Discussion in 'UFOs & Sightings' started by nivek, Oct 15, 2017.
Hmm, that one looks awfully small and close to the camera to me.
Hi Nivek. ... did you post this shambolic light shade picture as a joke? lol.
... If you didn't and somehow thought it might be a genuine flying saucer then let me inform you that it is one of the [quite frankly rubbish] photographs that is meant to assure us that 'The Friendship Case' [Amicizia] is a genuine mass contactee incident.
Italian for 'Friendship', the Amicizia case began back in 1956 when a kind of federation of alien races - the 'W56' - made contact with various individuals in Italy.... or so the story goes! ... These aliens wanted to help us to help ourselves. Or, in other words, had the usual mission of stopping us from blowing our planet up before we had chance to evolve past the need for petty violence. [sound familiar?] Where the "W56" differ from other contact tales is in their assertion that they're involved in their own space wars. And not only are they busy fighting all sundry of other races, they're also keeping us safe from the 'CTR' - a race created as a (failed) experiment by the "W56" themselves . . The one thing we can be sure of is that to keep battling, the well-to-do Italians they contacted needed to keep bankrolling them. ... And apparently this actually happened!! Stefano Breccia, whom purports to be a university professor and contactee himself, said that he interviewed around 80 other contactees for his books on the subject and revealed
...And money of course,.. lots of lovely lira $$$.
There are a few photographs purporting to be of members of the "W56", [ like this one , and it's a cracker!] ... No i'm not pulling your leg when I say that Breccia claims with a perfectly straight face that this is a genuine photograph of an alien that is 15ft tall! .... ... Yep! ... 15 ft!
...Oh, it's too silly to go on ... but if you really want more of this drivel then have it from the man himself ....
I had been taking plane pics as an exercise in 'holy crap look at that'. I can usually get pics of big lumbering low level aircraft - of which we have plenty around here (hello .... Hudson Valley Wavers ......) . But helicopters and the slick corporate jets that touch down two miles away at the county airport, not so easy. Just too fast even if ordinary for me to unf**k myself quick enough to catch them.
That kind of wore off.
I have a remote shutter button for my iphone and have been wanting to deliberately snap a pic of a thrown object. Staging it around here has been problematic and I have yet to find exactly the right thing to throw. This is NOT a snarky comment - a round truck mirror would be perfect and I have been trying to locate one or something similar. Not going to ebay it, gonna find it.
I recall the McMinnville UFO photo was found to be a fake. The phone lines were a tip off as I recall.
My prior knowledge of this guy and the photo was very scarce, I've seen that photo a few times before but wasn't sure if it was a Billy Meier type fakery or not lol...Thanks for filling in some blanks for me, I did more research into this today, I should have looked more before posting...
This is one of THOSE that people have strong opinions over and I don't know if anyone ever definitively debunked it. UFO photos are virtually useless. They just reinforce belief and aren't going to change anyone's mind about the topic.
My money's on a thrown object; a vehicle mirror fits the bill nicely there. Story goes that these pics are mixed in a roll with mundane photos so if I ever get around to tossing hubcaps and taking pictures I'll keep track of the # of attempts. If it were suspended that might explain why it only took two attempts. Apparently the roll wasn't finished and they waited a while until it was.
If I could ask and actually know the truth I'd like to know if anyone mentioned the flying saucer before the film was developed. You'd think a Venusian spacedisc or whatever might motivate a person to get down to the drug store.
Hi SS, hope you are well mate.
No ... these photos have never been successfully debunked! ... Unless of course your definition of "debunked" is debunked-by-declaration, innuendo, false-analysis and outright lies.?
... In case you weren't aware that you are spreading unsubstantiated propaganda from a number of unscrupulous sources that have a vested interest in 'coming-up-with-the-goods' as pertaining to comprehensively "debunking" any and all of the rare anomalous UFO-evidence related items , be-it quality-testimony , physical-trace or photographic then please bear in mind that in this case as in many others, the evidence that they supplied to support their assertions of prosaicness or foul-play has been in turn comprehensively debunked by even more qualified experts in itself.
... For instance in this case, [the McMinnville photos] the main detractors of the authenticity of the pictures are the infamous Phil Klass and the equally dubious Robert Sheaffer, whom have launched no fewer than three different 'definite debunks' each one claiming to be 'definitive-proof' of how the Trents pulled off this wicked deception that has had all of the distinguished professional-analysts from the military and academia fooled for 70 years now!
... The first one was that the lighting near the barn "definitely proved" that the photos were taken much earlier in the day than Evelyn and Paul said that they were, and therefor was lying!. .... and provided reams of what turned out to be a crock of erroneous BS, full of 'if's, maybe's, supposition's and ignore -the -bits-that-don't-fit's" which were exposed by several more qualified sources.
The second "definitively-proven assertion of shenanigans" was the "look closely you can see the knot-in-the-line" insistence that they turned to after the failed 'morning-evening-light-time-claim'. ... which again had most of us wasting much time fruitlessly searching for the evidence , and was in turn comprehensively dismissed by the more trustworthy analysts.
And then when we mistakenly thought that these 'badufo geniuses' would do the decent thing and allow that there just wasn't a rational prosaic explanation for these mercurial pictures , they came up with the "truck-mirror-definitive-proof-of-nefarious-foul-play-by-the-hideously-sly-Paul-and-Evelyn-Trent" [whom incidentally never made one red cent from their experience and photographs and it is a fact famously never mentioned by any of their sceptical mud-spreading-detractors that they actually turned down a fortune in syndication-rights for the pictures from the 1950's until their deaths almost 50 years later!] ... and of course they provided the obligatory supporting self-applied analysis for this latest attack on the legitimacy of both the photos and the Trent's integrity. ... and to be totally frank with you, I have to confess that when I first heard this 'theory' mooted, it actually got me thinking that just perhaps these clowns have stumbled upon a genuinely feasible possibility here? ... the 'truck-mirror' picture that was touted as being the prime suspect had in my humble view ... potential! ... it did look kind of like the general shape of object that could be utilised in such a fraud ... but then that would absolutely destroy the whole confidence that had built up over the years in my mind that these two innocent mid twentieth century hard working all-american-family dirt-farmers had accrued . And then the confusion intensified when one of these unscrupulous-genius-badufo-debunkers actively spread a rumour that he had in fact found through thorough research an actual citation given to Paul Trent for driving a truck which coincidentally was missing a 'rear-view-mirror' dated the '11th May 1950' [the very day of the incident]!!!! ... So armed with this information , the verdict was to be 'disappointing'.. but nevertheless clear and comprehensive!
... But of course, the old maxim of "pictures or it didn't happen" often comes to fruition, .. as in this case. Firstly, it turns out that 'No One Else' has ever seen or heard about this infamous Trent-Mirror-Citation at all! ... it has never been proven and has been searched for without success by an absolute plethora of 'document-finding-researchers' in the field.
And then there's the less-than-accurate analysis of the 'truck-mirror-definitive-proof' put forward by the [by now, we must be entitled to call them] the 'Cowboy-Debunkers' involved. ... Which once again turns out to be the equivalent of a three year old's version of the Mona Lisa, in as much as the mathematics and great looking computations just do not add up! ... several genuine mathematical savants have pointed out inconsistencies in their analysis ... such as the mooted truck mirror would have to be no more that five by tree inches in one photo, and six inches in the other etc. .. and if you care to read Brad Spark' rebuttal of this spurious supporting analysis/ claim then you will plainly see why it is merely just the third false 'Comprehensive Debunk' made by 'the usual suspects'! ... and then left unchecked and erroneously propagated among the UFO community with great regularity!
.... albeit innocently .... But is still false news.
Hi PF, hope your doing good matey.
No it has not been definitively debunked! ...[as above] ... And the truth is that in all of the interviews and official written testimony by The Trents, Evelyn and Paul stated that there just wasn't the time to get more than two snaps of the objects.
And the fact that Paul was sure that 'the object' was
... and apart from all of the family talk about them the Trents mentioned the pictures to a few friends on several occasions , and one friend put them in the window of McMinnville's U.S. National Bank. ... which started the whole ball running into the behemothic case that it has been for seventy years now.
... Not a thrown object, [proven or at least agreed upon by all analysists] ... and apparently not a toy object, nor a truck mirror ... so even though [just like the Trindade photos] I initially thought these pictures to be hoaxes when I first came across them when I was just a young-un' ... all of the claims and counter claims and analysis , testimony etc that I have trunched through over the years have left me of the opinion that ... [even though I know that you're right about 'evidence perception value' ] they are the most likely pictures out there to be considered as a genuine possibility!
... ps. i'm not trying to convince anyone about anything, because opinions are worthless without my having a dead alien [or alive for that matter] by the throat to personally present to you. ... But it is important in my view for the absolute truth about any claim in this field be presented honestly with personal biases either-way left aside and not touted as gospel to any new students that may be visiting the subject for the first time.
UFO Photographed Near Where Mexican Air Force Had Mass Sighting
Hi Nivek, ... The obvious thing to say is that this looks like one of those rather unusual-looking clouds in the air. ... And going by the lack of additional pictures showing the 'object' holding it's shape as it traverses the skyline ... I would tend to agree. ... but I did learn something from the article, and that was that I never knew that the dust from the Sahara Desert sometimes reaches all the way to the gulf of Mexico. .. so as that part of the article had me a bit confused , I checked... and apparently it does!
Have liked this one for a while too ... "too good to be true?" i hear you say. Well I tend to agree with that, but i've seen it touted as being 'genuine' in several different cases ... such as it has been claimed as being the 'genuine' Westall UFO from 1966 in a couple of different sites.
...And also as being the "Ufo" spotted off the Canadian coast in October 1967. and witnessed by more than 20 people.
.... Who knows the truth? ... but it does at least 'look good' and has an air of authentic-ageness to it' .. and unless anyone can point me to a decent 'debunk' that has so far eluded me for this picture, i'll keep searching ... but in truth, Something in the back of my [tiny-little] mind has a hunch that it will turn out to be something as simple as 'a still shot from an old syfy-movie.
February 2000 - Strangely Shaped UFO Photographed
(From This Month In UFO History)
Stinson Lake, proximate to a U.S. army training area, may be an alien or government UFO base, or a focus of investigation or travel by aliens, one reason being possible mining as the area is rich in precious minerals. A Mirror ship was photographed directing a beam of light at the hillside. Two questions that come to mind are: What was it? And Why was it at an army operations area?
I was given a photo last night of an object above the snow covered evergreens in the soupy late afternoon February sky of 2000 at Stinson Lake. It is not a painted object such as blue underneath and white on top, or black, or part metal and paint...
It is like a mirror reflecting the milky white sky above and the forest below color for color, tone for tone, hue for hue with intensity above surrounding fields at nearest equator and diminishing below surrounding fields (slightly faded at outer or left and right edges) undeniably displaying a round or roundish shape.
There are no wings and no engines noise according to the photographer. There is a shadow outlining its shape in a clearing below it and the same shadow is on the underside reflection. There's more.
After closely examining the object utilizing digital enhancement techniques, globes are seen underneath with hints of green and white lights, a possible dome on top which almost completely blends in with the sky and globular energy field where there are color shifts in the pixel spectrum where there are no added colors but a reorganization of existing colors suggesting a mirage effect also seen with the Mexico videos. The shifted field forms a perfect globe around the object exactly touching is outer edge no matter the attitude of the craft.
Sitting back a little from a 600% enlargement on the monitor screen, a field 'net' effect is obvious. The field appears webbed like a fish net formed into a globe and transparent white. Further, there is evidence of a beam of light pointing at a dark round spot also in a clearing on a nearby hill.
Above the object is a mushroom shape distortion similar to the globular energy field but larger, which raises the question of the portal of origin or a second ship. It was so sudden, the photographer never had any indication of what was about to transpire as he shot landscape photographs in the otherwise peaceful environs around him.
The photographer happened to be at the site near where the U.S. Army has historically conducted paratrooper and other training. The Army's conventional presence may well have been replaced by something extremely advanced. But the sightings have not diminished in that remote and tranquil location unlikely to be stumbled upon by any tourist.
Yep, that's an alien space craft too (according to Joe and NP)...
Taken by Jerry Ross in Seattle in January, 1966. USO?
Ottawa, Ontario Canada UFO Sighting
Sighted 2020-07-13 21:03
Submitted 2020-07-13 23:13
(Reported Same Day)
Summary Photo of sunset
Approximation to protect the reporters identity
Altitude Over 500 Feet – No Cloudcover
Flight Path Other
When taking a photo of the sunset clouds at yow ottawa airport i observed an anomaly in my photo. i took multiple photos in a short time. the object appeared in the upper left. no other photos contained the object. lens was checked and was found to be clean. zoomed in on object and was surprised to find a defined shape. i am a lifelong airplane enthusiast and have never observed anything like this.
Manteno, Illinois UFO Sighting
Sighted 2020-07-07 20:00
Submitted 2020-07-08 01:03
(Reported Same Day)
Summary Bright white oval shaped object over lake village/ roselawn indian
Approximation to protect the reporters identity
Country United States
Postal Code 60950
Distance Over One Mile
Altitude Over 500 Feet – No Cloudcover
Flight Path Stationary
This evening at 8:05 pm my brother called me on my cellphone. he asked me to go outside my house and look to the south east if i saw a white oval shaped object in the sky. i walked out to my driveway and saw a 767 heading southeast at aprox 20,000-25,000 ft then i looked to the east, sky was clear no cloud cover just blue sky and then it just appeared out of nowhere. there it was the object he was talking about. it was a bright white oval shaped craft the size of a pinhead. we observed the object for about 40 mins. it seemed to be stationary at a 40 degree angle east/slight se from my position manteno il and 40degree angle direct south from my brothers home when he was observing it from in crown point in. he set up his 400mm x 20mm telescope and was able to take pictures of the object holding his cellphone camera up to the telescope. after viewing the object for approximately 40 mins the object disappeared, vanished liked someone flipped a switch and it was gone. here are the pictures of the object.
That's a beauty. If it's a fake, it's a damn good fake; the colors are perfect, and you can even make out the dim light of the horizon gently illuminating the underside. But I don't understand why the report cites six lights around the perimeter of the object, but none are seen in the photo. I wonder if this is the only photo taken of that object.
I once watched a good video made by a UFO skeptic who demonstrated how easy is to make such a photo or video.
Basically, all you need is a very long pole or a big tree. Then you either suspend model of UFO on that pole or on a branch of that tree with nylon string and you get natural light and everything. That's why I am wary of any UFO images that are done in the vicinity of trees.
I much prefer images shot in a desert or from an aeroplane or at sea etc.
Back in a day, I was developing my own black and white photographs with chemicals etc. It's so easy to make such double-exposure images it's even pointless to start describing.
That image is unquestionably 100% fake, for a simple reason that perspectives are not matching. Background image has a normal perspective, while the secondary egg image no perspective whatsoever and it is completely flat. Such two images, one with perspective and another without perspective can't be shot at the same time with the same lens.
Taking into account the position of the egg, about quarter of the image size off the center, there should be significant distortion for two reasons: 1) geometric distortion, 2) slight spherical distortion because the camera lens.
When egg was originally shot, it was held in the center of the camera lens, where distortion is almost non existent. But when double exposure was done, egg was moved off the center, where it should naturally have some perspective and lens distortion, but actually it doesn't have any.
Actually, @Thomas R. Morrison being a artist and probably versed in perspective, would be able to easily confirm that.
Take a look here, and you will see where the Yorba Linda object and Cocoyoc object came from!
Harold Trudel's Photos (Woonsocket, Rhode Island; 1967)
Separate names with a comma.