Discussion in 'UFOs & Sightings' started by nivek, Oct 15, 2017.
cosmic ray hitting the film plate actually
You hit the nail on the head and are 100% correct
Here's an old episode of Project UFO/Project Blue Book that is based around the "pancake incident";
The truck mirror is hanging from fishing line - so no need to try and duplicate the photo by throwing a truck mirror.
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...
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.
I'll make a note of it to Mr.Peabody when we have lunch tomorrow
If we come up with anything Prof.Whoopee will put it p on the 3D BB
wow those picture are very close! even the antenna is at the right slant and lenght!
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.
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."
UFO near Fort Knox, KY Jan 7, 1948. Too bad it's a ceiling light superimposed over some outdoor scenery.
Master Truck Mirror Database. It will be my life's work.
This was Ed Walter's father practicing the technique before passing it down to him.
yeah but those HD pictures are even closer than the close up one!
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.
actually to me it looks like a shitty photoshop of a UFO over a real old photo
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.
Separate names with a comma.