McMinnville UFO photographs real or fake ?, page 4

Pages: << 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 13 times

reply posted on 3-10-2009 @ 06:55 AM by Zosynspiracy

reply to post by reasonable

Haha and I'm sure all these farmers just had loads of time and money to sit around and play with expensive film in expensive dark rooms? Some of you are hilarious! Have you ever been to McMinnville, Oregon? Even in this day and age it's still considered the "country". You wanna offer a guess as to what it was like in the 1950's? Suffice it to say common sense says that the sophistication to sit around and manipulate pictures in a dark room by farm people is pretty dubious.

reply posted on 3-10-2009 @ 07:14 AM by masterp

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.

So why there is no motion blur in these pictures? after all, the UFO was moving.

reply posted on 3-10-2009 @ 07:16 AM by masterp

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
reply to post by smurfy

Thanks for the good link, I bookmarked it.

Here's what they say about this case:

May 8, 1950 This is one of the most famous UFO pictures ever taken. Photographed by Paul Trent, and first witnessed by his wife. They were published in a local newspaper in McMinnville, Oregon shortly thereafter. Soon, the Trent photos were published in Life magazine edition of June 26, 1950. The rest is history. These photos have been deemed authentic for over 50 years.

How come they took only two photos of the UFO?

reply posted on 3-10-2009 @ 07:22 AM by Zosynspiracy

reply to post by masterp

How expensive was a roll of film for a farm family living in the middle of nowhere back in the 1950s ??

reply posted on 3-10-2009 @ 12:07 PM by ArMaP

reply to post by Zosynspiracy

If the film was expensive, why did they had a good camera? That should be also expensive, right?

reply posted on 3-10-2009 @ 12:25 PM by fleabit

If professionals spending hundreds of hours researching this could not find foul play, I doubt those on this board will, regardless of how clever they think they are.

The best the debunkers could manage with this were the state of shadows against the house, and even then, clouds could cause the same effect. They assumed if they lied about the time it was taken, the entire thing was fake. However, why would anyone lie about when it was taken to begin with? Their opinion was that more farmers would be around at 7:30 or so in the morning, than at night.. and that is why they lied. That's called stretching.

They also never sought fame nor fortune nor money for their film (it was in fact "lost' for an extended period of time.. found.. and finally given back to them). When they died, there was nothing in their obituaries about the UFO. They didn't really seem to care about it, other than having caught the thing on film.

reply posted on 3-10-2009 @ 03:24 PM by Arrowmancer

Armap,

No, you don't need special equipment to take photographs that LOOK like these. You DO need special equipment (during that time) to make pictures that look like these AND can pass the tests of today. Every aspect of these photographs have been studied, from the grain of the film, to the lighting, to the character of the photographers.

Don't get me wrong, these may be a hoax. BUT, there has never been any testimony given against them to prove it. It's a simple case of you can't either prove or disprove it. Not being able to definitively declare these photographs as fakes doesn't necessarily make them the real deal.

reply posted on 3-10-2009 @ 03:33 PM by Skeptical Ed

Originally posted by masterp

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.

So why there is no motion blur in these pictures? after all, the UFO was moving.

Movement? An assumption.

reply posted on 3-10-2009 @ 03:38 PM by ArMaP

Originally posted by Arrowmancer
No, you don't need special equipment to take photographs that LOOK like these. You DO need special equipment (during that time) to make pictures that look like these AND can pass the tests of today.

OK, could you please answer my question, maybe I get lucky the third time I ask it and I get an answer.

What type of "special equipment" were/are you talking about?

reply posted on 3-10-2009 @ 03:46 PM by Arrowmancer

Oh, now I understand your poorly thought out question.

1. Lights, directional, most likely floodlamps on scaffolding.
2. Given the type of camera that was used and the angle, a specialized tripod that would have required very very specific settings for a staged shot.
3. A ladder or device for elevation to be able to use the settings that were necessary to have taken the shot.
4. A giant capable of tossing a trash can lid weighing many tons into the distance.
5. HIGHLY trained lab technicians to develop the film specifically to avoid any discrepancies that might cause people to wonder.
6. Access to the internet or some other form of mass communication to review other cases and find their flaws in order to avoid your own.

Simply look at the things that can't be disproved and ask yourself how someone in the 1950s' would have been able to pull this off. Consider the circumstances, consider the results.

reply posted on 3-10-2009 @ 04:39 PM by ArMaP

Originally posted by Arrowmancer
Oh, now I understand your poorly thought out question.

Well, I thought that asking what the equipment was would be the right question, sorry if my self-taught English was not good enough for you.

Simply look at the things that can't be disproved and ask yourself how someone in the 1950s' would have been able to pull this off. Consider the circumstances, consider the results.

I did, that's why I didn't said that this was a hoax, although I think that this was the idea you got from my posts

reply posted on 3-10-2009 @ 04:43 PM by ocker

reply to post by colloredbrothers

HI
RE:BILLY MEIER

BILLY MEIER EXPOSED!

Recently Underground Video began an in-depth inquiry into the most sensational UFO case in history. Our investigation first began as a supportive effort to verify the known fact of the Meier case to present the truth of alien-human contact to skeptics.

With the assistance of members from the Hollywood special effects team of the UltraMatrix Corporation we studied the Meier photographs and claims made by Meier's Talmud Jmmanuel, Genesis III Publishing, Light Years by Gary Kinder, The Pleiadian Connection by Randolf Winters, and the movie Contact. We also spent considerable time tracking the claims of "computer expert" and "Ph.D." Jim Dilettoso, as well as claims made through Michael Hesemann by Guido Moosbrugger from Meier's FIGU cult in Switzerland.

After six months of intense inquiry, with the assistance of cinematographers, physicists, and computer analysts from TotalResearch, we found the claims of the representatives of the Meier case to absolutely untrue. We discovered miniature models, and a variety of deceptive methods used to create this hoax. Additionally, an undercover "hidden camera" investigation penetrated the Meier cult in Switzerland, revealing irrefutable scientific evidence of FRAUD.

Underground Video was one of the foremost defenders of the Meier material. We are DISAPPOINTED to now learn the ENTIRE case is a hoax. Representations of any authenticity with regard to this case made by alleged scientific examination has proved to be totally unreliable and misleads the general public into believing a carefully fabricated lie. The persons who authenitcated the Meier case are not credible scientists nor investigators.

Any previous representations of authenticity of the Meier case in the Underground Video catalog should be ignored. Our findings will be presented to the Attorney General for possible prosecution for a Consumer Class Action Suit for Fraud. Underground Video will continue to make the Meier material available to investigators and the general public who desire to study the hoax and how it had been sold to the public for nearly 20 years.

Anyone who had previously purchased any Meier materials may write Underground Video to be included in a CONSUMER CLASS ACTION SUIT.

Underground Video
Meier Class Action Suit
PO BOX 527
Beverly Hills, CA 90213-0527

[edit on 3/10/2009 by ocker]

[edit on 3/10/2009 by ocker]

[edit on 3/10/2009 by ocker]

reply posted on 3-10-2009 @ 06:02 PM by Arrowmancer

False Lawsuit...

That was funny... A hoax to detract from the truth which is being portrayed as a hoax.... oh, these disinfo nuts are gettin CRAFTY!

And, I apologize, Arp. I do get annoyed when people ask me to point out the obvious over and over. Not your fault. To understand their point of view, simply research the year 1950. There was a plentitude of widely available information regarding UFOs at the time.

reply posted on 4-10-2009 @ 07:42 AM by JimOberg

How would a picture taken of a small object hanging on fish line, using a camera with a greasy/smudged lens (to accidentally create the 'veiling glare'), look any different to the 'generations of tests' that the image has been subjected to?

reply posted on 4-10-2009 @ 02:22 PM by Arrowmancer

Light sources, shadows, and clarity of the object in question are significant of the size of the thing as well as the distance from the camera/farmhouse.

A greasy/smudged lense would have been readily detected upon the microscopic examination of the original film.

reply posted on 4-10-2009 @ 03:52 PM by gortex

Of all the pictures I have seen after years of interest in this subject, these pictures stand out for me as probably the best proof of flying disks .
For all the reasons mentioned in this thread regarding the analysis and the fact that if the object was suspended from the wires in the foreground it would
A - be closer to the building , it is obviously behind it
B - an object of that size would exert pressure on the line
If it was suspended between the two sets of lines again it would cause the lines to bend .
All in all I believe that the pictures show what they appear to show , a real life flying Disk.

reply posted on 4-10-2009 @ 04:04 PM by ArMaP

Originally posted by gortex
A - be closer to the building , it is obviously behind it
B - an object of that size would exert pressure on the line
If it was suspended between the two sets of lines again it would cause the lines to bend .

It's not obviously behind the building, it looks to be behind the building, but we cannot be sure because we do not have any direction indication of distance.

And if we don't know the distance then we cannot say if it was small, medium or large.

The most likely way of hoaxing these photos would be, in my opinion, to suspend a photo or painting of the UFO at some distance, with that photo or painting made in a way to make it look as seen through some mist, when we see something less defined we automatically consider it as being farther away than something that is well defined.

Remember, even today, with all the digital tools available, the best way to hoax a photo or video is to use real objects, that way the photo can be analysed as much as they want, because the photo itself is not fake.

reply posted on 4-10-2009 @ 04:05 PM by JimOberg

Originally posted by Arrowmancer
Light sources, shadows, and clarity of the object in question are significant of the size of the thing as well as the distance from the camera/farmhouse.

A greasy/smudged lense would have been readily detected upon the microscopic examination of the original film.

And we know this because, uh, how? Because some expert scientist was convinced that no rube was gonna trump HIS lifelong expertise?

Let's get real. Where did any such set of tests get calibrated in the blind against various accidental and deliberate deceptive efforts, and successfully filtered them out? Please be specific.

And -- does the line of sight criss-cross beneath the overhead wire?

Does the picture of the grinning kid next to a ladder, on that same roll of film, have any significance?

reply posted on 4-10-2009 @ 04:12 PM by gortex

reply to post by ArMaP