The McMinnville case revisited - New analysis online

Originally posted by Blue Shift
One of the better arguments I've ever heard for the Trent photos being authentic was expressed by several of the original researchers when they were discussing it on the old UFO Update List a few years back.

They said that after having personally talked with Trent, they thought he was a pretty unsophisticated farmer type and simply didn't have the brains to figure out such a good hoax. I thought there was a chance he got lucky.

Farmers aren't stupid. Certainly not too stupid to dangle a tin plate from a fishin' line and snap a photo of it.

Originally posted by CottonwoodStormy
Does anyone else notice in the first pic there appears a reflection of what I think looks like alien faces on the photo?

Yep, on close inspection I see what you mean. Looks like enlarged heads of classic greys. Weird.

I always thought that the McMinnville photos were the real deal compared to other photos of that era (eg. George Adamski's) and more recent ones. Just sayin'.

Originally posted by draknoir2

I recall seeing a photo analysis done on the original that showed what appeared to be the fishing line from which it was suspended. Don't remember the show, though.

Perhaps you are thinking of this post by Blue Shift?

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Two points. There is no way to tell what the technical qualifications are of the people involved. Given the analysis and French origin I would say this piece is a done deal by French psychosocial UFO skeptics (yawn), setting out with a conclusion and determined to prove it.

In any case, the technical discussions are interesting, but much rests on assumptions. Have you sent this to Maccabee for comment? Maccabee's analysis on the actual negatives is far more detailed and technical than this meager write-up. Sorry, not putting much stock in it yet, considering all earlier analyses considered the hanging from a thread hypothesis.

reply to post by Druscilla


Have you even read up on this case or the photo analysis ? because if you had then you wont be making half ass attempt to debunk the photos.

Youre a perfect example of what many call a 'pseudo skeptic' on here which is why youre mostly ignored by the serious researchers on this forum.

It wouldnt normally bother me but im getting sick of your patronising tone and thinly veiled (and sometimes outright) insults all over the UFO forum.

Get over yourself youre not that clever...only you think you are

You see a lot of UFO photographs from that time period that have antennas protruding from the center of these "craft". Antennas that wouldn't indicate a visit from a highly advanced civilization, but, a level of human technology of the day. Hence the belief by hoaxers that a "UFO" would have an antenna. Which.... just so happens to be a great place to string a line and hang it.

Originally posted by anomalie
reply to post by Druscilla

 

Have you even read up on this case or the photo analysis ? because if you had then you wont be making half ass attempt to debunk the photos.

Youre a perfect example of what many call a 'pseudo skeptic' on here which is why youre mostly ignored by the serious researchers on this forum.

It wouldnt normally bother me but im getting sick of your patronising tone and thinly veiled (and sometimes outright) insults all over the UFO forum.

Get over yourself youre not that clever...only you think you are

edit on 18-3-2013 by anomalie because: (no reason given)

Ah, so, what you're saying is you guys have group meetings where you sit around and talk about ignoring me.
That's nice.
You might want to look at the OP topic.
The OP topic is NOT about Druscilla.
As flattering as it is that you've taken such time to go out of your little way to give me a nice big spotlight to parade around in, I suggest your time would be better spent putting that whole 'ignoring' me thing into practice.
Hmmm?
So? Do you have anything worthwhile to actually contribute regarding the topic?
Right.

Originally posted by jclmavg
Two points. There is no way to tell what the technical qualifications are of the people involved. Given the analysis and French origin I would say this piece is a done deal by French psychosocial UFO skeptics (yawn), setting out with a conclusion and determined to prove it.

We are a team of three individuals. F.Louange and myself are French and Geoff Quick is an Englishman. You can find our bio at this page. Not sure if you really saw it at first.

Originally posted by jclmavg
In any case, the technical discussions are interesting, but much rests on assumptions. Have you sent this to Maccabee for comment? Maccabee's analysis on the actual negatives is far more detailed and technical than this meager write-up.

Of course, we have had a full exchange with Maccabee about the case and he provides us directly the hi-resolution scans of the photos.

Like I said to "Hopechest" in an earlier post, if we have done some assumptions, it's mainly because we felt that they are insignificant and will not change the result for each point.

Anyway, again, if you have some more precision about what point you find "too unclear" or what assumption we have done that you think it could change the conclusion, feel free to detail it!

Originally posted by cripmeister

Originally posted by draknoir2

I recall seeing a photo analysis done on the original that showed what appeared to be the fishing line from which it was suspended. Don't remember the show, though.

Perhaps you are thinking of this post by Blue Shift?

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Similar, but it was detailed on a TV show and it was of the other photo with the more edge on view. The line was going straight up from the "antenna".

Originally posted by anomalie
reply to post by Druscilla

 

Have you even read up on this case or the photo analysis ? because if you had then you wont be making half ass attempt to debunk the photos.

Youre a perfect example of what many call a 'pseudo skeptic' on here which is why youre mostly ignored by the serious researchers on this forum.

It wouldnt normally bother me but im getting sick of your patronising tone and thinly veiled (and sometimes outright) insults all over the UFO forum.

Get over yourself youre not that clever...only you think you are

edit on 18-3-2013 by anomalie because: (no reason given)

I'm leaning toward the photos being real. But by your vitriolic attack on the reply by Druscilla, it seems you consisider yourself a 'serious researcher' in the field of UFO photographs. I thought this forum was welcoming to all points of view. I'd be interested to see your in-depth analysis of the photos.

It's a real photo of a real object, IMHO.

reply to post by elevenaugust


It's a Domain Expeditionary Force Jello Mold Scout Class Spacecraft.

It has a tall wave guide in the center. They drop the cloak when they want to be seen.

You won't see anymore of these over the USA. We now have control over our airspace.

Originally posted by TauCetixeta
reply to post by elevenaugust

 

It's a Domain Expeditionary Force Jello Mold Scout Class Spacecraft.

It has a tall wave guide in the center. They drop the cloak when they want to be seen.

You won't see anymore of these over the USA. We now have control over our airspace.

Don't you already have a thread for your GFL Andro/Council fantasy crap?

reply to post by draknoir2


I thought you may want to know what the picture is.

Yes, it's real.

You should be asking yourself, if it's real then why McMinnville, Oregon?

All through the PDF I was waiting to see some representation of the object weight on the cable, included in the rest of the calculations and there was none except at the 'Epilog' and that was just a mention. If this was something hanging from the cables it would have need to have some weight to be a viable contender for a decent picture, otherwise it would be just flapping about and there would be motion blur to some degree. There is no particular sign of bending of the cables whatsoever, but they are already misshapened and possibly very stiff. Anyway overall the pictures are not the best example of a set-up hoax. It is the presumption of the need to hang something from a wire to make a hoax picture which is kind of puzzling too, why not throw a bin lid in the air and take a picture, where would all the parameters be taken from then?

reply to post by smurfy


I think motion blur would be more of an issue with an object tossed in the air than one suspended and gently swaying. Also the level of difficulty is higher with regards to capturing the shot, especially with an old camera. Not to say it's impossible... saw them do it on Fact or Faked with reasonable results.

I'm sticking with the "string theory" as it best accounts for the orientation of the object and the apparent lines attached to it, which are consistent with the swinging of a suspended model. It's easy to accomplish and easy to photograph.

Originally posted by draknoir2
reply to post by smurfy

 

I think motion blur would be more of an issue with an object tossed in the air than one suspended and gently swaying. Also the level of difficulty is higher with regards to capturing the shot, especially with an old camera. Not to say it's impossible... saw them do it on Fact or Faked with reasonable results.

I'm sticking with the "string theory" as it best accounts for the orientation of the object and the apparent lines attached to it, which are consistent with the swinging of a suspended model. It's easy to accomplish and easy to photograph.

edit on 19-3-2013 by draknoir2 because: (no reason given)

I don't mean that motion blur would be a set-back in any way, more to the point it indicates noticeable motion. Noticeable motion is not a feature of the Trent pictures, and I think there was mention of it moving just slowly.
Neither was noticeable motion a feature of the Redbud, Illinois,UFO April 1950.








The prints are also problematic, they appear to be mucked about with fingerprint marks. I do need to look elsewhere too, about the positions of the camera in each picture, it bothers me.

Originally posted by Druscilla
Ah, so, what you're saying is you guys have group meetings where you sit around and talk about ignoring me.
That's nice.
You might want to look at the OP topic.
The OP topic is NOT about Druscilla.
As flattering as it is that you've taken such time to go out of your little way to give me a nice big spotlight to parade around in, I suggest your time would be better spent putting that whole 'ignoring' me thing into practice.
Hmmm?
So? Do you have anything worthwhile to actually contribute regarding the topic?
Right.

I don't see why anybody contributing should be ignored. I did see your 'fishing line' post though, and while it is at least as feasable as the OP's content, if the fishing line is invisible or undetectable, it would not have the parameters that are used here. I just think that because the power lines are there, they have become the centre of focus for a debunk, yet there are other lines a bit more distant all over the place, if you took them away there is nothing, Zilch to determine anything. The photographs/negatives and subsequent prints were so badly handled and fingerprinted and lined, that a Pareidolia stimulus is easily provoked.
Then there is the Trents themselves, they made not a penny piece out of the 'Hoax' and the pictures went viral everywhere while various people held on to the negatives until they were recovered and returned to the Trents by Bruce Maccabee. In fact, that is all the Trents asked for, the return of the negatives, and that did not happen until years later. The story, (Well documented) is that it was Paul Trents wife who first saw the object, and described it as silvery and moving slowly. Does it look silvery in the pictures? no it does not, is that an issue, probably not on a dull day. Paul Trent took the pictures, his father also saw it briefly, there's not much more than that other than, "It sped off to the West"
Farmers are hard headed, busy people, they can get the laughs from spreading shi'te across fields downwind from them, not messing about with power cables.

I'm actually in touch with Bruce Maccabee about some points that need to be cleared up about this case (and thanks to him for the original hi-res photos):

1- Maccabee said that "to have a nearby object would require light emanating from the bottom, which makes the simple hanging of a pie-plate or truck mirror less likely."; OK, but what about a translucent (or semi-translucent) model? He did mention the possibility in its on-line analysis, talking about some experimentation he have done about this point, but without exposing these further.
I'm not sure if he is aware of the work done by Mr Claude POHER back in 1977 about McMinnville (the report for the French CNES was unfortunately only written in French, but I can do a translation if necessary). To make it short, he agreed with the translucent model hypothesis, but its conclusion (mainly based on ground experimentations as well) was exactly the opposite of Maccabee's one, i-e that a "translucent model made of opal plastic material" could have been used.
Anyway, if a hoax, one have to prove that the model/material used could be easily be found by the Trent back in 1950; I guess that a translucent plastic model would not be that easy to find. Any ideas about this point?

2- Oddly, I haven't found anywhere the mention of a possible underneath hollow model. What about this hypothesis (that is possibly not incompatible with the hypothesis of an outside rear-view mirror)?

3- I recently saw on an Internet UFO blog the mention of a 30s separation time between the two shoots, this blog quoting as the source of this affirmation a magazine: "Official UFO" from 1977. I have found the magazine and bought it and did find that this data was given by "David A. Kennedy" in an letter to the editor-in-chief of this magazine. Any input about this data?

Someone also suggested that the object could have been a late 1940s Ford Mirror (the mirror below is from 1948):