Discussion in 'UFOs & Sightings' started by nivek, Oct 15, 2017.
That doesn't look as good as my one.
Hi Dejan hope you are well mate. ... As you say "the image is extremely sharp" , which in my opinion goes against this being a picture of a genuine 'flying saucer'. ... I mean that specially the edges of the image are clearly defined enough as to make me think that this thing is not moving very fast , if moving at all? ... but then 'the object' is so clearly in the line of his shot... so much so that if this image was of an object that is clearly of a great dimension and prominently visible [almost glowing in colour] then I fail to believe that the photographer 'Robert Rinker' could have not seen it at all!
... To me, this is the photographers attempt to deceive, because he knew all too well that it is the product of a 'a light reflected on glass/windscreen/window, which the picture screams out to be in my mind! ... perhaps as a joke among his friends that was not corrected before going public. ... I give the photographer the curtesy of not proclaiming him an outright shyster, for the reason that the only quote that we can find from Robert Rinker about the picture is "I haven’t said it’s a saucer yet." .. which makes me think that this was more of a bit of a jovial wheeze, than an outright hoax!
The photograph was taken on March 22, 1967, by Robert Rinker who was a field technician at the mountain laboratory weather station on Chalk Mountain (near Climax, Colorado) ... it was investigated and mentioned in the [infamous] Condon report ... and the investigators notes are ...
I just reported it as I found it. I find it interesting because there is a whole class of UFO photos where the photographer didn't notice the object when he was taking photos.
In that class of photos was a famous photo taken in UK by a fireman who took his wife and daughters for a storll on a sunny day to try a new family camera and while taking a picture of his daughter holding flowers an alien in a spacesuit appeared in background. I forgot the name of the guy, but I am sure you all know which one I am mentioning. Judging by shadows and sky in the background, that photo was done on a very sunny day, in a good lighting conditions, with very short camera exposure time. That might be why, that fireman daughter's photo didn't have a motion blur.
I would say that that Climax, Colorado photo doesn't have a motion blur because of the very specific scenary the photo was taken in. Location was on a sunny day, on a top of mountain, with snow cover. As far as camera exposure was concerned, that was not double whammy, but a tripple whammy, meaning that extposure time was most likely around 1/250 ... 1/500 sec, with most films etc. That would go to explain why object was so sharp, even if it was moving fast.
Saying all that, as a UFO, that UFO is very strange. It doesn't have a sharp rim/edge. And it doesn't have any lights or panels around the circumference, which is quite rare, but it still happens.
Another strange thing is that object doesn't cast any shadow. But that might be because of the angle of the sun. One needs to study a picture closer.
probably a silly question, but does anyone know anything about this picture? ... I haven't seen it before and can only find reference to it on a French website ... La Galerie de l’inexpliqué:la recherche de la Vérité – Michelduchaine ... in which it claims ... On August 26, 1966, Lieutenant Glen B, stationed at Minot AFB, ND, claimed that a whole fleet of UFOs had sailed on the base. "I was on high alert because of the event (a famous incident had taken place the day before, a UFO had stopped a nearby nuclear missile silo), and I had my camera with me. There was a vibration in the air and a dozen cylindrical objects "flew" from south to north directly above me. They were completely silent and moved into an "irregular arrow" formation. ...
... and similarly, does anyone know if this one has been debunked? ....
.. All that I know about this picture is that it is on 'The Secret KGB Files' site from 1998 and caption simply reads ... "A UFO encountered by a Russian MIG during military maneuvers" ... but also on the page is the 'crashed UFO being inspected by Russian soldiers' that was featured on that old Roger Moore documentary , and as that picture and video seems to be universally discounted as being a fake... then I don't really hold much expectations for this one either. ... but it looks good.
Re Pic #1:
I can't really put a finger on it but I am 99.9999% sure it's just a CGI. The lighting was matched almost perfectly, so it's hard to put blame on it. The only thing I can say that all 4 ships are in a perfectly the same angle to the camera. That in itself is not enough, but let's put it this way, in computer graphics the easiest thing is to copy 3D objects. On my personal level, I can count on the fingers of one hand UFO cases where there was more than one UFO present that low to the ground and that close to humans.
One possible way to check if it is CGI, but unlikely to work, is to find as high a resolution image as you can and then zoom in where UFO's shadow falls on the roof tiles. The roof seems to have semi-cylindrical roof tiles, so the UFO shadow should be jagged, not straight like with ordinary flat roof tiles. Because this was a composite CGI, a 2D photo, and 3D UFO, CGI would render the roof with flat tiles and betray itself. But again, most likely there is no image with high enough resolution.
Re Pic #2:
That one is easy-peasy. That aircraft is not Mig-29 or any Russian jet plane for that matter. The plane in the picture is US fighter F-15 . Migs and Suhoys don't have cockpits that stick out so much and they have noses that are bent downwards, while F-15s have completely straight noses. And F-15's wings have an aileron section of the wing slightly bent backward, while Ruskies don't. Yeah and the big one, Russian Migs external fuel tank is carried in the middle between the engines, while F-15, like one in the picture, carries external fuel tanks on the wing pylons.
Circa 1976 from a 110 camera
I was just looking at one of the McMinnville photos, and I realized that I could get a pretty good idea of the distance of the object from the camera based on the atmospheric haze that makes dark values (like the shadowed area below the object) look lighter as the distance increases. So check this out - first, here's the photo itself:
Next, I made a copy slicing through the object, and highlighted the area around it in red:
Then I checked the value of the grey underside of the object, against the grey values of the three regions at the bottom of the photo. First I checked it against the distant foothills:
The shadowed underside of the object is darker than the foothills, so it's closer than that. So I checked it against the outcropping of trees between the distant foothills and the edge of the yard:
Bingo - the shaded area below the craft is a perfect match against the grey values of the outcropping of trees in-between the yard and the distant mountain range - the craft seems to disappear when its placed on that grey value. And finally, I checked it against the shrubs at the edge of the Trent's yard:
It's lighter than the shrubs at the edge of their yard, so the object must have been further away than the edge of their yard. It couldn't have been an object hanging from the power lines in their yard, as fake skeptics like Robert Sheaffer have alleged (without ever trying to explain why the power lines wouldn't sag with something hanging from them) - if the object was within the yard, the grey-scales would've been similar to the value of the barn roof on the left. It's not - look how much lighter it is:
It isn't even close. The object had to have been at least 100 yards away from the camera in order to have that value of grey on its shaded underside.
I love this type of analysis where the investigator picks and chooses factors he'll take into account. Same as that Mike guy who omitted 4th gimbal in the Navy UFO case.
That analysis would be spot on if UFOs were made from wood and covered by leaves. But it's much safer to assume they are made of some reflective material, like aluminum. In which case one has to take into account, not just the haze, but the reflectivity of the metallic surface. Luckily we have a water metallic tank hanging on the wall of the farmer's house. And even conveniently it is shiny and metallic and we can see a shadow on its lower side. So comparison should really be done between the water tank's lower shadow and UFO. If they are very similar UFO is hanging from wires, if UFO is considerably brighter it is far away.
Whatever the hell it was certainly generated a lot of interest:
Dr. Bruce Maccabee Research Website
Apparently no reporters followed up on the Trent story after the visit by Lou Gillette on June 10 or 11, 1950. Since there were, at that time, no civilian UFO organizations, there were no further civilian investigations into the sighting until many years later. However, the Trents have claimed that there was a brief government investigation, and that claim is backed in part by Bill Powell. The first mention of a government investigation in a written document (at least the first mention that I was able to find) is in a letter from the late Frank Halstead (an astronomer) to Maj. Donald Keyhoe (a retired Marine pilot, author of the first popular UFO book and several other UFO books and the first director the civilian UFO organization called the National Investigations Committee on Aerial Phenomena (NICAP)). (NOTE 2000: NICAP ceased operation in 1980 and the voluminous files of about 10,000 sighting cases were turned over to the Center for UFO Studies.) The letter of April 18, 1959 states that Halstead visited the Trents and "I spent about an hour with them and they told me that the FBI came there and questioned them for several hours and some time later a man from the A.F. base from Denver, Colorado... This man spent a considerable time with them asking, but did answer their questions." Halstead also offered to make a tape recording of the Trents' story. Richard Hall, who was the executive secretary of NICAP at the time, responded to Halstead's letter, saying that NICAP would be very interested in getting a tape recording and "as a separate section of the tape, a description of the interviews the Trents had with the two FBI agents and the Air Force officer."(39) I don't know why Hall referred to "two" FBI agents since there is no written record of Halstead referring to two agents. Perhaps Halstead telephoned Keyhoe (or Hall) in relation to the interview and conveyed further information that way. (Note: apparently Halstead never did tape the Trents. As late as May, 1961 Halstead informed Keyhoe by letter that he still intended to tape an interview with the Trents, but there is no such tape in the NICAP files.)
The next mention of possible government involvement occurs in two sources in 1967. Mrs. Trent told Look Magazine that "Air Force officials investigated the sighting and took geiger counter readings but they didn't let us know anything." (40) The second source is the Portland Oregonian of Aug. 3, 1967 which says that Mrs. Trent reported that" 'two detectives' examined their house and furnishings after they reported the pictures. She didn't know why." (41)
In a 1969 phone conversation with Dr. James McDonald, Paul Trent was asked "what he thought it was" and he replied as follows: "Thought it was something the Army was experimenting with. Don't say much about it now... because get so much fuss. FBI checked (us); came right out to where (I) was working and questioned (me). That was right at (the) time, 1950, three weeks after it got out in the papers. (They) gave no reason. (They were) just talking to (me) but (they) showed FBI identification (papers)." (Reconstructed from telephone notes by James McDonald (24).)
In several conversations with me, Mrs. Trent recounted the story of "detectives" who visited the house while she was home. I asked her "Was that during the day when you were home or something?"(42) She answered "Yeah, it was later in the day. I don't know, it was probably about 4:00, say to 4:30 when he came in. Yeah, he went through everything. _Everything!_ (her emphasis) And I don't mean maybe! He never stopped (until he had everything spread out) on the table."
I asked her if the man said where he was from and she answered "No. He even went where to where my husband was at work, on the Alderman farm there. He asked all different questions there." Mrs. Trent gave a rather graphic description of how the "detective" went through the dresser drawers and other drawers in the house looking for something and generally making a mess of the place and they didn't put anything back where it was supposed to be. She said she wasn't sure that the detective was from the FBI. She also said that there was another man, too, who spent some time outside the house as well as inside. Both men took lots of pictures. They were "throwing stuff up in the air 'n' taking pictures, 'n' trying all different things like that, too, garbage can lids 'n' stuff like that, but they went all through it just to see what they could find, I guess. They didn't find nothin', but that's what they said they had (to do), said it was their job, that's the way they worded it." Mrs. Trent did not recall whether or not they wore uniforms.
I can end the mystery of those never before seen photos I just posted. My first and last attempt to fake a UFO. I stuck a piece of felt to the storm window. Mid 1970s but I don't remember exactly when or if it was before or after my first sighting. Was looking around in old boxes for something else and found it and figured what the hell, it's been waiting 40+ years to make its debut so yesterday der tag.
I experimented with this over the summer and there were just some logistical problems. Hoping to do it somewhere conveniently around the house but when you see the various angles, objects to be used as reference etc its more problematic. I'll add this reason to the list of why I need a flat piece of property. Why? I don't really know - just seems an extension of photographing planes. Not trying to fool anybody - outside the Pine Bush UFO festival that is .....
Fine - see for yourself. Just like the bottom of the water tank, there's virtually no light shining on the bottom of the object, so I grabbed a small sample of the dark grey value at the bottom of the water tank, and I circled this area in red, and copied it so we could place that grey-scale value right beside the bottom of the object. And the difference is striking, as you can see in this image:
This is even more compelling when we take a very close look at the underside of the object, because it appears to be concave, which would completely steep it in shadow and make it even darker than the darkest spot at the bottom of the water tank which is convex. It's very tricky to discern, but you can see a dark circular shape on the bottom of the object, which appears to be slightly recessed inside of a tapering rim at the bottom of the object. And since the light source is above the object, this area should be virtually black. I've adjusted the levels so you can make it out a little bit easier:
Those wires from which UFO was supposedly suspended are only a few feet further away from the camera than that water tank. So the patch cut out from the water tank and put right next to the UFO clearly shows how much intervening haze was between the camera and UFO. There is absolutely no way that that UFO was hanging from those overhead wires.
It's interesting to see the flexible nature of the hull of the craft which does appear to have a dull matte metallic appearance. I've flipped the image (easier to see with fresh eyes) and adjusted the contrast to better show that one side is stepped (the right side in this emage), while the other is smooth (in direction of travel), and the projection at the top is also at an angle:
One the same as the McMinnville craft was reputably seen in Rouen France about the same time as this sighting. 1954.
The Snake river UFO (1947)
The Hynek UFO Report
Seems to be the same one photographed in 1927 at Cave Junction, OR:
This is the 'blow-up' of the section of the photograph taken by Pat Regan whilst out with his daughter and saw a UFO flying alongside a freaky funnel cloud which was snapped moving slowly over the skies of the county of Lancashire in July 2008. ... incidentally, Pat Regan, who took the photograph went on to set up North West UFO Research project.
... it made a bit of a splash at the time, making it into many newspapers...
... and even featured on American UFO Hunters programme being investigated and deemed 'authentic' by the show's 'experts' Dr Ted Acworth, Pat Uskert and Dr Grant Allen.
Separate names with a comma.