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: 8
13
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 14 2009 @ 04:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by ArbitrageurThere is another post called "Re: Trent experiment - Maccabee"

www.virtuallystrange.net... (See Oct 18)

and I tried to read the other messages on that archive but most of the other links don't work so I can't see what they did in their experiments, but it would be interesting reading, especially since some posts there were by Bruce Maccabee.
For cases like that you can always try The Internet Archive Wayback Machine.

To make it easier, just click here.




posted on Oct, 14 2009 @ 04:23 PM
link   
Maccabee has a PhD in optical physics and plenty of experience as a scientist, Sheaffer is a mere writer. Now, do you think Sheaffer's disagreement with Maccabee is due to him finding a fault with Maccabee's arguments or simply because of the fact that Sheaffer does "not get it" fueled by bias? I suggest the latter.



posted on Oct, 14 2009 @ 04:28 PM
link   
reply to post by ArMaP
 
Thanks ArMaP, that has worked for me in the past on other searches, but it's not helping this time.

I get this message even with the wayback machine:


No archived versions of the page you requested are available. If the page is still available on the Internet, we will begin archiving it during our next crawl.


Apparently those posts were from Oct 2000 and the earliest wayback machine archive was April 2002 and many of the links were either already broken by then (a guess), or else the same links got left out of the main site and the wayback machine (less likely).

At least I'm getting some idea of what Dr. Maccabee did from his site but I'm not sure what the others did in their experiments.



posted on Oct, 26 2009 @ 10:05 AM
link   
Looks genuine...was the Camera on a tripod? because the composition looks alright...also standard mountain/landscape in the backdrop...edge of roof...camera really straight.



posted on Nov, 4 2009 @ 11:54 AM
link   
Vacation took longer than expected
As it stands, we coudln't develop the film from the Roamer. Or to be more accurate, we could develop it, but there's nothing on them... Have Blue dissecting the camera. We did try it with her SLR digital and a cheapie disposable. Will have em up here shortly.



posted on Jul, 7 2010 @ 04:31 AM
link   
Looking at the Life photos I couldn't help but notice the kiddie's cart.

Could the "saucer" possibly be one of the wheels suspended from the wires?

Though the rim of the wheels is clearly thicker than the rim of the "saucer" this could simply be a rubber tyre that would be easy to remove.




posted on Jul, 7 2010 @ 04:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
There is another post called "Re: Trent experiment - Maccabee"

www.virtuallystrange.net... (See Oct 18)

and I tried to read the other messages on that archive but most of the other links don't work so I can't see what they did in their experiments, but it would be interesting reading, especially since some posts there were by Bruce Maccabee.


Hi Arbitrageur,

As you may have seen since your old post above (in this thread which was resurrected by another poster earlier today), the archives for the UFO UpDates discussion List have moved from the virtuallystange.net website. The relevant posts can be found at the link below:

www.ufoupdateslist.com...

All the best,

Isaac



posted on Jul, 7 2010 @ 05:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by torsion
Looking at the Life photos I couldn't help but notice the kiddie's cart.

Could the "saucer" possibly be one of the wheels suspended from the wires?

Though the rim of the wheels is clearly thicker than the rim of the "saucer" this could simply be a rubber tyre that would be easy to remove.

Looks nothing like it, and does not address the optical details and analyses that have been done to date. You're merely suggesting they tossed up a metal wheel, this does not hold up.



posted on Jul, 7 2010 @ 06:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by IsaacKoi
As you may have seen since your old post above (in this thread which was resurrected by another poster earlier today), the archives for the UFO UpDates discussion List have moved from the virtuallystange.net website.


Hi Isaac, thanks for the update!

I remember being disappointed at not being able to read those old posts about the Trent UFO by Bruce Maccabee and others. But it looks like that new link you just provided has more of the links working than the virtuallystange.net site had. I just clicked on some links and most seem to be working, I'll look forward to reading them when I have more time!

I may not agree with all of Maccabee's conclusions but he does very interesting research so I always like reading whatever he has to say about a UFO topic.

thanks and best regards,

Arby



posted on Jul, 7 2010 @ 10:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by jclmavg
You're merely suggesting they tossed up a metal wheel, this does not hold up.


No, the suggestion is that the object is suspended from one of the overhead wires.

Do this yourself.

Map out the yard and the ground-track of the wires.

Map out the images of the UFO and show where the photographer was standing and the line-of-sight to the UFO.

Discuss if/why the lines of sight appear to converge beneath one of the overhead wires.



[edit on 7-7-2010 by JimOberg]



posted on Jul, 7 2010 @ 11:01 AM
link   
i think B/W pics are harder to tell if fake, it's the way the light shines on the object....

my gut feeling is that they are fake, the picture itself, the setting, with the house and the pole sitting there for reference, and the disc looks fake too, looks like a medium size object, perhaps a foot or two.. but then again , a hard call

my money's on fake



posted on Jul, 7 2010 @ 11:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by torsion
Looking at the Life photos I couldn't help but notice the kiddie's cart.

Could the "saucer" possibly be one of the wheels suspended from the wires?


Nice try Torsion, but I don't think so for two reasons:
1. Even with the tire removed, I don't think the shape matches, and
2. I can see all 4 wheels on the kiddies cart, so if it was one of those I'd expect to see one missing.

You should really read all the research done by Maccabee and Sheaffer, see the external links at the end of the Wiki article:

en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Jul, 7 2010 @ 11:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by captaintyinknots
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.


That Cave Junction object looks remarkably like the object spotted by Rex Heflin. I believe the Trent photos (McMinnville photos) to be genuine. Now whether the craft is alien in origin or man-made is another story. The Redbud, Illinois object looks remarkably the same.

Both objects were photographed in 1950. Here's the McMinnville, Oregon object



Here is the Redbud, Illinois object



[edit on 7-7-2010 by black cat]



posted on Jul, 7 2010 @ 04:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by JimOberg

Originally posted by jclmavg
You're merely suggesting they tossed up a metal wheel, this does not hold up.


No, the suggestion is that the object is suspended from one of the overhead wires.

Do this yourself.

Map out the yard and the ground-track of the wires.

Map out the images of the UFO and show where the photographer was standing and the line-of-sight to the UFO.

Discuss if/why the lines of sight appear to converge beneath one of the overhead wires.

[edit on 7-7-2010 by JimOberg]

Oh puh-lease Jim, it is sad to see you rehash old drivel when the physical evidence is against you. If anything, there is no evidence whatsoever that the McMinnville pictures are a fake. There is no indication of a hoax, and the physical evidence is consistent with that position.



posted on Jul, 7 2010 @ 04:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
I may not agree with all of Maccabee's conclusions but he does very interesting research so I always like reading whatever he has to say about a UFO topic.
I doubt Maccabee's complete photoanalysis is up on the web somewhere. I do have a copy in my archives which he sent to me years ago, it's detailed and when I have the time I might scan it to pdf.



posted on Jul, 7 2010 @ 08:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by jclmavg
I doubt Maccabee's complete photoanalysis is up on the web somewhere. I do have a copy in my archives which he sent to me years ago, it's detailed and when I have the time I might scan it to pdf.

In that case you might want to follow the links I mentioned and see if what he posted on his site is incomplete. His original research is 4 html pages then his rebuttal to Scheaffer is another three pages so it looks like quite a lot. But if you have more that's not already posted on his site, that would be interesting to see.

[edit on 8-7-2010 by Arbitrageur]



posted on Jul, 8 2010 @ 12:21 AM
link   
As I mentioned in another topic, I've fiddled around with the Trent photos in an effort to see if I could create a stereo pair and get a little more information out of those photos. And this is what I came up with.

There's a slightly larger version HERE for those of you with larger monitors.



This is another cross-eyed stereo pair. That means you need to back away from the monitor a little bit, cross your eyes, and try to line elements up in each picture until you get them together and in focus. Try it first with the oil tank. That has been shrunk to size and aligned to make it a little easier.

Unfortunately, the two photos were taken some distance apart and with the photo on the right a few steps forward. So it'll take a little practice for you to line up some of the other elements, like the bush by the driveway, the telephone post, and maybe even the far away ridge. You may need to tilt your head a little to get them to line up. It may take a little effort, and some of you won't be able to do it at all. Sorry about that. I can't do much more about it from my end.

Anyway, the point of the whole exercise is to get an idea how everything stood in the yard those many years ago. Exact measurements don't matter. We're talking about relationships and distances away from the camera(s). Like I said, the oil tank is close. You can follow the tilt of the roof back. Then there's the bush, and behind it is the pole. Okay?

Now just for the hell of it, line up the saucer. It won't be exact, because they're at a different tilt in each photo, but do what you can. Got it?

Now "look up" at the overhead wires. Curiously enough, they line up at the same relative distance as the saucer! That's interesting, don't you think? And if you look around the image, as well as the other available images of the yard -- the ones with the ladder -- the wires are not far away at all, but are actually closer to the camera than the oil tank. So if the UFO saucer lines up at that point, then there's a pretty good chance that the UFO is actually pretty close to the camera, also.

Well, certainly the UFO could have moved and somehow by pure chance managed to get a stereo separation of exactly the same distance and at the same relative angle as the overhead wires. That would be amazingly coincidental, wouldn't it?

And maybe all the research done about blur factors and atmospheric hazing was off because the photos weren't processed exactly the same and the top of the saucer simply was lighter, and it just looked like the story, where there's one picture of it close, and another as it flew away. Maybe. Although you know that just because a photo looks like something, that doesn't mean that's what it really is.

So there you go. I don't know if this qualifies as a debunking, but I think it might shed a little doubt on the photos -- with information taken directly from the photos themselves, which is basically all we really have besides the testimony of the people who took the photos. In the end, we all have to decide for ourselves.


[edit on 8-7-2010 by Blue Shift]



posted on Jul, 8 2010 @ 01:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by ArMaP
Just a question about these photos without the UFO: were they taken by Trent or by a different photographer (apparently called Loomis Dean, according to what the LIFE pages say) at a different time (June 6)?


I would say that because of the change in the foliage in the background that the kid on the ladder photos were taken at a different time than the saucer photos. Maybe months later. And by a different camera with a very different lens. I tried, but it was very hard to make a decent stereo pair from one of the kid photos and one of the saucer photos.



posted on Jul, 8 2010 @ 01:11 AM
link   
oh i understand now it all makes sense



posted on Jul, 8 2010 @ 01:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by JimOberg
Discuss if/why the lines of sight appear to converge beneath one of the overhead wires.


See my artificial 3-D stereo pair analysis above. In short, the saucer and the overhead wires appear to be the same relative distance away from the camera. Somewhat closer to the camera than the oil tank. Also without the saucer changing enough in relative size or tilt to make a difference.

Somebody with decent 3-D computer modeling skills (not me) could clarify this even further.

If it's a small object, I don't know how it could have been suspended. There is an odd grey bump (string lump?) on the lower wire at about the 11 o'clock position to the saucer that is not a processing error, because it's in both photos. I honestly don't know if that means anything, though.

[edit on 8-7-2010 by Blue Shift]




top topics



 
13
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join