UFO Images

Discussion in 'UFOs & Sightings' started by nivek, Oct 15, 2017.

  1. Thomas R. Morrison

    Thomas R. Morrison Unapologetic Rationalist & Grand Inquisitor

    Messages:
    769
    It's intellectually dishonest to represent your totally subjective personal opinion as a fact: the Trent/McMinnville photos have never been successfully debunked. In fact the efforts to debunk those images are so fraught with inconsistencies and outright hoaxing that only the laziest and most biased minds consider the issue resolved.

    But it's tedious and pointless to debate the crucial distinction between "fact" and "opinion" with you, as we've proven ad nauseum in this thread already.
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Agree Agree x 1
  2. Castle-Yankee54

    Castle-Yankee54 Celestial

    Messages:
    4,523
    So it was a fake of the original rear view mirror image......thought it looked familiar.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  3. Creepy Green Light

    Creepy Green Light Don't mistake lack of talent for genius

    Messages:
    636
    Ditto. Only I don't have to use a thesaurus to do so.
     
  4. Thomas R. Morrison

    Thomas R. Morrison Unapologetic Rationalist & Grand Inquisitor

    Messages:
    769
    There are three inescapable logical failures in that statement:

    1.) No mirror has ever surfaced which actually matches that profile. It's possible that one exists, but if it does, it remains unproven. So your assumption that it's a mirror is only an opinion, not a fact: the two should never be conflated.

    2.) If it were a steel side view mirror, then it would be physically impossible to hang such a mirror from that thin overhead power line without creating an obvious kink in the line.
    2a.) And even if it were possible to hang a steel side view mirror (or perhaps some other and lighter object) from those power lines, then why wouldn't a would-be hoaxer take the photos by placing those power lines outside of the frame in the first place?

    3.) If a steel side view mirror had been thrown into the air instead of being hung, then Trent managed to get two consecutive photos of it at a consistent height and sequential trajectory to mimic an object in flight, despite the challenges of taking such photos with a 1950-era camera while an object is following a parabolic arc under the influence of gravity, because the images were on a single roll of film and no "trial runs" were on that film.

    Lol - if you seriously think that I used a thesaurus because I know common words like "fraught," then you're even dumber than I thought.
     
    • Awesome Awesome x 2
    • Like Like x 1
    • Agree Agree x 1
  5. humanoidlord

    humanoidlord ce3 researcher

    Messages:
    4,300
    odd, looks like something saucer shaped shining in the clouds and dropping probes....
    i have heard in the past that this one is a duplicate of the trent picture (the second one) with a changed location and history (ie a hoax)
    i think this case could be the real deal, it looks quite authentic when compared to know hoaxed photos
    looks like i was right, once again
     
  6. humanoidlord

    humanoidlord ce3 researcher

    Messages:
    4,300
    lets not go down that can of worms again, please
    stop, please, we have already went over that picture and the consensus is that its a fake, so lets stop there and move on to other more interesting cases
     
  7. nivek

    nivek As Above So Below

    Messages:
    13,754
    I think one thing to consider when asking why, with all our recording technology, we cannot get awesome images of ufos, is that its kind of like a similar scenario to the natives who did not see the large colonial ships on their shores...Now I think the reality of that scenario is that the ships were anchored a ways offshore, and the natives did not immediately notice them, because they weren't looking for them...Immediately meaning that probably once they had their morning coffee and morning sex or breakfast or whatnot, they had a look around and saw those ships and said "holy shyte"...So although we have an abundance of technology to record ufos, there's just not enough people looking for them...

    ...
     
    • Thanks Thanks x 2
  8. Thomas R. Morrison

    Thomas R. Morrison Unapologetic Rationalist & Grand Inquisitor

    Messages:
    769
    It's true that most people don't spend much time looking at the sky - I mean, I never notice anybody looking at the sky, do you? I spend more time staring at the sky than anyone I know, and that's only because I saw a pair of unexplained bright objects zigzagging across the daytime sky in perfect formation when I was a child and I hope to someday see something that exotic again, but the amount of time I spend doing it amounts to perhaps 30 seconds per day on average (and sadly, it hasn't led to another sighting...I reckon that I was extremely lucky to have even one legit anomalous sighting in a lifetime).

    But that's not the main issue, imo - the primary issue is that iPhones and security cameras and such, aren't worth a pile of poop when it comes to recording typically 30-50ft-wide objects darting across the sky at thousands of miles per hour at ordinary aerial distances which are typically in the range of many miles. A smartphone or some rotten security cam - they're simply the wrong tool for the job. If city-sized UFOs appear low and slow in the sky someday, like in Independence Day, then we'll get some reasonably clear photos...but then it'll be too late... 0.o

    CGL keeps showing us images and videos of huge meteors that light up the night sky like daytime as they break into burning streams of molten rock....and a SpaceX launch that filled the night sky with glowing plasma over a major metropolitan area for over an hour...and then he tries to argue that those events are equivalent to a 30-50ft metallic disc zipping across the sky. That's such a flagrantly false equivalence, that I used to think that he was playing dumb by suggesting that the two were even remotely comparable. I'm no longer convinced that he was playing, because even after I pointed this out, he's still making the same argument as if it's rational or even remotely based in reality.

    So far the only person here who's tried to test this out, by trying to get pictures of ordinary jets passing overhead, is pigfarmer - and the attempt convinced him of the same conclusion: taking pics of airplane-sized objects at aerial distances with a smartphone is a remarkably pointless exercise. Perhaps with practice (and something to lean against), somebody could get a decent shot of a relatively slow and low-flying passenger airplane...but I'd bet that it would only be discernible because of the signature cross shape of an ordinary plane with wings and a fuselage. Anything with a centralized shape is only going to look like a blob or blur in the sky; commercial cameras are designed for seflies, not aerial photography.

    The fact is, smartphones are ruefully inadequate for long-range photography. If you're lucky enough to ever see an anomalous device navigating our airspace with a total disregard for inertia and gravity, then you'll need a $3M military-grade gun camera pod with target-lock and advanced laser-guided autofocus capabilities to capture clear footage so you can prove it to anybody. But good luck pulling that off and not having your footage confiscated by the people who own that $3M gun camera pod: the US military.
     
    Last edited: Feb 19, 2019
  9. pigfarmer

    pigfarmer tall, thin, irritable

    Messages:
    1,788
    I had a very close range UFO sighting when I was a kid. I later had reason to believe it was an advertising blimp. Lighting conditions were just right and it was at a very low altitude. In a case like that a smartphone would have been more than adequate. You have no idea how many times I have wished I could rerun the incident and see it again. Fodder for the Wayback machine. My older brother took full advantage of this and tormented me for years over it, which is what older brothers are designed to do. Hence the root of my skepticism and general distrust of eyewitness testimony when it comes to these things.

    Not all cases involve distant high speed objects. I've probably posted these before in this thread but here they are again full sized with all the detail my iPhone 8 can provide. Imperfect and only possible with practice. If the #$%*! phone would consistently recognize my fingerprints it would greatly increase the likelihood of capturing something. I actually do spend time looking at the sky and can say that ordinary planes and helicopters can look really, really weird sometimes.

    I wouldn't say that smartphone cameras are completely useless but they are far from perfect and aren't the general answer to UFO photos. It's possible that a completely trustworthy person will take a close range picture of something truly anomalous one day but that'll just start another endless debate. YouTube is loaded with photos and videos of all sorts of crapola.

    upload_2019-2-19_9-11-30.jpeg
    upload_2019-2-19_9-11-51.jpeg
    upload_2019-2-19_9-12-41.jpeg
     
    • Like Like x 4
  10. pigfarmer

    pigfarmer tall, thin, irritable

    Messages:
    1,788
    Don't want to derail this topic but I was just thinking that in other threads Ray Stanford's credibility has been called into question. Whatever your opinion is of him or his claims, he lugged around his photographic equipment for years and even made a game of it with his kids. He used the tech available at the time. If true that's a helluva lot more effort into this than just about anyone else I can name.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  11. Thomas R. Morrison

    Thomas R. Morrison Unapologetic Rationalist & Grand Inquisitor

    Messages:
    769
    Yeah I think that the Hannah McRoberts photo is probably legit - one of those rare instances when an anomalous object is close enough to be photographed without a huge telephoto lens on a tripod.

    Typically at that close range, comparable to the planes and helicopters in your photos, the second adverse factor kicks in: fear and amazement. When people see something clearly nonterrestrial at that kind of range, they're stunned, and the last thing they're worried about is capturing a photo of it - they're typically riveted to the spot wondering "should I run," "am I in danger," or like myself and my neighbors during my sighting - trying keep our unbroken attention on what we were seeing before it was gone. It didn't even occur to me to try to get a photo until after they were gone - I ran home to get the camera but by then it was too late.

    Yep - whatever people may think of him, he literally did the "heavy lifting" of carrying around cameras and even 8mm cameras with a variety of lenses and filters for a long time, trying to get images of these things. I can't think of anyone else who's made that kind of effort either.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  12. humanoidlord

    humanoidlord ce3 researcher

    Messages:
    4,300
    actually nobody knows if that colonial ship story is real, at the best it has false elements, at the worst its a urban legend
    anyway lets get back on topic
     
  13. nivek

    nivek As Above So Below

    Messages:
    13,754
    We are on topic and that is most likely the scenario, I was making a comparison...

    ...
     
  14. nivek

    nivek As Above So Below

    Messages:
    13,754
    [​IMG]
     
    • Like Like x 1
  15. Toroid

    Toroid Founding Member

    Messages:
    5,526
    The green part on the right side of the craft resembles what was depicted in War of the Worlds.
    [​IMG]
     
    • Like Like x 2
  16. humanoidlord

    humanoidlord ce3 researcher

    Messages:
    4,300
    interesting, a bit blurry but interesting
     
    • Thanks Thanks x 1
    • Agree Agree x 1
  17. Roz

    Roz Novice

    Messages:
    8
    I don't know if it's a real picture. but one element is very convincing. the alleged flying object has a very dark, black part. that is probably an optical effect created by the system used by aliens to travel in space and time.
     
    • Thanks Thanks x 1
  18. humanoidlord

    humanoidlord ce3 researcher

    Messages:
    4,300
    looks just like a hole in the UFO to me, maybe a porthole
     
  19. ProjectBlueBook

    ProjectBlueBook Adept

    Messages:
    76
    I don’t have a photo but I had a sighting this past Friday 3-22-19 around 12:30 AM and to my amazement it was a triangle ufo. I’ve obviously have always heard of them and seen all the photos and videos but never seen one in person. I’ve seen other anomalies in the sky but not the triangle. So I can’t prove it with a picture so I guess I’ll just tell you what happened. I went out that night to stargaze with my binoculars like I always do whenever I have time and I was looking West towards the constellation Gemini and there it was flying West to East flying over my head. Just how it’s been described silent with three points of light making the triangle. I didn’t see a structure just the three points of light and I didn't see a red light in the middle like I’ve seen in some pictures. What was even more amazing was once my brain started realizing what I was looking at, the triangle started to do a vertical 180 degree spin like a backflip then proceeded to continue Westward. Once it flew over my head I was facing East and the bright moon started pollute my view until I lost sight of the triangle. That’s pretty much it, the rest of the night continued normal. I just had to share the story since I have no real proof other than my vivid memory. Thanks for reading
     
    • Awesome Awesome x 1
  20. wwkirk

    wwkirk Celestial

    Messages:
    1,572
    Off topic, but given your username, what's your opinion of the recent History Channel show?
     
    • Like Like x 2

Share This Page