McMinnville UFO photographs real or fake ?

page: 1
13
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 30 2009 @ 04:11 PM
link   
The McMinnville UFO photographs were taken on a farm near McMinnville, Oregon in 1950.The photos remain controversial, with many UFO researchers claiming they show a genuine UFO , the two photos have withstood the test of time .To many ufologists, the two photos rate as being among the most reliable and persuasive in arguing for the existence of UFOs as a "real", physical phenomenon.







In an Air Force investigation of the UFO reports at the University of Colorado in 1967 -- known as the Condon Report -- Hartmann determined that the evidence was "consistent with the assertion that an extraordinary flying object, silvery, metallic, disk-shaped, tens of meters in diameter and evidently artificial, flew within sight of two witnesses."

The question remains , real or fake ?




posted on Sep, 30 2009 @ 05:03 PM
link   
To date, these are the only photographs that cannot be completely debunked. The photographic techonology at the time, EXTREME analysis, and motives on the part of the photographers have all been brought into question.

These are still seen as the most valid of UFO photos.



posted on Sep, 30 2009 @ 05:08 PM
link   
I believe the mcminnville photo, along with the cave junction, oregon photos are the most convincing evidence we have to date.
4.bp.blogspot.com...
The cave junction photo is from 1927.



posted on Sep, 30 2009 @ 05:11 PM
link   
Yeah, the McMinnville photos look pretty good. I can't really see anything fake about them then again what do I know about photography.

As for the Cave Junction one, that looks extremely fake. Only because it's from the 1920s and it's a little strange seeing a flying disc in a 1920s photo. But for all I know I could be wrong about that.



posted on Sep, 30 2009 @ 05:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Arrowmancer
To date, these are the only photographs that cannot be completely debunked.


What about Billy Meiers case? This guy had one arm one camera and amazing photos that also can't be debunked.

That a pretty bold statement to make imo



posted on Sep, 30 2009 @ 05:18 PM
link   
Didn't UFO Hunters do a program on these photos? I know I've seen a documentary on these photos before...



posted on Sep, 30 2009 @ 05:18 PM
link   
Probably not fake, after all Photoshop did not exist in 1950, and it´s a shame it didn´t

I´m not an expert but they look real, i rest my case... case closed.



posted on Sep, 30 2009 @ 05:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by drac88
Yeah, the McMinnville photos look pretty good. I can't really see anything fake about them then again what do I know about photography.

As for the Cave Junction one, that looks extremely fake. Only because it's from the 1920s and it's a little strange seeing a flying disc in a 1920s photo. But for all I know I could be wrong about that.

Thing is, the original photo is out there, in cave junction. Ive seen it. I'm not sure how it could have been faked back in those days....



posted on Sep, 30 2009 @ 05:24 PM
link   
These photos were left unresolved by the Condon report.

Robert Sheaffer wrote a report about these photos in 1969 which he says:

The Trent UFO Photos

caused the Condon report's chief investigator of that case to reconsider his conclusion.

He did a lot of analysis of everything from weather to geometry of the objects and shadows.

His conclusion? Apparently, could be real, could be fake. Can't 100% prove conclusively one way or the other. But he comes up with some information on how they could have been faked if they were:

An Investigation of the McMinnville UFO Photographs

Conclusions:

In light of the above, it is clear that the witnesses’ story of supposedly photographing a UFO cannot be accepted at face value. It is difficult to see what advantage would be gained in altering the alleged circumstances of the photographs, but the scientific investigator must guard against becoming an apologist. No serious researcher would contend that a photograph is of any value whatsoever in establishing the existence of an extraordinary object unless it is solidly corroborated by the testimony of one or more witnesses.

There exists no factual basis for rejecting the following hypothesis: at approximately 8:20 in the morning of May 11, 1950, a small asymmetrical model was suspended from overhead telephone wires by two very thin threads. It was photographed once, then reoriented either by hand or by its assumption of a pendulum-type motion, and photographed again.

Of course, this does not "prove" that the photographs do not show an extraordinary flying object, but it has shown that there is no reason to believe that they do. The non-existence of such objects, as well as that of werewolves, witches, and unicorns, can never be "proven." No amount of negative evidence will seem conclusive so long as there exists a strong will to believe. In this writer’s opinion, the fact that this and so many other "classic" UFO cases have eventually been exposed should instill in us a healthy skepticism that should not be lost in investigating future reports of highly-improbable phenomena.


Interesting case, S+F for reminding me about it.


[edit on 30-9-2009 by Arbitrageur]



posted on Sep, 30 2009 @ 05:27 PM
link   
reply to post by colloredbrothers
 


Sorry I dont buy the Billy Meiers pictures or story , Ive seen many of his pics and although some look good they just dont feel right , and the Dinosaur pics are laughable



posted on Sep, 30 2009 @ 05:32 PM
link   
reply to post by Arrowmancer
 
I would agree with that. The photos,(that's what they are, two of them) are seen as genuine pics of something in the sky as unexplained, and observed by three, (I think) members of the Trent family. I don't if there were any more members of that family. Some have later speculated a similarity to the German Haunebu discs, maybe because some of the several types employed a fin at the rear, I remember viewing the pics first time as pretty amazing at the time, and when the only comparisons were sci-fi films.



[edit on 30-9-2009 by smurfy]



posted on Sep, 30 2009 @ 05:39 PM
link   
Let me scientifically debunk those photos:

Joe: Hey Bob! Can you throw that frisbee while I take a picture?
Bob: Sure Joe! Ready?
Joe: Go!



[edit on 30-9-2009 by BlackShark]



posted on Sep, 30 2009 @ 05:44 PM
link   
reply to post by BlackShark
 


To which I would reply:

The cameras at this time weren't able to capture motion like the cameras today. There's no possible way that a Frisbee would have been caught with that level of clarity and without any type of motion blur. Add to that the photographs were taken by amateur photographers. The original film have been thoroughly analyzed by professional researchers and declared genuine.



posted on Sep, 30 2009 @ 05:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by BlackShark
Let me scientifically debunk those photos:

Joe: Hey Bob! Can you throw that frisbee while I take a picture?
Bob: Sure Joe! Ready?
Joe: Go!



[edit on 30-9-2009 by BlackShark]


You cannot be serious. If you are, you ought to never try to analyze a photo again.

Thanks for the ever so insightful input.



posted on Sep, 30 2009 @ 06:07 PM
link   
reply to post by Arrowmancer
 

They were capable of much more than capturing a hand-thrown object, you just have to remember that a movie has 24 photos per second.

And there is no need of Photoshop to change photos, after all, even in the 1920s photography was already 90 years old, so the professionals already knew many, many tricks of their trade.



posted on Sep, 30 2009 @ 06:13 PM
link   
reply to post by BlackShark
 
Well for sure it could have been a whirlaway and not a Frisbee but neither of them had a sticky-up bit, (no need). The Condon report was a grab-the-money and run exercise with a splattering of the need-to-educate the people thrown in. Phrases like "healthy sceptiscism" for good measure and add a hypothesis, (stuff on a wire) which would occur to most people anyway. It didn't seem to occur to Condon that he should have made a qualifying remark in regard to maybe the pic being genuine, like lighting, aerodynamics of the object and so on. No, what he seems to say is, well we are good enough to look at your picture because three of you saw it, we think it is rubbish anyway, but we don't know, so we will stick it in the unknowns.



posted on Sep, 30 2009 @ 06:19 PM
link   
It looks to me like maybe a hubcap or something. It's hard to gauge, but there doesn't seem to be a impression of size.

Might have been just tossed in the air and photographed.


But, as it's been said, there's no way to completely prove or debunk.



posted on Sep, 30 2009 @ 06:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by BlackShark
Let me scientifically debunk those photos:

Joe: Hey Bob! Can you throw that frisbee while I take a picture?
Bob: Sure Joe! Ready?
Joe: Go!
[edit on 30-9-2009 by BlackShark]



Originally posted by Arrowmancer
reply to post by BlackShark
 


To which I would reply:

The cameras at this time weren't able to capture motion like the cameras today. There's no possible way that a Frisbee would have been caught with that level of clarity and without any type of motion blur. Add to that the photographs were taken by amateur photographers. The original film have been thoroughly analyzed by professional researchers and declared genuine.


Please think about what you just said for a moment.

A frisbee (or a German Haunebu disc which some suggested this resembles) could be in motion, it might show some a little blur, but how would this different from a flying saucer in motion, which could also cause blur.

The fact that the photos show no blur only show either a lack of motion or a reasonably high shutter speed. I checked a little and it looks like shutter speeds of 1/60s or 1/125s were available in some cameras at that time which might eliminate much of the blur if the object wasn't too close and wasn't moving too fast. In this case the object was far enough away I think to help reduce any blurring. But my guess is that it was fairly motionless when photographed, or not moving very fast if it was moving.



posted on Sep, 30 2009 @ 06:26 PM
link   
I would say no, because they are of a subject of intese redicule for the time. so, I the odds favor reality.



posted on Sep, 30 2009 @ 06:54 PM
link   
Here's a link to some oldie photos,
I would suggest that some are open to scrutiny as to their origin, but still interesting.

www.ufocasebook.com...





new topics
top topics
 
13
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join