James Fox "Phenomenon" out today

originally posted by: JimOberg
My presumption is that the photographers themselves are the best authorities on what was filmed, not Cooper, who from ALL accounts from people who were directly involved, had zero connection with the original event.

originally posted by: beetee
a reply to: JimOberg

They are using this as an illustration of "missing evidence". Of course, if it was ever filmed as Gordon Cooper claimed, then it would indeed be pretty astounding if it were ever to be produced and made public :-)

I think the evidence points to Cooper taking a real UFO event, and inserting himself into a fictitious role of an exaggerated version of the event.

Once you realize this, the evidence is not "missing". That's why I made a thread about "finding" the alleged "missing" evidence, it was always there, it just matched the version of events as told by the photographers who actually made the film, rather than Cooper's version of events. So you actually can see the UFO if you want, the real UFO the photographers describe, not the fictitious UFO Cooper describes.

originally posted by: Arbitrageur

originally posted by: Ophiuchus1
Not including any other picture(s) (the farm boy, Trent wife, ladder, Trent himself, newspaper photographer, etc.) ... how many different pictures (positions of camera and or angles) of the object itself was taken by Trent?

Exactly two.

If possible where would those pictures of the actual raw pictures of the “object only“ would be found in one location online? Kindly provide, if not you, someone hopefully. One link is all, not an ATS link or bunch of non-ATS rabbit hole links to links ...

Thanks 🙏

Robert Sheaffer has linked various scans of the images. Scroll to the bottom where it says "High-Resolution Scans of Trent Photo First-Generation Prints".

The actual raw photos are negatives and those can't be put online, because it's a piece of plastic with emulsion on it, not a digital image like modern cameras take.

The other images I've seen like the boy on the ladder were taken by the Life magazine photographer, who went to the Trent's place and interviewed them for his story.

Joel Carpenter thought it resembled a rear-view mirror.

I don't know what the "UFO' was, but I can see a resemblance. He did some interesting analysis of the two photos.

Where the hell did you hear or read that you can't put negatives online? It's pretty damn simple; run them through a negative scanner............ I was doing that the 1st month of photography school back in 2004.

originally posted by: flice
Where the hell did you hear or read that you can't put negatives online? It's pretty damn simple; run them through a negative scanner............ I was doing that the 1st month of photography school back in 2004.

A scan of a negative is not a negative.

For example, if you examine the original negative, it's possible to determine things like scratches on the surface of a negative, which may not be part of the image on the emulsion. But the scratch can show up in the scan, and then from the scanned image you can't tell if it's really a scratch or not like you can looking at the negative. So that's why I say a scan of a negative is not a negative.

originally posted by: Arbitrageur

originally posted by: flice
Where the hell did you hear or read that you can't put negatives online? It's pretty damn simple; run them through a negative scanner............ I was doing that the 1st month of photography school back in 2004.

A scan of a negative is not a negative.

For example, if you examine the original negative, it's possible to determine things like scratches on the surface of a negative, which may not be part of the image on the emulsion. But the scratch can show up in the scan, and then from the scanned image you can't tell if it's really a scratch or not like you can looking at the negative. So that's why I say a scan of a negative is not a negative.

Well... in this case it doesnt really matter, just need to scan it first, then we can always come back and ask questions about scratches if needed.
Run that negative through a scanner that has high dpi and lets see what we get.

originally posted by: flice
Well... in this case it doesnt really matter, just need to scan it first, then we can always come back and ask questions about scratches if needed.
Run that negative through a scanner that has high dpi and lets see what we get.

What's already happened:
The negative has been used to make photos which are larger than the negative.
The photos have been scanned at high resolution, links posted.
People look at the high resolution scans and argue about whether or not they can see faint lines where a model would be suspended.

The people who claim those could just be scratches will want to examine the actual negative for scratches.
So yes it does matter in this case, to some people, not so much to me though.

The Trent UFO Photos—‘Best’ of All Time—Finally Busted?

The purported string cannot be seen across its entire length, which is consistent with the French skeptics being able to detect it only statistically. It is significant that Walter and the French team were working with different scans.

So two different teams working with two different scans of the photos claim to have found evidence of the suspension lines. If you can find the negatives and scan those I have no objection, but I don't know if anybody has any idea where they are. I don't think it would settle anything though.

The bottom line for me is this Trent case has had so many resources devoted to analyzing something that to my eye doesn't look that interesting, since whether it's a rear view mirror or not, that's what it looks like. So to me it's not so much a study in flying craft as it is a study in the psychology of people who can convince themselves that a photo of what looks like a rear view mirror may be an alien space ship or whatever fantasy they have a confirmation bias to confirm.

I also see the question of scratches as a moot point since there is already ample evidence from the position of the two photos and the "stereo" or parallax that the object is likely much closer than the Trents claimed, so personally I think scanning the negatives will not erase this finding which various researchers have noted:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Now "look up" at the overhead wires. Curiously enough, they line up at the same relative distance as the saucer! That's interesting, don't you think? And if you look around the image, as well as the other available images of the yard -- the ones with the ladder -- the wires are not far away at all, but are actually closer to the camera than the oil tank. So if the UFO saucer lines up at that point, then there's a pretty good chance that the UFO is actually pretty close to the camera, also.

Well, certainly the UFO could have moved and somehow by pure chance managed to get a stereo separation of exactly the same distance and at the same relative angle as the overhead wires.That would be amazingly coincidental, wouldn't it?

Seeing how much the object looks like a truck mirror, I'm going to say it's not amazingly coincidental.

Just a note, read the thread, watched the movie. Wasted $4.99.

a reply to: Caver78

I wasted a fiver on a book the other day. It was a great feeling getting a refund.

I am curious what specifically you found so disappointed in with this documentary. serious question here. a reply to: Caver78

originally posted by: NephraTari
I am curious what specifically you found so disappointed in with this documentary. serious question here. a reply to: Caver78

The whole lets wrap the same information up & resell it is insulting. There isn't any new information in the movie, at least for anyone who's been keeping up on the topic. JMO but using the new name Phenomenon in decided link to others work, like that rubs some legitimacy off onto it?? was particularly galling.

The problem is we've gotten so used to not insisting on answers, then when we don't get them we're, well OK with it instead of tossing these guys to the curb. Look ...no results should equal no more attention wasted.
In the real world a lack of results gets you fired. Plain & simple.

Smoke & mirrors, alluding to knowing more but not being able to tell you what that is is just bull snip..
Those that do know aren't talking ...those who are talking keep hoping we won't notice they don't know squat.
So far it's working for them too. Sadly.

a reply to: Caver78

Fair enough, however I would ask you this... who in your opinion has ever supplied us with answers unequivocally in the field of UFO research? I mean if anyone had, would we still be having this discussion? Disclosure would be a reality that was just accepted as fact.

originally posted by: NephraTari
a reply to: Caver78

Fair enough, however I would ask you this... who in your opinion has ever supplied us with answers unequivocally in the field of UFO research? I mean if anyone had, would we still be having this discussion? Disclosure would be a reality that was just accepted as fact.

Are the answers to Roswell equivocal or unequivocal? Roswell was one of the events covered in the James Fox video; don't you think we have answers to Roswell?

I think Caver78 just gave you part of the answer, but you don't recognize it when you see it, that's part of the problem.

There are some answers in the field of "UFO research" and I think we have answers about Roswell which we didn't have in 1993. Each UFO report is an individual event, and the majority of UFO reports are explainable as misidentifications or failure to identify manmade objects or natural phenomena, and who is to say that the unexplainable reports are not more of the same? I see people loudly proclaim that some reports are so unexplainable that they can't possibly be explained by those, like this one on youtube, what kind of man-made craft is 4 football fields long and hovers silently above the heads of 30 eyewitnesses? This was said to be one of the unexplainable UFOs and this youtube channel is still promoting it as such. This is an example of the smoke and mirrors we are still getting, and there are more examples in other videos:



Here's another example of smoke and mirrors; we are told we should fear these fuzzy dots like the one seen in the "tic-tac" video, which was released by the department of defense, and which the pilot who made the video claims defies the laws of physics, and which former intelligence official Chris Mellon also claims defies the laws of physics (while showing us a picture of a balloon). But it appears to be deception since at no time does the video show anything defying the laws of physics, it's a "smoke and mirrors" illusion and we are being lied to about it, or else the pilot who made it and our analysts are incompetent which I don't find very likely. Here's a FLIR video of 4 F-15's which look like "tic-tacs" and we can't see the wings, proving that Chris Mellon lied to us by saying the "tic-tac" video can't be a plane because you'd be able to see the wings if it was:



Edward Snowden leaked these slides confirming intelligence agencies are training their people in the art of deception, and there are UFO pictures in the slides.



The photos discussed earlier on this page are cited as some of the best photographic evidence we have of UFOs, and nobody can prove it's not just a rear view mirror from a truck hung by a string which is what it looks like.
In most "good" cases there are no photos or videos which means we have to rely on human perception, and the 30 witnesses seeing the largest UFO ever reported hovering silently over their heads tells us how good that is.

So It's not a single answer, the answers are as varied as the individual UFO reports. We have people making honest reports like the 30 witnesses seeing the largest UFO ever reported hovering silently over their heads, which seem inidentifiable and defy explanation (but it turns out it doesn't defy explanation, some people just don't want to accept the explanations which involve far greater misperceptions than any of us would have guessed are possible by 30 ordinary people).

We also have hoaxes like people hanging models from strings that some people don't want to accept are hoaxes and cite the photos as our "best evidence".

Then we have two major groups of people who pretend to care what these things are and say they are a great mystery which needs to be investigated, but I don't think either group really cares about the truth and both groups only want to use these to their advantage for their own particular agendas:

-The "UFO promoters" like James Fox pretend to want to solve the mystery, but he and others like him will actively try to avoid solving the mystery, because they are selling the mystery, and if the mystery is solved, they have nothing to sell.
-The intelligence community and the powers they serve have their own agenda, and they may not even care what the UFOs are but are more interested in how they can use UFO reports to further their agenda (like telling us lies about fuzzy dots being threats because we can't see the wings so they can't be planes, but fuzzy dots certainly can be planes as seen above.

If you expect to get answers to every single UFO report, you won't because nobody knows ALL the answers, and we only stumbled across the answer to the "30 witnesses seeing the largest UFO ever reported hovering silently over their heads", and we won't be that fortunate in every case, but most people would never guess what they actually saw from the witness descriptions. You also wouldn't guess what this Canary Islands UFO was from the witness descriptions, a transparent sphere with two alien occupants inside (was classified for some time but we finally know what that is now):




Do you know what that is? We didn't know for a long time, but now we have answers, though apparently few people know them. The UFO promoters promote the mysteries, not the answers to the mysteries.

I still have no idea what this is, but whoever blacked out all this stuff thinks there are reasons to keep all this from us.


They know more than they are telling us, obviously, but as with the two aliens seen in the transparent sphere, just because they aren't telling us what it is, doesn't mean it's aliens. The US declassification cycle is now 40 years unless they think there's a need to keep the secret for longer. But don't expect to know before they decide to tell you. With Roswell, now we know, but James Fox isn't promoting that as a solved case is he?

originally posted by: NephraTari
a reply to: Caver78

Disclosure would be a reality that was just accepted as fact.

This is always where the most confusion is. The word "Disclosure".
By your statement " reality that was just accepted s fact" we have had that for years!!! Something unknown to us is rolling round in our skies. Unequivocally, definitively.

If you instead are using the word "Disclosure" to imply we want to know exactly what those unknowns are that's horse of different color. Depending on "type" & "incident" I'm not convinced any official agency knows more than the public.
Which is something they can't admit.

Sure they may know airspeed, trajectories, particle signatures, but anything more I seriously doubt it. Types of alleged beings? culture of alleged beings, purpose of alleged beings? Pretty sure official agencies are as much in the dark as we are.

Which is why being dependent on the usual group of taking heads in the field of Ufology is a waste of time. We've gone 60+ yrs listening to them with major questions going unresolved. Only a idiot keeps doing the same thing over & over expecting different results. It's past time for a different approach.

a reply to: Caver78

I ran into this guy's review and I get it from an informational standpoint, there's a lot of info in the Phenomenon. I also hadn't heard of all the stories in the film.
www.youtube.com...

Thanks for the info. Watching it tonight. Looking forward to seeing what he talks about. a reply to: SpaceCowboy78