The Hoover Memo got a whopping single reply of “who cares about Hoover?”
From an empiricist nonetheless. Is that even a basis for rational debate?
The Condon Commitee report worked well. It assumed even the skeptics wouldn’t have to read it.
The closest I got to countering a counter argument:
This is right before he buzzed off
From an empiricist nonetheless. Is that even a basis for rational debate?
The Condon Commitee report worked well. It assumed even the skeptics wouldn’t have to read it.
The closest I got to countering a counter argument:
This is right before he buzzed off
Last edited:
Maybe we should stop using debunk or fringe, they have a negative spin, and simply say alternative explanation or theory.
I watched The Phenomenon (the whole thing) and have to admit I was a little disappointed. I did find it to be somewhat biased in that little mention was made of any alternative explanations and three of the cases presented did involve humanoid ET’s in jump suits. IIRC one even had them riding on top of a flying craft.
Roswell – At least I found my claims that all the published photos were essentially staged. I missed the name but one guy stood in the desert and claimed that the debris field was as big as 6 football fields strewn with metal shards. He went on to claim that the metal was as thin as foil but could not be bent or torn and a sledgehammer just bounced off it. One might wonder how it got shredded over 6 football fields, or how a sheet of metal holds it’s ground when hit with a hammer. I do not find this credible.
The Lonnie Zamora incident – Here was a craft sort of shaped like a big propane tank which took off with a big flame coming out of the bottom. I has been discussed how unlikely any conventional propulsion would be. I even watched another 45 min. video to get more info on this one. There were pictures and diagrams which has some things I found a little strange. The imprints of the four feet were not symmetrically placed at all and there were small rocks obviously placed in a ring around each (I missed any explanation of this if there was one). There was a farmer that claimed a similar event with the difference that the burned area was much larger. No mention was made of any investigation of the second event. No corroborating parties here.
The McMinnville Photos – Again there was more information on the web including some contradictory interview statements. There were also several comments that the farmer’s wife had reported previous sightings and that nobody listened to her. I found an extensive study of high-resolution scans of the original, they were studied from many angles including meteorological records of that day. The study seemed sincere and thorough, and IMO qualifies as counter evidence. Again, lacking corroboration.
The most disturbing thing was the difference in what Vallee said in the film and what was in the published report (link posted here). Folks can see both and make up their own minds but the two are night and day. I read the report and it was very inconclusive, in the film his assistant was very excited “to make some thing out of this metal”.
My opinions of course, but at this point any comments that start with “do you actually think” or the equivalent will be ignored.
I watched The Phenomenon (the whole thing) and have to admit I was a little disappointed. I did find it to be somewhat biased in that little mention was made of any alternative explanations and three of the cases presented did involve humanoid ET’s in jump suits. IIRC one even had them riding on top of a flying craft.
Roswell – At least I found my claims that all the published photos were essentially staged. I missed the name but one guy stood in the desert and claimed that the debris field was as big as 6 football fields strewn with metal shards. He went on to claim that the metal was as thin as foil but could not be bent or torn and a sledgehammer just bounced off it. One might wonder how it got shredded over 6 football fields, or how a sheet of metal holds it’s ground when hit with a hammer. I do not find this credible.
The Lonnie Zamora incident – Here was a craft sort of shaped like a big propane tank which took off with a big flame coming out of the bottom. I has been discussed how unlikely any conventional propulsion would be. I even watched another 45 min. video to get more info on this one. There were pictures and diagrams which has some things I found a little strange. The imprints of the four feet were not symmetrically placed at all and there were small rocks obviously placed in a ring around each (I missed any explanation of this if there was one). There was a farmer that claimed a similar event with the difference that the burned area was much larger. No mention was made of any investigation of the second event. No corroborating parties here.
The McMinnville Photos – Again there was more information on the web including some contradictory interview statements. There were also several comments that the farmer’s wife had reported previous sightings and that nobody listened to her. I found an extensive study of high-resolution scans of the original, they were studied from many angles including meteorological records of that day. The study seemed sincere and thorough, and IMO qualifies as counter evidence. Again, lacking corroboration.
The most disturbing thing was the difference in what Vallee said in the film and what was in the published report (link posted here). Folks can see both and make up their own minds but the two are night and day. I read the report and it was very inconclusive, in the film his assistant was very excited “to make some thing out of this metal”.
My opinions of course, but at this point any comments that start with “do you actually think” or the equivalent will be ignored.
Again, I'm not sure what you mean because your reply is vague (whether it's intentional or accidental would be a separate discussion). To someone living in a secluded area in a far away place, B-2 Stealth Bomber may well be an unidentifiable flying object even today. Also, why does it necessarily have to be something we haven’t seen before? It can also be something we can't clearly see and thus unidentifiable.
I appreciate this. Thank you
There’s a photograph of a very similar object as depicted in the McMinnville photos taken in (going off memory) either Europe or South America of a similar object. As you might imagine, I do not agree with the hoax conclusion of these photos for a few reasons. One is that the Trents never attempted to profit off these photographs. Another is that the Condon Committee even found them compelling (albeit at the time). Another is that the film roll had been examined and there was no trace of would-be photographic attempts of a hoax; in other words, they simply snapped two photographs in sequence and waited to finish the roll before developing.
I’m still looking for the corroborating photograph and will post it when I do.
Last edited:
Definitely, but that is not the point.
I am showing the date,the wood and canvas plane and the wood and brass fittings camera.
And my point is that over 100 year old pictures taken with primitive equipment are FAR better (sharp, excellent contrast, no grain) than 21st Century Hi Tech Expensive images.
WTF???????
So the crappy Tic Tac images shown PROVE NOTHING.
As of:
Yes. I deny it proves anything.
I say that is a crappy video that proves NOTHING.
Where????????????
All I see is a fuzzy grainy image of a screen, not even a straight picture taken through a window, either the cockpit itself (look at MY videos showing such pictures) or a Plane Camera window, such as:
Don´t put words in my mouth, what I SHOWED that a blimp 100 year old picture is way better than the crap shown about Tic Tac.
Picture I posted proves Blimps exist, Navy footage proves NOTHING.
YES. Do you have anything better?
Some Guru, bar/armchair "Philosopher", True Believer statement instead?
Boy, you certainly have a very limited menu of slogans.
Again: you can not prove something does not exist, so it´s useless to solve a discussion, stop wasting time and bandwidth.
Again? Boy you are limited and predictable.
Bring me 1000000 witnesses about any subject, it is not proven without physical proof.
Which you do not have.
Fallacy of Authority.
To boot they are not highly trained to recognize UFOs at all, only to fly military planes in combat, period.
Fuzzy images, garbled telemetry prove NOTHING.
You are lowering the bar more and more, desperately trying to find *some* recognition.
So far, none, outside the circle of Accolytes.
Where do you pull this nonsense from?
Who knows? At least blimps exist.
Who knows?
I am saying that it is USELESS and PROVES NOTHING.
Not even that there was an object, any object, UFO or not, flying there, all we saw is a dark or whitish fuzzy *spot* on a screen. Period.
Anything else rests on your IMAGINATION.
Last edited:
There was no manipulation of the film, they used modern image processing tools and both photos. http://www.ipaco.fr/ReportMcMinnville.pdf
JMFahey, just for the sake of rationality, you do understand that professional photographs look good because photography is a skill and not all people (pilots or not) are going to have optimal conditions on the fly, right?
Member
Joined 2009
Paid Member
When you can’t clearly see it, it ceases to be clear evidence. I think you’re losing the plot, trying to provide responses but of such poor quality, like the images of UFO’s, going in circles and just ending up with something where we can’t clearly see your point….
This is a good report making a strong point vs the McMinnville photographs. Thank you, I will keep it in mind. This thread needs more of this.
FWIW I AM a photographer with full Optics studies *and* film/chemistry Professional knowledge, so much so that I used to own a Photo Chemicals Factory, "Fotoquimicos Victoria" in Buenos Aires, and our latest maket shrank to Graphic Arts, Technical and X Ray processing products, I am not into the "Artistic" or "Snapshot" area but on the very high definition side, so I can analyze the photo evidence shown in detail and cringe about its worthlessness.
Those WW1 photographers got infinitely better results (specially USABLE results) with their glass plate negatives, probably Ortho sensitivity, low sensitivity (think ASA12 to ASA32) and their 4 element Tessar lenses invented in 1902, go figure.
And plane camera results DO NOT DEPEND ON PILOT SKILL AT ALL, all he has to do is fly the plan there, period.
He is not in a Publicity Studio where he sets up lightning, cameras, picks lenses, film material (or digital camera back).
Same way you do not need to know about RF, Microwaves, Protocols, software, antennas, etc. to use your Smartphone.
Those WW1 photographers got infinitely better results (specially USABLE results) with their glass plate negatives, probably Ortho sensitivity, low sensitivity (think ASA12 to ASA32) and their 4 element Tessar lenses invented in 1902, go figure.
And plane camera results DO NOT DEPEND ON PILOT SKILL AT ALL, all he has to do is fly the plan there, period.
He is not in a Publicity Studio where he sets up lightning, cameras, picks lenses, film material (or digital camera back).
Same way you do not need to know about RF, Microwaves, Protocols, software, antennas, etc. to use your Smartphone.
So based on your response (in red) it's unidentified, even to you. Good, this thread is making progress.
That (in bold) is where you took a wrong turn. Unidentified is because of that very reason "can't clearly see it". When that happens, it ceases to be clearly identifiable object and this is one of two categories of "U" in UFO. The other category is, even if you can clearly see it, if it's unknown to you or someone in a secluded area in a far away place, it is unidentifiable.
As for the evidence, it will need some kind of claim first, no?
Thank you for your input. I appreciate you expertise and thank you for being forthright, sincerely.
And what did you have to contribute? Did your expectations alone allow your participation to amount to anything?
Last edited:
Member
Joined 2009
Paid Member
We are looking for clear evidence of objects (or craft as some folk call ‘em), not fuzzy data and chit chat. Hard evidence that these fuzzy images were actually portraying something of substance. Without it, these stories hold no water but serve as grist for the believers and to earn somebody a few $ perhaps.
Last edited:
I think the "believers" should put their cards on the table and tell us exactly what their beliefs are...its hard to second guess, considering the number of UFO belief "groups" out there
I can state for myself and have done as much. Maybe it’s in the other thread; I can link it regardless.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.