Discussion in 'UFOs & Sightings' started by nivek, Oct 15, 2017.
The only way ThirdPhaseOfTheMoon has anything legitimate is by accident.
Hi Shadow, I remember this very topic coming up on another [now defunct] site some years ago mate, and it turned out that 'Mr Dean' emerged as a bit of a slippery character and an untrustworthy individual all round.
You see the whole bunch of 'anomalous photos' [that he was getting paid to expose] turned out to be no more anomalous that any other freely accessible NASA photos that can be found easily online. These were pictures from the Apollo 12 mission which was the sixth manned flight in the United States Apollo programme and the second to land on the moon, It was launched on November 14, 1969 and all of the photos can be found here.... https://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/apollo/catalog/70mm/mission/?12
...And if you notice all of the numbers that Dean quoted had been mixed up! [intentionally i'll warrant!] ...as you can see, the "AS12-51-8553" that Dean quoted doesn't even exist, [the highest frame number on Magazine R (51) is 7588] The image claimed to be "AS12-51-8553" is actually AS12-50-7341 and is a distorted blow-up of the Saturn V third stage.
as I thought fake..thanks
Great post 1963, thank you. Let’s start at the end and end at the beginning:
This is exactly the kind of remarkably knowledgeable post that makes a good chat forum like this so worthwhile. It’s rare to encounter people with this depth of familiarity with the intricacies of a topic like this.
You hit the nail on the head: the people who are most eager to claim the mantle of “scientism” to discredit this field and every single piece of significant evidence that comes to light…ironically and hilariously fail to present a compelling empirical/scientific argument to support their claims. Typically I only find that top researchers like Brad Sparks and his colleagues really see through this stinky faux-scientific charade that’s vaunted before the public in order to shout down any and all genuine public interest and investigation into this subject. But it’s encouraging to see that impassioned independent investigators like yourself can dig deep enough under the quagmire to see what’s really going on here: these pitiful and self-important armchair debunkers aren’t actually trying to practice science or skepticism – they’re only interested in presenting a sufficiently plausible-looking veneer of rational scrutiny to convince the predominantly scientifically inept public who has a casual interest in this subject, that these facile debunking efforts are legit and the evidence is unworthy of further consideration. And of course they enjoy making a name for themselves along the way, for whatever lurid ego gratification that can provide.
Finding the actual truth of all this is not a consideration for such people. They are driven solely by a quasi-theological agenda to assert themselves into the public mind as self-appointed priests of cynicism: snarky standard-bearers for the dull and dreary worldview that they embrace and proselytize for. That’s every bit as revolting as the opportunists and narcissists of the world like David Wilcock and Corey Good: in fact they’re two sides of the exact same coin.
Both of these competing theologies – the Church of Cynicism and the Church of Credulousness, prey upon the natural human thirst for certainty. It’s psychologically uncomfortable for people to dwell in uncertainty and simply admit “I don’t know.” In fact it’s so unthinkable to some people, that just in the last couple of pages in this thread, people have proven to be incapable of seeing the words “I don’t know” and actually accept them as a valid position on this particular case. But that’s my position: I see insufficient empirical evidence here to make a sound assessment. This is why we need legitimate scientific inquiry into this subject: to conduct a proper empirical analysis of cases like this one so we can arrive at an informed, impartial, and unemotional conclusion based on facts…not hype or hysteria.
I’m glad that you enjoy the very dry and droll humor that I sometimes find in these debates as well - we are here to have some fun, as well as to learn a few things, after all =)
And I’m rather fond of this one, for its amusing and ironic sense of dignity:
But to be fair – I’ve only had to keep repeating myself because my adversaries keep raising the same points even after I’ve discredited each one, sometimes on multiple occasions. The ole “na na na…I can’t hear you!” defense.
It can be an amusing diversion, or else I wouldn’t bother with it =)
Honestly the older I get, the simpler people’s motives appear to be. And so it appears that this entire cult of denial is driven primarily by the jealousy and resentment of the enormously bloated human ego – it simply galls some people that they’ve never witnessed something this truly astonishing and inspiring, so it’s much more palatable to just lash out like infants and try to prove to themselves that nobody has ever actually witnessed or photographed these devices operating in our airspace. That’s a much easier pill to swallow, than the notion that something really cool happened, and they missed out on it. Because if they missed out, then their basis of knowledge is missing a vital data point that others have, and the ego finds that intolerable: “how dare anyone else see something that I’m not privy to!” It’s unfair, granted. But that’s life.
That’s very kind of you, thank you 1963. The best is yet to come. Soon I’ll share the work that I’ve been absorbed with over the last couple of years ;
I find post by both you and 1963 to be informative and helpful. It is members like you that make this a wonderful place to chat. thank you agsin.
and then there was the ladder, wich for some reason was out in the open in the trent farm
Yeah well, call me pisher.
more than likely this was done by the very owners of the thirdphaseofmoon page, they have been caught hoaxing before
You're referring to the photo taken by the Life magazine photographer weeks later:
"Quite recently it got a bit of a revival when a big bunch of photos from a LIFE photoreport became available online. This report contains professional photos by a journalist taken a few weeks after the alleged sightings and includes a pretty thorough overview of the Trent farm area, among other things. Somebody found one particular photo to be of great interest - it showed Trents son standing on a ladder underneath the power lines that many have assumed that an UFO model was suspended from. This piece of news quickly made its way around blogs and forums, initially believed to be part of Trents original film roll (i.e. the UFO roll) which according to some would have made it a "smoking gun".
Obviously that soon proved not to be the case, though many initially fell for it."
We really don't know why their son was put up on that ladder in the yard to take this photo:
I think it's simply a farm boy fooling about with ladder, maybe his father left it outside because he was fixing a roof or doing any other of hundred chores on a farm. Than an army of armchair phylosphers (who never go out, anyway) 'discovered' it and found it ominous.
I personally think that this 'conspiratrial' type of search for truth can never find the truth, because it has unlimited number of degrees of freedom. There is nothing to constrain a conspiracy theory because human imagination is unlimited. For the same reason I would say that legal standard of proof is not even 10% of the scientific proof, which is 6 sigma, as we know. When it comes to politics and conspiracies, people are just trying to assert their world view, so we are talking about sub 1%.
Oh my god! The Trents owned a ladder?
Shit, case closed.
Ah!.. I wondered if the 'infamous boy-on-ladder-photo' would rear it's ugly head on this thread.... and yes of course it did.
Well HL, I don't want to come across as being arbitrarily conceited about this particular case, but I have been intensely interested in the photographs and the accompanying background story of them since ...well as long as I can remember. [from the time forty-odd years ago when I first came across them in one of my first special books that I earned money to buy from the male-order book company by delivering newspapers before and after school]
... and I don't mind saying that even though my initial personal judgement on the validity of these photographs [as well as many others...in this case, it was more a case of them not living up to my expectations really].. was that they were fakes' , I was eager to learn whether or not they would be easily explained away as such. And here I am now after all of these years finding myself actually defending their rights to be included in the 'genuine UFO photo' files. Not that I would put my life, or life savings on them being a pair of photographs of alien craft being piloted by 'Klaatu and Gort', ... but genuine UFO's in that they have not been at all adequately explained as being photographs of an everyday prosaic object, or that they have been demonstrated to have been a mocked-up photo made specially for the personal gain of the photographer.
The truth is that though there has been a myriad of attempts to dismiss these pictures as being 'fakes' one way or another, but as has been stressed on many occasions in this thread alone, there has been 'No Scientifically Empirical Debunk' of these 68 years old photos, no matter how loud and perseverant the detractors are! In other words 'they are lying in order to prove what they believe to be a lie'. And believe it or not, that doesn't make it true!
As we discussed earlier, there have been many attempts to cast doubt on the veracity of these pictures going way back to the early aftermath of their public introduction, all of which can be described as at best pure-speculation, and in some instances this speculation is falsely bolstered by iffy-supplements such as the one that you have latched on to [as you were meant to do] ... the boy on the ladder photo that was intended for your personal deductive skills to assume that they were actual photos from the same roll of film that snapped the UFO that had been hidden from you ...until they were posted for someone to discover and put two and two together. [and come up with 5?] And in this instance the devious 'red herring merchant' was in fact no other than [my old sparring partner over on a different site] James Oberg! ... And the hapless dupe in this saga was no other than my friend [from that same site] Anthony Bagalia. ... whom sadly, not for the last time allowed himself to be lead down the garden path by a nefarious self serving source.
...And then after his many corrective emails and letters from old hands in the genre that knew damn well that these pictures had nothing to do with the event, and weren't even taken anywhere near the time , or by the same photographer or even the same camera as the UFO pictures , and the many admonishments from his more knowledgeable peers, Anthony promptly backtracked and posted his reply on the UFO Iconoclast site....
Although it might be deemed a little funny that such a self assured, and highly dedicated and very capable researcher such as Anthony Bragalia could be taken in so completely by a forked tongued snake oil salesman such as James Oberg ... I personally find it pretty sad really, because as I said previously, I regard Anthony as a friend [well as friendly as the internet gets] and know him to be of good character , the type of person that is always seeking the truth either way it drops and not merely to trying to accrue prestige and notoriety in the genre ... and that someone such as Oberg, gets away scot free and with a smirk on his face, [unlike Anthony's egg] because he achieved what he set out to achieve , and that is that he not only somewhat discredited Anthony and slightly dented the reputation of 'the other side', .. but he managed to get this "False Idea" into peoples heads that the photos that were taken by the LIFE photographer over a month later are clear proof that the UFO photos were the result of a prank perpetrated by Paul with the whole Trent family's participation . Which is patently a LIE. ... But the damage has been done, and though you are just one poster on one site blindly pushing this slyly thought out total BS erroneous propaganda , there are countless other posters on countless other sites still posting the same crap in order to desperately win a point without checking out the provenance of the so-called evidence, and thus contaminating the innocent thought process and deductive prowess of newer students to the genre, when the open minded cerebration of this subject is mind bogglingly hard enough even with an even playing field.!!
So yep HL! ... the Trents had a ladder on their farm,..... so what?
By the way, when I asked Jim Oberg about this saga, all he would say was that "he never claimed that Paul Trent took the pictures, that's all on Bragalia's head,.. but why do you suppose that the Life photographer did? ... was it his way of saying that .that's the way he thought that Trent had performed the hoax?".
"No Jim, I replied, that's just your in built intentional biased interpretation of the photos and you are a smart fellow, but dishonest!"
Top 5 sculptors....lol. Ok, well we don't want to take up any of your valuable time - the Play-Doh might dry out while you are trying to convince yourself (and the rest of us) that Trent didn't photograph a truck mirror.
If someone tossed up one of these hood ornaments and took a photo, then to me the 'truck mirror' side would have a more convincing argument, especially if one of those Studebaker hook ornaments in the photos were tossed up for a snapshot or maybe the 1937 Hupmobile hood ornament pictured not quite half way down the page...
You know that attacking me personally from behind an anonymous account only proves to people what an intellectually dishonest, pitiful little coward you are, right?
Ignoring valid arguments doesn’t make them go away.
And you might not have a medical learning disability, but clearly your cultish devotion to the Church of Cynicism has completely crippled your mind, because I've stated this several times and in several different ways and you still keep misrepresenting what I've said here, for example:
I don’t know what’s in that photo, and neither do you. But at least I’m honest enough to admit it.
If you think it’s a truck mirror hanging from an electrical cable, then go hang a steel sideview mirror from an electrical line of that gauge, and show us that it doesn’t sag or kink. Easy. Or are you afraid that a test will prove you wrong (clue: that’s what I think).
Until you do that you’re just speculating and nobody has any reason to believe you, petulant temper tantrums notwithstanding.
The Trent/McMinnville case came up in another debate online recently, and I found something else that you guys would be interested to see, which further demonstrates the intellectual dishonesty and laziness of the pseudoskeptics.
At Robert Sheaffer’s blog about the Trent/McMinnville case, he writes this:
“Another way of demonstrating the same thing: a montage by David Slater demonstrates that when the two Trent photos are overlaid so that the wires are lined up, the images of the “UFOs” line up as well. Both these demonstrations show that the “UFO” appears to be fixed with respect to the overhead wires.”
And then he shows this overlay by David Slater:
That looks pretty damning, right?
But I took a closer look at this, and it’s a goddamn parlor trick. Check this out.
It turns out that the electrical wires can’t be lined up exactly because the two photos were taken at a slightly different angle. I took a stab at lining them up as well as I could in this image:
David Slater performed a similar operation, but he intentionally lined up the object in the photos so it appears to be right on top of itself. Then he cropped off the parts that don’t line up, to hide his fudging.
I reproduced his wires/object overlay job to find out what he was hiding by cropping the images in the way that he did, and sure enough, he cropped them right where they needed to be cropped to hide the misalignment of his hatchet job. So he faked the alignment on purpose to mislead people. Have a look - the green and purple boxes indicate where he cropped each image:
So it’s a hoax. Which is what these pseudoskpetics claim to be against, and yet they’re using the same underhanded tactics to make their case.
In reality you can make these images appear to “prove” that it’s a model hanging in the same place, or you can make them appear to “prove” that they can’t be a model because they’re not hanging in the same place (and you can see that my overlay of the electrical wires is actually a better fit than his):
Since the same data can “prove” either argument, the argument is invalid, and we’re back where we started: this isn’t evidence either way, so we don’t know what’s in these photos. It could be a mundane object hanging from the wires without making them bend somehow, or it could be a genuine anomaly.
But one thing we can be sure about is that the pseudoskeptics can’t be trusted to present an honest argument, because they fudged the data and then passed it off as legit.
My daughter Debbie Found 2 unknown pics. I think that it is fake. the 2nd is fake as well I post to identify the pics and the objects in question.
Hi Shadow, I hadn't seen these pictures before and did a little search to see what I could find, and I came up with this info.... The top picture originates from a guy named Ken Johnston , [well known in the UFO conspiracy theory community as a “NASA whistleblower,”].. a former avionics technician, who had worked with principal contractors to NASA during the Apollo program. While working with NASA on the Apollo program, who said that he came into possession of photographs snapped by Apollo astronauts in space and on the Moon.
... the one that you posted is a crop of the one below...
in 1995 he then went into partnership with Richard Hoagland [who claimed them to be the smoking gun] who said scans of Johnston’s collection of photos from the Apollo program show structures on the lunar surface not present in NASA’s scans of the same photos. ..and so on...And that of course set the CT community alight.
And then later CT 'exposers' such as [the very dodgy] Tyler Glockner of 'Secureteam 10' picked up the ball and ran with it for all it was worth. .. exposing all manner of 'absolute proof' of all kinds of things such as Alien bases, proof of NASA dropping nuclear bombs on such bases etc. ... But whatever secrets the photographs reveal...if any? ... will, and should always be contested not only because of the quality [or lack of] of the guys pushing the CTs, but chiefly because of the fact that the photographs themselves are of very low quality and are a photoprint stored in a ring binder for 23 years, then pulled out and scanned on Hoagland's office scanner, the glass of which is quite clearly contaminated that show the 'anomalously looking features' that do not show up on the official professionally scanned image from the original negative done presumably in an expensive built for purpose clean environment . Hair brushing you say? .. well maybe that's very possible, but in this case I personally doubt. I base this assessment partly on the evidence against the pictures being 'the smoking gun', ... but also verisimilitude tells me that it would be very naïve of me to believe that a vastly superior [technologically wise] race of civilisation that could conquer all of the current space exploration that is holding mankind back from contaminating the unknown regions of space, would just happen to have any technological devises on show that we could recognise, let alone need an array of parabolic satellite dishes that for all the world appear no more advanced than the relatively old clunkers that we have had here on Earth for many decades.
... As to the other CT claims associated with Johnston's photos, well they can be dissected individually to see if there is anything to truly ponder about... such as the picture that "Proved" the 'nuclear' attack on the alien base"... which was later modified to being 'a kinetic attack' by means of ramming a space craft into the Alien base, when the fact that NASA had indeed carried out an experiment of purposely crashing a craft into the surface in order to try and find signs of water beneath the surface was pointed out to all that wished to know.
anyway Shadow, here's a link to Johnston's site [in which he casually asks for donations, and no pressure but the average donation is $45!] .... KENS MOON Lunar Anomalies : Ken Johnston Sr. : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive
its still something to keep in mind
again its something we should keep in mind, we never know...
well i obviously din't know of the sketchy story behind this photo, neither that mr oberg had done such a thing, i never thought of him as a bad character anyway
but the point still stands: if they wanted to do it, they could because they had the means
the 1 picture shows damage (or maybe dirt) to the original apollo negative
the 2 picture shows the lander of the hayabusa 2 mission looking back to it's mothership
Separate names with a comma.