posted on Jul, 8 2010 @ 04:05 AM
Originally posted by torsion
reply to post by Blue Shift
I understand what you mean Blue Shift.
I've overlayed your images and aligned the wires.
The "saucer" certainly does appear to have kept its position in relation to the wires.
Nice overlay. You and blueshift seem to confirm the findings in
An Investigation of the McMinnville UFO Photographs
Hartmann found in his investigation that the object appears to be in the same position with respect to the telephone wires above it in both
photographs, even though the camera had changed positions. While it is conceivable that the motion of the object could exactly cancel that of the
photographer with respect to the nearby wires, this fact suggests very strongly the possibility of fabrication.
It was also noted by Hartmann that the object is about 8% farther from the camera in Plate 24 than in Plate 23. Measuring the size of irregularities
in the wires reveals that they are about 10% farther away in Plate 24, but this value is less certain than the other. Thus the change in the distance
to the object from plate 23 to plate 24 just happens to very closely match the change in the distance to the overhead wires, another factor that
strongly argues in favor of a fabrication.
And just as blue shift said, it's suggestive, but not conclusive.
Bruce Maccabee wrote this rebuttal:
The McMinnville Photos
Several years later an investigation by Philip J. Klass and Robert Sheaffer (2) argued that the photographic evidence used by Hartmann (1) was not
conclusive and that, furthermore, there seemed to be some discrepancies between the photographic evidence and the witness' story.
Then on page 3:
Note that the size ratio, photo 2/photo 1, should be compared to the inverse of the distance ratio, photo 1/photo 2, because image size is
inversely proportional to distance, that is, the image size shrinks as the distance increases. These ratios, although comparable, are not equal.
They differ by about 10%.
The lack of data makes it necessary to reconstruct the scene of the photos using photogrammetric techniques combined with estimated sizes of objects
shown in the photos. This method introduces considerable uncertainty into the reconstruction. The uncertainty is sufficiently great that a rather
wide range of answers to the two questions posed at the beginning of this appendix can be obtained. However, reasonable reconstructions without any
"forcing" of the available photographic data and size estimates indicates that the sighting lines did not cross under the wires and that the ratios
are not equal.
Regarding his 10% difference in the ratios, we can see in Torsion's photo overlay the UFO size is not an exact match, but it's pretty darn close.
Maybe part of that 10% is measurement error and the real difference is smaller and was caused by the object swinging closer to and further away from
the camera after someone pushed it? Or from swinging in the breeze?
I don't see Sheaffer or Blueshift claiming conclusively that there's proof it's a hoax, and that's what Maccabee says in his rebuttal, there's no
proof it's a hoax.So I think the only point of disagreement is, how close is that 10% difference in the ratios and is it close enough to introduce
suspicion about the possibility of a hoax. Maccabee seems to think it's not close enough, but to me it seems plenty close, especially looking at
Torsion's picture overlay. But it's only close enough to introduce suspicion, it doesn't prove the hoax, even if it was an exact match, as Maccabee
Then Maccabee did additional analysis and sort of admitted the photos could be a hoax if the hoaxers were "lucky":
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
Then he goes on to say he thinks the Trents are credible and "didn't have the intelligence necessary to conceive and carry out hoax of any kind"
but really how much intelligence does it take to hang a model on a string attached to a wire?
In any case it seems both sides admit a hoax is possible, but not proven and the only debate is about how likely it was.
But if you read everything that Sheaffer, Maccabee and others wrote when investigating the case, it's an impressive amount of investigation! (without
a firm conclusion).
[edit on 8-7-2010 by Arbitrageur]