McMinnville UFO photographs real or fake ?, page 1

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 ?

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.

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]

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

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]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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...

UFO Filmed From Avebury Crop Circle, UK With Multiple Witnesses
  Posted 19 days ago with 89 member flags

The Men In Black(OPs) The Aviary & UFOs
  Posted 12 days ago with 83 member flags

The Mysterious Baltic Sea Object : an Update from Peter Lindberg "Ocean Explorers Team"
  Posted 16 days ago with 41 member flags

Did a RAF Tornado crash during a UFO intercept mission in 1997?
  Posted 14 days ago with 39 member flags

What is this comming out of our star?
  Posted 9 days ago with 33 member flags

Huge Unknown Objects orbiting the Sun for months...?
  Posted 8 days ago with 29 member flags

The CIA and the UFO Mythos
  Posted 16 days ago with 26 member flags

UFO Reporting for the 21st Century!
  Posted 12 days ago with 26 member flags

Newest topics, updated in real-time:

Newest topics getting flags, in real-time:

Newest topics getting replies, in real-time: