Discussion in 'UFOs & Sightings' started by nivek, Oct 15, 2017.
Joe Simonton holding an alien pancake. From the Vilas County News-Review, April 27, 1961.
some interesting ufo photos, at least covered by investigation
And then there's that.
Maybe I'll make some flapjacks for breakfast .... mmmmmm
Update to Vincente-Juan Ballester Olmos' Fotocat blog
He may have the most complete collection of UFO photos anywhere.
I do know. And anybody with a education above the 1st grade knows as well.
Prove it: show us an object with the same shape. Otherwise, you're lying.
You believe; you don't know.
"And anybody with an education above the 1st grade knows as well."
This image is floating around the internet, allegedly a UFO caught on Google Maps or Google Earth...Sort of looks like a butterfly wing in the close up image but could it be something more?...
I'm going with the butterfly explanation. There seems to be an artificial line behind the head indicating it was photoshopped.
The both of you should be ashamed of yourselves.
You really ought to take a number of closeups of various butterflies to find out just which one it was otherwise you just believe it's a bug, you don't know that.
Hi Nivek, that picture reminds me that I once thought that the whole 'google-earth/map anomaly thing' might be a good topic for a stand alone thread matey.
... I've seen better looking examples of possible UFOs caught by accident... but that one that you just posted seems to be just as you surmised it to be. A butterfly or moth. But that is [as always] mere opinion. ...get that Piggie... opinion! something that is not only permissible but actively encouraged around here] and in this case it is also mine as well.
If that doesn't correlate with your own impressions of what the picture represents, then offer an alternative opinion, and if only for the sake of politeness and forum etiquette ...please do not try to belittle other peoples well meaning initial persuasions. ... After all , this is the season of good will !
If Nivek would post the source of the picture so that we might be enabled to see the where-about in the world the picture was taken then we might be in a better place to tentatively hazard a guess at what species of fluttering insect the camera might have caught. ? ... A quick look at a moth and butterfly site, has me leaning toward this little pretty boy...
...it's the "Ozark Swallowtail" ... that has the usual range of Missouri, northern Arkansas, and western Kentucky. Comments: A relative of the Old World Swallowtail.
Ozark Swallowtail Papilio joanae Heitzman, 1973 | Butterflies and Moths of North America
...but I reiterate [for anyone that doesn't appreciate speculation on a mainly speculatory type of site] that this is only my initial contingent opinion , and may be subject to slight alteration or complete change at anytime, and is in no way binding by federal or indeed international law!
I have no problem with other people's opinions. Might even change mine if the argument is persuasive enough.
My opinion is that it's a butterfly, or part of one, or it's Mothra if there hasn't been any photographic trickery. Definitely not a truck mirror, that's for sure.
That's a butterfly.
Don't be cheeky - that's obviously a butterfly: you can see the pattern on the wings and the head and the thorax as well as the antenna. The occlusion of the back half must be a post-processing artifact from Google's image-fitting algorithms.
This photo was taken in south Florida. There are ten swallowtail butterfly species indigenous to Florida. The species of this butterfly is papilio palamedes, aka a laurel swallowtail:
Note the two rows of yellow spots at the edge of the wing, with three spots between those rows in the forward upper corner, and the chevron-shaped spots in the second row: it's a perfect match.
See how easy that was? Now show me a truck mirror that matches the Trent photos. I'll wait.
When I made the comment "sort of looks like" that is a far cry from belief or believing it was a bug, there is a difference...
Still mining the Master Truck Mirror database, this will take a while.....
Cheeky ? I'm looking out the window right now and am pretty sure that's New York out there .....
Admittedly I was just feeling like stirring the pot a bit. Yes, you'll have to wait because it isn't user friendly out there right now. Cold and wet and windy. My impression is that it's a truck mirror minus its glass that's been thrown. Weather permitting I will attempt to replicate it.
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.
This wouldn't be the first time that I've done something just for the f*** of it so if I can get a decent day I'll see what I can come up with.
it's quite sad this case is so often ignored due to ridicule, its impossible to make a pancake during an hallucinatory state without giving yourself serious burns and he was definitely telling the truth, in fact he even made ufologists stay away from his farm
I dunno if it's worth your time G. Those pics have been circulating around for nearly 70 years and they're the most famous potentially credible UFO pics in history, and yet not one mechanic or body shop technician has ever noticed a viable resemblance to an existing side view mirror. Probably because it doesn't exist; but I'd love to be proven wrong.
Aw shit - that explains a Lot. I thought you were just irascible, but it turns out you're a New Yorker - irascible is sorta in the job description up there.
Here's the thing though - they examined the roll of negatives and those two shots were tucked in-between family photos in sequence. Look how well they line up at the right height and orientation like a fly-by. There's no way that happened by throwing a truck mirror up into the air. Between the perfectly placed throws, and the arcing trajectory under the acceleration of gravity, and that crappy top-view camera that he had, the chances of getting those two successive shots lined up like that would be like winning two different Powerballs on the same day. Feel free to try, but I don't see it happening.
The only other possibility is if it were hanging from one of those power lines, and a steel mirror like that would definitely make that wire bend. So that's out, imo. If that object is hanging from a wire, then it's quite light - much lighter than a steel mirror from a 50s-era vehicle.
There's always some knucklehead who won't believe sensible empirical data - there are still people who think the Moon landings were a hoax, even though we have pics of the Rover tracks and abandoned equipment. The goal is to provide reasonable empirical evidence. If someone points out a mirror with that shape, and shows how the photos could be faked in sequence like that, then any reasonable person like myself will happily say "okay you win - that explains it."
(I can't believe that we're still arguing about this case...I understand that people hate to say "I dunno what that is...real or hoax," but that's how it is - this case remains unsolved...maybe it always will)
Awesome. Experimental efforts are always a great way to gain deeper understanding. If I were a betting man, I'd bet that you'd quickly find that replicating that sequence of photos with two perfect throws in succession would be nightmarishly difficult, nigh impossible.
I'd say, practice for awhile, and then see if you can take two successive shots that look like that. Because Trent could've done that. But he didn't have the luxury of taking a slew of pics and then choosing the ones to use, so that would be cheating.
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?
"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.
Separate names with a comma.