Discussion in 'UFOs & Sightings' started by nivek, Oct 15, 2017.
yep just lamps: (4:09)
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
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
not surprising, the FBI (and probally many other agencies) had even tabloid rumor writers in their call list
i think i remenber that picture you are talking about, an egg shaped craft with blue rotating blades, right?
he is a quite strict skeptic, so i think he agreed with the truck mirror explanation
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
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
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
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
wow, how you found that picture so easily?
there seems to be a subtle shine around it, could it be a lens flare?
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
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!
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
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.
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.
Sometimes you "just know". I know it's a truck mirror........vs. a flying saucer from another planet.
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".
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.
No, no blue rotating blades. I don't think the images have been really made public.
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.
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:
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.
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):
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.
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.
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
oh, nevermind, i was thinking of a different picture them
did you see the chair in the cockpit? very interesting
Excellent video Karl. ... 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 ...
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...
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' ...
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
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?
The JAL case is another bogus case IMO.
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.
Separate names with a comma.