The Tic Tac And 1950 Oregon UFO. Are They The Same Thing ?

The 1950 Oregon UFO photograph suddenly came to mind. I remember it looked similar to the " Tic-Tac " in recent news.

Posted photographs of both here for comparison. What are your opinions ?





Link here for the Oregon photograph.

www.geek.com...

No. Not the same thing at all. The current tic-tacs are described as being cylindrical with rounded ends and the old UFO is an actual flying saucer with a flat circular base and body like a flattened cone.

Not that there haven't been old UFOs described as being roughly similar to a tic-tac, but I'm not familiar with any being a close match. Even the old "airship" UFOs of the late 19th Century were generally described as looking rounded and tubular like the airships of the day.

Most UFO designs are surprisingly different from each other, suggesting that there are a wide variety of aliens visiting the Earth. Or something else, since nobody has ever proven that there are any aliens anywhere.

That is not the "Tic-Tac" - it's the "Gimbal" UFO from 2015, allegedly seen by the USS Roosevelt. You may be mistaken because Dave (Tic-Tac) Fravor spoke at an event this year that was staged in the same town as the 1950 pic: McMinnville.

And you have turned Paul Trent's infamous 1950 photograph upside down.

Not that all that matters per se!

Is it the same UFO? I'm doubtful, but I'm also doubtful of the 2015 video's authenticity - more so than the 2004 Tic-Tac video.

a reply to: ConfusedBrit

And you have turned Paul Trent's infamous 1950 photograph upside down

Not guilty guv.

That is how it appears on the link i provided.

a reply to: alldaylong

Good effort man.. we need more like you, ignore the trolls.
Any insight in these strange events are welcome.
I see the similarities and funny how the older photo is higher quality.
The way its pointing is not relevant to us or the "outsiders"
Keep it up, these small discoveries may lead to a bigger picture.

a reply to: Spacespider

funny how the older photo is higher quality

You are aware that the "Gimbal" image is via FLIR (Forward Looking Infrared Radar) not a conventional photograph??

ignore the trolls

If something is not correct with the description and / or image(s) it's hardly trolling to be pointing that out.
Just like i did with your 'quality of the photos' remark

originally posted by: Diaspar
a reply to: Spacespider

funny how the older photo is higher quality

You are aware that the "Gimbal" image is via FLIR (Forward Looking Infrared Radar) not a conventional photograph??

ignore the trolls

If something is not correct with the description and / or image(s) it's hardly trolling to be pointing that out.
Just like i did with your 'quality of the photos' remark

What is not right is that you assume they abide our understanding of physics.
And they look similar, that is what important.. not the date.. time is irrelevant.
Trolls jumping out of the bush when someone brings something new to the table makes me mad.
They are like sharks that smell blood.
They never brings anything to the table, they just make everyone loose the interest in even say something.

a reply to: Spacespider

What is not right is that you assume they abide our understanding of physics.

Errr....what? Point out where i said that...

And they look similar, that is what important.. not the date.. time is irrelevant.

Errr....what? Point out where i said anything on date and time?


It was referred to as "tic-tac", it was pointed out that is was actually "Gimbal". That's not Trolling.

It was pointed out that the 1950's photo was Paul Trent's and it was upside down. That's not Trolling.

Both the other users gave their opinion, were not rude, were informative. That's not Trolling.

I gave no opinion other than to point out that you can't compare a visible light camera photo with a FLIR image in terms of quality. That's not Trolling.