dirt here. All of his findings are consistent with a legitimate anomalous object in that photograph. Here’s a link to his analysis of the Hannah McRoberts photographic negatives and the related data:

Analysis of a UFO Photograph. By Richard F. Haines | Camera | Exposure (Photography)

Now if you’ll excuse me, I’m going to go have a good chuckle at how perfectly you fit the criterion for Stanton Friedman’s caricature of a typical intellectually dishonest and analytically bankrupt wannabe “debunker,” lol.

Blah blah blah.....tell me another fairy tale grandpa (or at least post another goofy, ridiculous looking flying saucer picture).
 

Kaipo

Adept
Blah blah blah.....tell me another fairy tale grandpa (or at least post another goofy, ridiculous looking flying saucer picture).

Geez man, talk about blindly skeptical - you take 1st prize - is there any case/photo/video/abduction you hold out as 'could be aliens'? If not then why are you on a Alien/UFO forum?
 

Creepy Green Light

Don't mistake lack of talent for genius
Geez man, talk about blindly skeptical - you take 1st prize - is there any case/photo/video/abduction you hold out as 'could be aliens'? If not then why are you on a Alien/UFO forum?
I went from a true believer to a skeptical believer. As I've repeated multiple times on AE, starting in 1979 I pretty much believed every classic case and was a champion of them. Then slowly but surely over time, each one of those cases fell apart. The last holdout that I had where I believed it was a flying saucer was the Coyne Army helicopter case. But that one has been figured out (to my satisfaction). Then some cases I believe something happened, but it wasn't a flying saucer (like Roswell & Socorro).

And I'm on here because I do believe aliens and their spacecraft exist - but I don't believe there is any proof of them visiting the Earth. I've been wanting it to be true since 1979 & its frustrating. And part of me is jaded because of all the years I believed in these cases & stood up for them.
 

humanoidlord

ce3 researcher
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.
those are all very weak points, there are more similarities between the objects than differences, we can even use your comparison you did earlier in the thread, the similarity is obvious
anyway i think this case is a dead horse
at least the mcroberts case has a very detailed UFO wich seems to even feature a chair inside the cockpit, so i obviously would take this one more seriously
 

humanoidlord

ce3 researcher
So what you're really saying is "the data is irrelevant and I'll resort to any excuse that I can find to dismiss it, if it suggests something anomalous operating in our airspace."

That kind of bankrupt and flagrantly biased perspective is every bit as slavish and cultish as the "true believers" who think that every plane in the sky is an alien vehicle. Chances are that you just saw an image of an alien craft and are too blinded by your own bias to even see it right before your eyes. It's a perfectly reasonable possibility that the object was only within the frame of her camera view for a fleeting moment, and got captured because of the high shutter speed associated with a bright mid-day photograph.

Congratulations - you're a "true disbeliever," and your entire reasoning process is thereby crippled beyond all recognition.

I also shared this video footage in the UFO videos thread, which appears to be even more compelling than the Hannah Roberts photo (which also clearly shows a structured craft - exactly what you've been crying for over and over again here and at The Paracast forums for years...disingenuously, we can all now see). I'm sure you'll have some pathetic and intellectually vacant excuse to dismiss this as well:


actually now that i think about it, where is the chain of custody to the nellis air force base footage?
even zondo and his gang of clowns are ignoring that footage....
 
Top