McMinnville UFO photographs real or fake ?

page: 9
13
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join

posted on Jul, 8 2010 @ 01:56 AM
link   
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.






posted on Jul, 8 2010 @ 02:37 AM
link   
Does anyone know if the TRENT pictures are as they were taken, I mean not cropped or anything, the reason I ask is the simple fact both pictures if untouched and uncropped were not taken from the same spot!

Looks to have moved back and more to the right to take the second one and the camera is pointing more to the left.

Theres a fair difference in size of the shed on the left with the tank on the side between the two photographs does the object change as much, it appears to be moving away?

It should show a fair amount of difference in size if moving away and due to the photographers change in position!

Also when you zoom in a little there does seem to be something on the top sticking up on both shots



posted on Jul, 8 2010 @ 03:22 AM
link   
reply to post by Blue Shift
 


That's a good idea, I will see what I can do with a program I have to make stereo photos.



posted on Jul, 8 2010 @ 04:05 AM
link   

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 Sheaffer's paper:

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%.

CONCLUSION

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 says.

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 was hung.


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]



posted on Jul, 8 2010 @ 04:31 AM
link   
Looking carefully at both External images you can see abviousely that the two objects inserted in the pics are not the same



posted on Jul, 8 2010 @ 07:45 AM
link   
Only in the field of Ufology would someone have the actual temerity to try such a hack and slash conclusion about the photos and then say they know more than a guy who has qualifications up the wazooo. who spent days working on the images. What next ATS show how easy it is to prove the existence of dark matter using a picture from the Hubble telescope they down loaded.

Find the lengthy and erudite conclusions Maccabbi came to read them and then just maybe you'd realise why he's a professional and you are just an opinionated amateur.



posted on Jul, 8 2010 @ 11:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by FireMoon
Only in the field of Ufology would someone have the actual temerity to try such a hack and slash conclusion about the photos and then say they know more than a guy who has qualifications up the wazooo.


It wasn't all that long ago that people didn't have access to fast, accurate image manipulation techniques. People had to grind away for hours or days manipulating photos to get the right copies for comparison. That's not the case now.

But aside from your argument of authority, is there something specific about the photo manipulation that you don't agree with?



posted on Jul, 8 2010 @ 11:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by FireMoon
Find the lengthy and erudite conclusions Maccabbi came to read them and then just maybe you'd realise why he's a professional and you are just an opinionated amateur.


Didn't Maccabee once analyse a photo of an inverted optical mouse and come to the conclusion that it was an alien spacecraft?



posted on Jul, 8 2010 @ 12:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
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 admit I may have made some slight errors in sizing and rotation, because I was more interested in relative positions in the 3-D landscape than size. Somebody specifically looking for size measurements (and with a larger monitor than mine) could perhaps get a better result.

As for the 10% difference in size, that may also be a result of the slight change in the distance from the camera to the object from one photo to the next. Trent either took a couple of steps forward to get the #1 photo, or a couple of steps back to get #2.

That being the case, if it was a small object close up, you would expect there to be an accompanying change in relative size (larger in photo #1), and apparent distance from the wire (closer in photo #1). And that's what you get.



posted on Jul, 8 2010 @ 01:14 PM
link   
reply to post by colloredbrothers
 


billy meier has been proven to have used fake photos with his story, some coming from the pages of a book. that has been proven, it is not in question, if he faked some of his photos doesn't logic prevent you from taking the rest seriously as well?



posted on Jul, 8 2010 @ 02:07 PM
link   
reply to post by Blue Shift
 


But a difference of 10% in size of an overall photograph has huge ramifications for the whole depth of filed seen by the lens. I just don't think you have fully worked it through having found something you find a little suspicious. If the model had been suspended from the wire. surely it would have necessitated someone climbing up on the steps to then physically move the model to produce the effect you claim. In doing so they managed to leave the over head wires in exactly the same state they were in the first picture.

If they had simply swung the model from a line the relationship between the object and the wires would have undoubtedly altered.

There are several notable skeptics gunning for Maccabee. They jump on every last little detail the bloke might be pulled up on. Their total and utter silence, when it comes to the Trent photo's , really does speak volumes for his work.

When i was younger, i always assumed someone somewhere would expose the Trent picture. They haven't and let's be honest here, one or two people have verged on outright lies in their attempts to debunk it. The supposed *evidence of a line suspending the object*, was an emulsion/printing artifact. There was a huge suspicion that, those who claimed this answer to the mystery, knew this this all the time and were simply trying to besmirch the photos by claiming what they did.



posted on Jul, 8 2010 @ 02:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by FireMoon
But a difference of 10% in size of an overall photograph has huge ramifications for the whole depth of filed seen by the lens. I just don't think you have fully worked it through having found something you find a little suspicious. If the model had been suspended from the wire. surely it would have necessitated someone climbing up on the steps to then physically move the model to produce the effect you claim. In doing so they managed to leave the over head wires in exactly the same state they were in the first picture.


I don't know. I think the way the thing hangs, it could have simply rotated on its own from the little antenna. That, along with the change in perspective, could account for the apparent size and "altitude" differences.


If they had simply swung the model from a line the relationship between the object and the wires would have undoubtedly altered.


Well, it does. In Trent #1, the object appears to be slightly closer to the wires, which again would be the case if the photographer was a couple of steps closer to the object when taking the photo. But because the lateral change in Trent's position is approximately the same for both the wires and the object, that doesn't change their relationship in the stereo pair.

I'll go back into the two photos and try to get a more accurate stereo pair with more attention paid to the sizes. There's still a problem because the two photos don't seem to have been processed the same way. Trent #2 of the side view of the object appears to have been more contrast enhanced in development.

I certainly agree that there doesn't seem to be any evidence of wire or string supporting the object. But there is a limit to the resolution. And maybe we're looking for the wrong thing.



posted on Jul, 9 2010 @ 01:11 AM
link   
Allow me to post some material that supports the Trent photos as being genuine and not faked. I looked around the internet trying to find scans of the Time-Life book "The UFO Phenomenon" (ISBN 0-8094-6324-5) but I didn't find any. I have the book and put it under the scanner because there are three pages I want to show you.

In summary, the photos have been tested by William H. Spaulding of "Ground Saucer Watch Inc.", a group dedicated to scientific study of UFOs. Spaulding subjected the photos to computer analysis and was able to show that there are no wires holding this object aloft as you will see below. The third photo is a photo taken by Paul Villa. Analysis shows that a wire was holding the ship model up in Villa's photo.

First scanned page from "The UFO Phenomenon", p. 140



Second scanned page



And the third, showing what a wire in a photo looks like under Ground Saucer Watch's analysis



Again, I couldn't find these pics anywhere on the internet but I remembered them from the book I had. Edit for resizing photo.

[edit on 9-7-2010 by black cat]



posted on Jul, 9 2010 @ 01:18 AM
link   
Spaulding did some worthy work on this, but the scanning technique has never to my knowledge been double-blind tested -- that is, provide photos at various focus settings of objects with and without wires, and have the analyst separate them out correctly. Spaulding never proved that if the McMinn photos had thinner or less well sunlit wire or fishline than the other picture, his method could have -- WOULD have -- detected it.



posted on Jul, 9 2010 @ 01:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by FireMoon
Only in the field of Ufology would someone have the actual temerity to try such a hack and slash conclusion about the photos and then say they know more than a guy who has qualifications up the wazooo. who spent days working on the images. What next ATS show how easy it is to prove the existence of dark matter using a picture from the Hubble telescope they down loaded.

Find the lengthy and erudite conclusions Maccabbi came to read them and then just maybe you'd realise why he's a professional and you are just an opinionated amateur.



Has someone PI**ED on your parade lots of members here have lots of experience in photography many are very keen amatuers and some are even pros so THEY WOULD have a very good idea of the kind of EVIDENCE to look for to prove a PHOTO is real or a possible FAKE, you just have to look at the Moon hoax threads to see that.
Other members use imaging software on a daily basis SO what do bring to the table to have your head so far up your.... about this.



posted on Jul, 9 2010 @ 01:54 AM
link   
While this has been said in thread I would just like to say myself that there have been studies, if you will that show the object does not appear to move in relation to the wires in the photos...

This indicates fabrication.


So take that for what it is worth then leave the rest.



posted on Jul, 9 2010 @ 02:19 AM
link   
I wouldn't exactly call myself an expert. But I do know a little bit about what can and can't be done with computer photo manipulation and enhancement.

That said, here's a little something I was able to come up with just a little bit of brightness and contrast manipulation. No heavy-handed embossing needed (in fact, embossing obfuscates it.)



Ordinarily, you'd write something off like this as just a scratch. But it makes such a nice line where a thin thread would go between the light spot on the wire (a stray reflection, where it also dips a little bit) and the antenna of the object, that it's a little harder to ignore.

An overcast day that minimizes reflection. The limit of the resolution of the print. A double line, where you might expect only one vertical line (I couldn't find the other one.) Who knows?

Hey, maybe it is just a scratch that just happens to line up with stuff.


[edit on 9-7-2010 by Blue Shift]



posted on Jul, 9 2010 @ 02:57 AM
link   
reply to post by Blue Shift
 


Interesting find, I hadn't noticed that.

I might have been looking for the string going straight down, but that could be more than a coincidence that the light spot on the top of the wire lines up with with the "antenna" of the UFO via what looks like a "scratch"!


Originally posted by black cat
In summary, the photos have been tested by William H. Spaulding of "Ground Saucer Watch Inc.", a group dedicated to scientific study of UFOs. Spaulding subjected the photos to computer analysis and was able to show that there are no wires holding this object aloft as you will see below.


Thanks for posting that. I think what he actually showed is that he wasn't able to find any wires, however that doesn't prove there were no wires. Not all wires and photographs are created equal so just because he was able to find wires in one photo doesn't guarantee that the next photo where the wires aren't found is necessarily wireless.

Or as they say, you can prove that something DOES exist, but it's hard to prove that something doesn't exist, in this case, wires.

Earlier in the thread someone with the same camera as the Trents used was going to try an experiment with different materials like different colored thread, fishing line, etc to see if it showed up under similar conditions, but I don't think he ever got the camera working right, it is an old model though!



posted on Jul, 9 2010 @ 06:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by wmd_2008

Originally posted by FireMoon
Only in the field of Ufology would someone have the actual temerity to try such a hack and slash conclusion about the photos and then say they know more than a guy who has qualifications up the wazooo. who spent days working on the images. What next ATS show how easy it is to prove the existence of dark matter using a picture from the Hubble telescope they down loaded.

Find the lengthy and erudite conclusions Maccabbi came to read them and then just maybe you'd realise why he's a professional and you are just an opinionated amateur.



Has someone PI**ED on your parade lots of members here have lots of experience in photography many are very keen amatuers and some are even pros so THEY WOULD have a very good idea of the kind of EVIDENCE to look for to prove a PHOTO is real or a possible FAKE, you just have to look at the Moon hoax threads to see that.
Other members use imaging software on a daily basis SO what do bring to the table to have your head so far up your.... about this.


No just pointing out that there is a huge inconsistency with people's willingness to accept expert testimony over amateurs. For some reason, no matter how qualified you are, if some bloke with a school leaving certificate and a budgerigar comes a long and casts doubts on your conclusions it might be a UFO, then they are obviously right. If the same person casts doubt on a skeptics view of science, they are automatically wrong.



posted on Jul, 9 2010 @ 06:55 AM
link   
reply to post by Blue Shift
 


Frankly that attempt is beyond laughable. You can add a line from anywhere a long the wire.



new topics
top topics
 
13
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join