It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

McMinnville UFO photographs real or fake ?

page: 5
13
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 4 2009 @ 04:18 PM
link   

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

Well according to this:


Originally posted by Arrowmancer
3. A ladder or device for elevation


A ladder is one of the "technologies" required to pull this off so yes I'd say it's significant even if only suggestive.




posted on Oct, 4 2009 @ 04:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by colloredbrothers

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


Amazing photos of garbage can lids, thumbtacks, a plastic ray gun toy, a tin foil suit, photos of Pteradons that match book illustrations perfectly, and a photo of an Alien that shares DNA with a department store catalog model. Nope, can't be debunked...unless you have seen toy guns, tin foil, or Meiers' barn where he keeps his model UFOs.



posted on Oct, 4 2009 @ 05:19 PM
link   
reply to post by Lillydale
 





Amazing photos of garbage can lids, thumbtacks, a plastic ray gun toy, a tin foil suit, photos of Pteradons that match book illustrations perfectly, and a photo of an Alien that shares DNA with a department store catalog model. Nope, can't be debunked...unless you have seen toy guns, tin foil, or Meiers' barn where he keeps his model UFOs.


Please provide the sources for this information. Sorry, i was distracted by the 'WARNING' box under your avatar.



posted on Oct, 4 2009 @ 05:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Arrowmancer
reply to post by Lillydale
 





Amazing photos of garbage can lids, thumbtacks, a plastic ray gun toy, a tin foil suit, photos of Pteradons that match book illustrations perfectly, and a photo of an Alien that shares DNA with a department store catalog model. Nope, can't be debunked...unless you have seen toy guns, tin foil, or Meiers' barn where he keeps his model UFOs.


Please provide the sources for this information. Sorry, i was distracted by the 'WARNING' box under your avatar.


Yes, I was warned so that must mean that I have no idea what I was talking about. The other guy has two warns so I guess according to you, I won. This thread is not about Billy, so please start one and I would be happy to.

You know what might be easier? Read one of the hundreds of threads already debunking Meier.



posted on Oct, 4 2009 @ 06:08 PM
link   
reply to post by gortex
 

I'm glad you find it funny, but could you tell me why?

It's better to know why people find something we said funny, it may be a good or a bad sign.



posted on Oct, 4 2009 @ 06:21 PM
link   
reply to post by ArMaP
 



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

You gotta see the humor in that quote , in anybody's language that's funny
.
A far more inventive theory than the hub cap or bin lid



posted on Oct, 4 2009 @ 06:29 PM
link   
reply to post by gortex
 

That method has been widely used with very good results, if I had a camera I could try to show you the possibilities.



posted on Oct, 4 2009 @ 06:46 PM
link   
reply to post by ArMaP
 


That would be interesting to see. My first thought was that a photo or painting would have an edge or outline. Is the photo or painting rectangular or is it cutout in the shape of the object? If the former you have the rectangular edge to hide, if the latter you have potentially 2 edges, one for the painted object and one for where the cut was made.

It seems simpler to just hang a fancy garbage can lid type thing on a fishing line, than to bother with paintings or photos right?



[edit on 4-10-2009 by Arbitrageur]



posted on Oct, 4 2009 @ 06:57 PM
link   
reply to post by Lillydale
 





Yes, I was warned so that must mean that I have no idea what I was talking about. The other guy has two warns so I guess according to you, I won. This thread is not about Billy, so please start one and I would be happy to. You know what might be easier? Read one of the hundreds of threads already debunking Meier.


um... no... teh fact that your post added absolutely nothing to the conversation says that you had nothing to add. Very logical. Your warning was because you were opinionated and 4 pages of the post about the warning in general was because the entire thread or most of it was bashing/baiting. I assume, I didn't read it.

All I'm saying is that the things you pointed out were basis for examination and they have been ruled right out.l EVERYTHING that you stated. I was simply hoping for some foundation for you to have based your opinion on. Differing argument backed up with proof or even logical thought are welcome, but apparently nonexistant in this particular case.

Again, please provide references.



posted on Oct, 4 2009 @ 07:01 PM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 

What is used is a cut-out object, and if the object is photographed perpendicular to its surface we do not see the edges.

The main advantages over a garbage can or something like that are two:
1 - more freedom of choice for the subject, only limited by imagination or, if too complex, by the technical difficulty of making it.
2 - lighter, being an almost 2D object, it will weigh less than a real 3D object.

But it has some disadvantages, like being more difficult to hold still if there is wind, for example.



posted on Oct, 4 2009 @ 07:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Arrowmancer

um... no... teh fact that your post added absolutely nothing to the conversation says that you had nothing to add. Very logical. Your warning was because you were opinionated and 4 pages of the post about the warning in general was because the entire thread or most of it was bashing/baiting. I assume, I didn't read it.


So you make your judgments about the content of a page by NOT reading it? If you did not read and you do not know what you are talking about, then do not offer your little fantasies. You have no idea what the warning was for, and as you admit - you do not even care to try to read to find out. Shhhhh.


All I'm saying is that the things you pointed out were basis for examination and they have been ruled right out.l EVERYTHING that you stated. I was simply hoping for some foundation for you to have based your opinion on. Differing argument backed up with proof or even logical thought are welcome, but apparently nonexistant in this particular case.

Again, please provide references.


As I said, start a thread and I would be more than happy to. I am not going to hijack this thread just to show you proof that is all over ATS. I have not declined showing it to you, just not here. Start a thread, it is easy.



posted on Oct, 5 2009 @ 02:15 PM
link   
reply to post by Lillydale
 





So you make your judgments about the content of a page by NOT reading it? If you did not read and you do not know what you are talking about, then do not offer your little fantasies. You have no idea what the warning was for, and as you admit - you do not even care to try to read to find out. Shhhhh.


I didn't read it because I COULDN'T. I trust the site administrators' judgement on the REMOVAL of posts. In the case you got the warning on, the entire thread was removed adn the reason stated was
"This post was removed because it contained mostly personal attacks rather than productive debate."

You jumped into this thread which was active and interesting, focusing on the photos in question, spouted off nonsense which had absolutely no basis or grounding in reality and contradicted anything useful the thread had to offer. I don't hold it against you, that's why I brought up the fact that you'd been previously warned for something that could have been similar. As yet, you've still provided nothing towards the original topic, though you've slammed it without any apparent basis.

I'm INVITING you to provide some basis for those opinions. I welcome debate in all of it's forms, but people that just spout off their opinions without explaining why just detract from the issue.

I say these photographs are probably the real deal due to the fact that testimony FOR their validity has come from multiple sources that focus on the research of related subjects. I say they are real because there is little to no credibility on the part of those who challenge them or claim they aren't, and because no one has shown me anything that would force me re-evaluate them.

You say otherwise. I challenge you to provide the proof. It's that simple. In THIS thread. That's what this thread is HERE for.



posted on Oct, 5 2009 @ 07:12 PM
link   
reply to post by gortex
 


That looks like a real UFO photo.
Bob Lazar said he saw 3 different types at S4.
Sport Model - Top Hat - Jello Mold
This is a pic of a Jello Mold Gray UFO.



posted on Oct, 5 2009 @ 09:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Arrowmancer
reply to post by Lillydale
 





So you make your judgments about the content of a page by NOT reading it? If you did not read and you do not know what you are talking about, then do not offer your little fantasies. You have no idea what the warning was for, and as you admit - you do not even care to try to read to find out. Shhhhh.


I didn't read it because I COULDN'T. I trust the site administrators' judgement on the REMOVAL of posts. In the case you got the warning on, the entire thread was removed adn the reason stated was
"This post was removed because it contained mostly personal attacks rather than productive debate."


You are aware there is a difference between a post removal, thread removal, and warnings right? I had the warning before any of that happened, lol. I had the warning before I started the thread. Nice of you to assume based on ignorance though.

You jumped into this thread which was active and interesting, focusing on the photos in question, spouted off nonsense which had absolutely no basis or grounding in reality and contradicted anything useful the thread had to offer.

You brought up how great Billy Meier's evidence was. I was reminding you that it is not. I thought it was simple.


I don't hold it against you, that's why I brought up the fact that you'd been previously warned for something that could have been similar. As yet, you've still provided nothing towards the original topic, though you've slammed it without any apparent basis.


Right, you still have no idea what I was warned about. I had about 10 posts removed yesterday, like all ten of my warning stickers? What have you added? All you did was try to say that if Billy could make such great evidence then......

Well you didn't really add more than that. I guess you get what you give.


I'm INVITING you to provide some basis for those opinions. I welcome debate in all of it's forms, but people that just spout off their opinions without explaining why just detract from the issue.


I am INVITING YOU to start a thread about it. Let me say it 4 or 5 times for you. Start a thread.


I say these photographs are probably the real deal due to the fact that testimony FOR their validity has come from multiple sources that focus on the research of related subjects. I say they are real because there is little to no credibility on the part of those who challenge them or claim they aren't, and because no one has shown me anything that would force me re-evaluate them.


Yeah, that's not what you said. You talked about Billy.


You say otherwise. I challenge you to provide the proof. It's that simple. In THIS thread. That's what this thread is HERE for.


I never said that this photo was fake. I was simply responding to your claim that Billy's were real. Maybe you forgot what I was responding to. Read back. When you realize that I was only disputing Billy, you will see why it would not be right to derail this thread about him.

I think this picture is fascinating but it is nothing more than a picture. Credibility means nothing. Who are these people? Have you met them? I have not. My grandfather was a great man of integrity. He had a 3 dollar bill and picture of men carrying man sized grasshoppers. The picture and dollar are fake but he was an honest man.



posted on Oct, 5 2009 @ 09:57 PM
link   
I don't believe that credibility means nothing. It means a great deal.

Did your father claim to have taken that picture of the giant grasshopper? If he said he had, then he'd be lying, and ergo, not an honest man, would he.

They didn't claim to have got the photo from someone, they took it. They had no desire for fame, they didn't receive a dime for all the publicity it got, and I do think this counts for something.

After all, if the lack of credibility for some witnesses or researchers counts against them, then the reverse should also be true. No, we obviously did not know these people, but I've not heard one negative comment about their credibility, and many comments about how they were sincere and honest farmers, nothing more.



posted on Oct, 5 2009 @ 10:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Arrowmancer
reply to post by Lillydale
 





Amazing photos of garbage can lids, thumbtacks, a plastic ray gun toy, a tin foil suit, photos of Pteradons that match book illustrations perfectly, and a photo of an Alien that shares DNA with a department store catalog model. Nope, can't be debunked...unless you have seen toy guns, tin foil, or Meiers' barn where he keeps his model UFOs.


Please provide the sources for this information. Sorry, i was distracted by the 'WARNING' box under your avatar.


The amount of warning boxes under someone's avatar doesn't say anything about the persons credibility. That's a very weak attack/excuse to use when you have nothing else


Anyway, I'll provide two links that prove Meier to be a hoax that I'm sure you're not going to bother reading:

Billy Meier UFO Contact Hoax: Discussion

The Billy Meier Case

The ray gun images alone are enough to prove it's all fake. That's clearly a toy gun used in those images. Don't forget that image he took of a dinosaur on his time travel trip that actually came from a book.

Oh and don't use the excuse: "but...but...but...that was all dis-info purposely put out to make him look bad". He said those very images were real up until the point people proved they were images taken from books and TV screens then his story changed.



posted on Oct, 6 2009 @ 03:48 AM
link   

It looks to me like maybe a hubcap or something. It's hard to gauge, but there doesn't seem to be an impression of size.


The amount of light on the underside suggests that the object is large and far away, rather than small and close.



posted on Oct, 7 2009 @ 02:33 PM
link   
As far as being distracted by the 'warning' box under the avatar, I'll admit, it came off as a cheap shot, but wasn't meant to. The WARNING, for whatever reason, was made. To me, the cause of the warning of the post in question was reason enough to call that person out to explain the opinion put forth, which didn't happen.




Credibility means nothing. Who are these people?


If I had known that was the poster's opinion, I never wasted my time responding.

Regardless, I've seen a lot of good information on both sides of the information. Before I take a stance on anything, I play Devil's Advocate and do my very best to debunk the issue at hand. I tried. Hard. I came up with some good stuff. Not enough to debunk it and take a stand on that side of the fence. That majority of what I learned supported the validity of the photographs.

We're all going to look at them and see something different. I can think of a thousand ways to make photographs similar or equal to these using the technologies of today. In the 50's given the information available on the photographer, the location, and the camera that was used, I just don't see how it would be possible due to the economic climate of the time, the motivations of the photographers, and the technical difficulty in doing something so good that people TODAY couldn't get a good break on denying their validity.



posted on Oct, 7 2009 @ 11:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Arrowmancer
As far as being distracted by the 'warning' box under the avatar, I'll admit, it came off as a cheap shot, but wasn't meant to. The WARNING, for whatever reason, was made. To me, the cause of the warning of the post in question was reason enough to call that person out to explain the opinion put forth, which didn't happen.




How many times do I need to ask you to start a thread? I already offered to fill it up for you but to do it here would be pretty off topic, wouldn't you say? It is free and easy to start a new thread. If you really wanted me to post this proof, why not just do it? Is it more satisfying to sit here and complain in post after post instead of just making a thread for the new topic? I never refused to provide it, I simply refused to muddy this thread with it. For some reason I thought you might have some respect for that topic of the thread by now but apparently Billy is all you want to talk about.

Let me try one last time and after this there is really no excuse.

Want me to show you the evidence that gives me my Meier opinion? START A THREAD.



posted on Oct, 8 2009 @ 02:56 AM
link   
Good Lord, I'm an ass.

I apologize Lily, I thought we'd gone straight around Meiers and were back on the Trent photos! Thanks for U2Uing me. You could have embarrassed me further on this thread, and I appreciate your grace.

Apologies to those here as well. Get caught up in a subject and sometimes lose your center.



new topics

top topics



 
13
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join