posted on Jul, 10 2010 @ 08:41 PM
Originally posted by jclmavg
Guessing is not evidence. There is no evidence the Trents hoaxed the pictures.
I think the evidence is mixed. The fact that the location seems
to be under the wire suggests a hoax (that is evidence). The diffusion of the image suggests a more distant object (that is also evidence).
Originally posted by jclmavg
Did you bother to read Maccabee's papers on the case?
Originally posted by SeenMyShare
I still call HOAX.
I did, did you? Bruce Maccabee wrote this:
The McMinnville Photos
As I pointed out in the discussion at the end of the main text of this paper, the photos tend to be equivocal on the hoax hypothesis because one
could imagine a way in which they could have been hoaxed and perhaps the Trents could have hoaxed them with some effort and a lot of "luck." (Luck:
they hung a small model which just happened to diffuse light coming from the sky above in such a way that the bottom became a nearly uniform source
of light; this "luck" requires that the model be constructed from translucent materal rather than a simple "hang a pie pan" approach; more luck -
they suspended the model with a thread that was very thin or else the thread happened to match the color of the sky background.) If they were lucky
in making a model, then their good luck was partly offset by bad luck: they allowed the photos to show the overhead wire from which the model was
If the photos were hoaxed and if they were good hoaxers they probably shouldn't have shown us the wires the model was hung from, as
Maccabee points out.
I think SeenMyShare made an interesting contribution to this thread by showing us a similarly shaped object. Also interesting is the fact that she
said her mothers canning pot lid had even more blue and white speckles on it. I could see where the larger number of blue and white speckles could
make the object appear more diffuse, even at a closer distance, with the light colored speckles actually lightening the object more than we might
expect. However if the lid is not translucent, I think it might have to have more speckles or as the analysts put it, "a different albedo" on the
underside of the lid than on top of it to produce the effect seen.
Or maybe as Maccabee suggested they used some kind of translucent lid, that would give the same results and could make them "lucky" enough to give
the object appear to have more distance than it actually has.
While I do understand the diffuse light analysis, even Hartmann prefaces his analysis of that with the phrase
"to the extent that the photometric analysis is reliable"
If he thought such analysis was 100% reliable I'm not sure such a preface would be needed and even Maccabee admits a translucent lid or model could
render the analysis inaccurate.
It's too bad the evidence is so contradictory. we can't say with 100% certainty that it's a hoax and we can't say with 100% certainty that it's
real. So, I think we have to agree with the experts that the status isn't determined. But I have to agree with Maccabee, maybe the Trents got
"lucky" as he puts it and it is a hoax. Using a translucent lid might not take that much luck.
And if it's real, why does it seem to appear under the wires? Let me put it this way:
If the object did not appear to be under the wires, I would find it easier to believe that it's not a hoax. And even the most eager believer has to
admit that creates some room for doubt about the authenticity.