McMinnville UFO photographs real or fake ?

reply to post by Arrowmancer


That is why I thought it was a poor comparison. I am not going to say there are not easy ways to fake photos such as these. I do however feel that they at least appear that they could be real unlike billy's. I just thought that anyone saying this was real because they knew real, just like billy's photos - kind of takes something away from these photos which are much better and more interesting. I am fairly sure I remember seeing the top one in a book a long time ago.

Might I suggest an experiment?

The camera was MOST LIKELY a Roamer 1 made by Universal Camera Corps. Trent stated that it was probably a Kodak. Still, a forgiveable mistake for an amateur.

The Roamer 1

This is gonna sound crazy, but I actually have one of these as a decoration in my den. (There's a photographer in the house. It ain't me.)

Suggestions on how I might recreate the image? If I can find the film for it.

reply to post by Arrowmancer
You could try testing Robert Sheaffer's hypothesis, reposted below:

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
Robert Sheaffer wrote a report about these photos in 1969 which he says:

The Trent UFO Photos
An Investigation of the McMinnville UFO Photographs

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.

I think thin fishing line might be worth a try as well as thread, but unless you choose a color of thread that contrasts with the background, you might not see either one.

If you wanted more details on how to set it up you might even try contacting Sheaffer, since he's the one who put so much time into investigating this, and I'm sure I can't represent his hypothesis as well as he can.

Alright, the camera I have in my possession is broken. Blue (the wife) states that the housing is broken as well as the 'loading tray' whatever that is. I recommended the universal Fix Tool, but she states that Duct Tape won't help. We have a number of antique cameras from roughly the same period, though some much older. We're checking to see if we can get close enough or obtain a similar model. SHe usually develops her own film, but states that the chemicals required are difficult to obtain. This is all mumbo-jumbo to me, but if she can get the rig, we're gonna attempt the fake.

I've considered the fishing line, but, there are a few issues we'll need to work out.

In 1950, monofilament fishing line was available, but it wasn't anything like we use today. The line was thin and wiry and would probably not be a good candidate for a suspension. The objects were either hung in the distance (which would be a large object and impractical), or they would be smaller objects hung closer (in which case, the fishing line and wire of the time would be visible.)

I have permission to use a buddy's barn out in a small town so we can play with shadows and such.

What other issues could there be... Minor differences?

Originally posted by Arrowmancer
The objects were either hung in the distance (which would be a large object and impractical), or they would be smaller objects hung closer (in which case, the fishing line and wire of the time would be visible.)

"Would be visible"?? You know this, before actually performing any experiments, because -- how???

Oh, regarding the potential significance of a hypotethical photo of a Trent kid and a ladder, that I raised -- how about a photo of the Trent kid ON a ladder UNDER the overhead wire? Would that photo have any possible influence on evaluating a hypothesis of small close hung model, or would the photo be a random meaningless coincidence? Serious question.

reply to post by JimOberg


It could be because... Just about every single person who has looked at the pictures has drawn exactly the same conclusion? That being, if it's a small object nearer to the camera the cable holding it up, it would be visible... If it's a large object some distance away you'd most likely need a crane and the cable would be even more obvious.

That leaves us believing either. By some total fluke the farmer worked out exactly the right proportions to fool people for nearly 60 years, or someone who faked it was a bit of a mathematical wizz kid.

You see on all the other photo's that were proved to be fake, The light falling on it helped to give away its' true size and there was quite clearly a piece of cable/twine holding it up. The Trent picture, however, the light and the total absence of any trace of a twine/cable actually go some way to showing it was a pretty big object photographed from, quite some distance.

You can read an analysis of the photos here.. www.book-of-thoth.com...

I believe these photographs were never debunked after close scrutiny. All this evidense old and new , and we still are in the dark when it comes to UFO's. We need to get off the 'ridiculing of people' that bring this kind of evidence forth. S+F

Originally posted by FireMoon
It could be because... Just about every single person who has looked at the pictures has drawn exactly the same conclusion?

How convenient, no need to perform experiments at all, just take a vote on a UFO discussion board. That determines truth. Life must really be easy for those choosing this approach.

Uh, how do you know what everyone who has looked at the picture think? As far as I can tell, all you are justified in asserting is that most folks posting here, and most UFO buffs, believe they are right about UFOs and will defend any potential evidence, without actually testing it.

Originally posted by FireMoon
By some total fluke the farmer worked out exactly the right proportions to fool people for nearly 60 years, or someone who faked it was a bit of a mathematical wizz kid.

By no means. Lots of people took prank photos in the 1950s (I did myself). Some were easy to catch, others less so. It is totally unjustified to claim as you do that ALL prank photos were detected by later analysis.

Trent could just have accidentally 'gotten lucky' in the factors -- such as a greasy lens -- that mimicked authentic 'veiling glare'.. No need for him to plot it all out in advance.

reply to post by JimOberg

Trent could just have accidentally 'gotten lucky' in the factors

Or he could just have accidentally 'gotten lucky' and by chance photographed a real UFO

Originally posted by gortex
reply to post by JimOberg

 

Trent could just have accidentally 'gotten lucky' in the factors

Or he could just have accidentally 'gotten lucky' and by chance photographed a real UFO

... that happened to have a line of sight that from two positions criss-crossed beneath an overhead wire, that another photo from the sequence shows one of his kids, grinning, standing on a stepladder beneath that wire.

All meaningless coincidence, of course.

The point is, I want to try to recreate it using the equipment and supplies available to them at the time. As it stands, I'm gonna have to get the old post-hole-digger out and create a line that would substitute for the one in the Trent photos. I don't know the gauge or tensile strength of the wire, so I'll have to get as close as possible.

Blue and I have decided to shop around for the exact Roamer model that was supposed to have been used. We could put the thing in our collection when finished. But instead of saying 'no it's a fake' or 'it's real' we're just gonna give it a shot.

reply to post by gortex


---

Hi there,

I don't believe they are controversial at all. As a matter of fact these pics have stood the tests of time, time after time.
And, are real.

Decoy

Originally posted by Arrowmancer
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.

Not being facetious, but do you mean that literally? Because I can think of several - at least - photos that haven't been debunked, to my knowledge. Key words here are 'to my knowledge' - which is quite limited in this matter, hence the question.

Originally posted by Skeptical Ed

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
These photos were left unresolved by the Condon report.

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

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."

I snipped some comments for brevity. I'm a skeptic, albeit an open-minded one as far as the reality of UFOs since I've had enough sightings and videotaped one. Even before I had my sightings verifying their reality, I kept an open mind as to the mystery that was being reported by millions of people.

Yet, Robert Sheaffer is the hard-on of skeptics; the most negative man on the planet. There will never be enough evidence to convince him of anything and I'm pretty sure he doubts his own existence.

The McMinnville photos have been put through the mill using ancient computer software to the present with the highest sophisticated software and nothing can be seen in the photos supporting the object in the photos. I've been wanting for an opportunity to tell Robert to his face to "Shut up!"


[edit on 30-9-2009 by Skeptical Ed]

Ha - I noticed that too when I read that quote. He just couldn't quite seem to disguise his contempt and cynicism. Try as he might to appear detached and objective, his personal bias is just too obvious.

That said, I don't have a position on that photo either. I've always thought it looked a little "not right" but that is a gut reaction.

Originally posted by Skeptical Ed

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 forgot to add:
Joe: Hey Bob, What shutter speed can I use so that the frisbee doesn't look blurry? Does this camera have such a speed? And, Bob, you're gonna have to go retrieve the frisbee! I'll take a nap while you do so.

Exactly. More like, "Hmmm....it's cloudy and a bit dark, and I need to step down my aperture setting to obtain infinite depth of field and no blur whatsoever, so let's say 1/500 at F16 on really fast film - like maybe 400 pushed to 1600."

Was that technology common back then? I honestly don't know, myself.

Longfade, sorry, didn't mean to say that these were the only credible photos. I don't think there are many, if any, photos that have undergone as much scrutiny as these.

On a side not, has anyone documented the fingerprints that are on the actual photographs or attempted to cross-reference them with any sort of database?

Before I take a stance on any issue, I always come at it from as many angles as possible. In the end, if I believe a thing is real, I'll take the other side and vice versa. I have tried everything I can do short of recreating the photos that I can think of. I am not sure anyone has attempted to recreate them. So, I'll try it. Unfortunately, there are so many variables that I'm not sure if I can do the recreation justice.

It has been speculated that the object which is the UFO is an 'old truck mirror'. I have gone through NEARLY every make and model of truck and car from 1950 back to see if that is the case. I've found nothing that has a solid match on the exterior outline. Apparently, I've learned, mirrors were also used on wagons before cars. Possibly one. With enough digging, a person could find something of the right general shape, but that's not what we're looking for.

The big aspects which draw attention to possible validity of the photos is the lighting on the object, the focus points and how the lenses of that camera operate, and on the wires surrounding the object. Shadows, to a lesser degree, on the farm house also indicate that this could be real as those on the object are perfect IF the object was at a specified distance. If it is, then the object would have to be massive.

So, in light of this, I'm going to be using an old truck mirror which is not even close to the shape of the Object, as well as aluminum homemade thingies which would have the right general shape and size for up-close to medium-distance objects. The wiring that I'm using for suspension will be horsehair braiding, thin strand, thicker-guage fishing wire to account for the lack of supple, strong, thin wire that we use today, metal strand wire, and a few others. THe problems that I can forsee coming are the shadows anyone or anything in the shot that isn't supposed to be there, and making sure that the lighting is as close to possible. Doing it in May would have been the best option but I'm not willing to wait 9 more months. I'll do my best for the end of October and play with the lighting to see what happens.

Weather conditions would normally be a factor, but I'm going to do this in a low-humidity area.

The camera is the Roamer 1 Blue and I have found this:
Roamer 1 and will be putting in the bid tonight. The film is actually pretty easy to find. We'll have to have a professional photographer develop it.

I'd appreciate any thoughts on how to improve the accuracy here and keep it as close to the original conditions as possible. Shooting for an OCT26 shoot-date.

Originally posted by Arrowmancer
The wiring that I'm using for suspension will be horsehair braiding, thin strand, thicker-guage fishing wire to account for the lack of supple, strong, thin wire that we use today, metal strand wire, and a few others.

Why does the line need to be supple, unless you're going to go fishing with it? If you're just hanging a model from a telephone wire, why do you care if the monofilament line is a little stiff? If the photos were a prank, my guess is they tried to select a line or thread that would be thin enough to not show up in the photo.

Monofilament fishing line

In 1939, DuPont began marketing nylon monofilament fishing lines; however, braided Dacron lines remained the most used and popular fishing line for the next two decades, as early monofilament line was very stiff or "wiry", and difficult to handle and cast.

The stiffer monofilament line was available, it just wasn't popular for fishing. But that doesn't mean they couldn't have used it to hang models.

And what about thread, like Sheaffer suggested? If your model isn't too big a couple of pieces of thread might work too.

[edit on 10-10-2009 by Arbitrageur]

Enough fumbling in the dark.

Look at these views here:

images.google.com...:life

Originally posted by JimOberg

... that happened to have a line of sight that from two positions criss-crossed beneath an overhead wire, that another photo from the sequence shows one of his kids, grinning, standing on a stepladder beneath that wire.

All meaningless coincidence, of course.

Jim- If you have such a photo, I'm sure we'd all like to see it. Please?