Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

The McMinnville case revisited - The suspension thread is here

page: 1
4
<<   2 >>

log in

join

posted on Jul, 7 2013 @ 11:35 AM
link   
This thread is a continuation of my previous one dedicated to this case: "The McMinnville case revisited - New analysis online.

Since the launch of our UFO photos and videos analysis website, new functions have been implemented by my partner Francois Louange:

- Camera menu for interactive management of technical parameters associated with a photo or a video

- Transverse velocity/Distance function for an object which moved during exposure time

- Flare function for quick evidence of optical reflections in the camera

- 3 points Registration function for the quick registration of two photos

- Vertical thread function for evidence of a suspension thread

This last one was successfully used on the MnMinnville photo for trying to detect if there was any suspension thread. The full methodology can be read here and the final McMinnville report can be downloaded here.



Related ATS threads:
- High-Res McMinville UFO Photos
- McMinnville UFO photographs real or fake ?
- The Trent UFO Photos McMinnville, Oregon - May 11, 1950
- Make-believe in Mcminnville: Famous 1950 UFO photos faked?

Comments are welcome!




posted on Jul, 7 2013 @ 02:12 PM
link   
reply to post by elevenaugust
 


I don't think these photographs will ever be debunked as it's completely impossible to present a solid debunking theory on them.

With the theory in this thread, I could say it's possible but not proven



posted on Jul, 7 2013 @ 02:57 PM
link   
The angle of that "antenna" in relation to the angle of the bottom of the object always seemed odd to me. It should be perpendicular to the body of the object, but it isn't. It's leaning at an angle which is consistent with it being hung by a wire and the wind causing the object to move, but the antenna stays perpendicular to the horizon. As if it's connected by a wobble joint at the body and antenna. Such as with an automobile side mirror as suggested.




posted on Jul, 7 2013 @ 06:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ectoplasm8
The angle of that "antenna" in relation to the angle of the bottom of the object always seemed odd to me. It should be perpendicular to the body of the object, but it isn't. It's leaning at an angle which is consistent with it being hung by a wire and the wind causing the object to move, but the antenna stays perpendicular to the horizon. As if it's connected by a wobble joint at the body and antenna. Such as with an automobile side mirror as suggested.



All well and good, but it does fall down if the 'antenna' is not in a perpendicular position in the first place. The other thing is that those toggles in wing mirrors, while intended to be stiff in operation often were ropey after a lot of useage, in fact a bit of a pain in the ass.



posted on Jul, 8 2013 @ 08:57 AM
link   
At the end of the day all there is are the 2 still photographs and the story that accompanies them. The photos alone are not enough to tell with without doubt that A. It is some sort of craft or B. whether it is a model being dangled on string. As for the story, well you either believe these people or you don't.



posted on Jul, 8 2013 @ 09:06 AM
link   
reply to post by elevenaugust
 


mc minnville is a nice place. the ufo festival happened not too long ago. always a fun time.

you'll know it's me walking down the street. i'll be the guy walking down the street, looking up, and have a camera at the ready.




posted on Jul, 8 2013 @ 09:10 AM
link   
reply to post by Zcustosmorum
 





well you either believe these people or you don't.

I did believe them but after the Stirling effort put in by SeenMyShare and the others on My thread I now believe beyond reasonable doubt that it was a hoax and the UFO was most likely a canning pot lid suspended from the wires .

Of course we can't know for certain but I think the balance of probability is a Hoax .

Recreation by SeenMyShare



Trent picture


edit on 8-7-2013 by gortex because: Edit to add



posted on Jul, 8 2013 @ 08:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by smurfy
All well and good, but it does fall down if the 'antenna' is not in a perpendicular position in the first place. The other thing is that those toggles in wing mirrors, while intended to be stiff in operation often were ropey after a lot of useage, in fact a bit of a pain in the ass.


It would depend on how loose that bottom ball/wobble joint is with the body of the object. In the photograph, it's obvious the "antenna" is plumb while the object bottom is at a different angle. If that joint is worn, it's reacting the exactly as it should in a breeze or movement of some kind. Seems logical that a mirror that's worn and has lost it's ability to stay in one position would be removed and be lying around as well. Not saying definitely it's a mirror, but it's one possibility that can't be ruled out. If it were any object with a rod stuck through the center for a mounting point it's also reacting as it should. If we're to assume that object is a UFO flying around in the sky, we're also to assume that the "antenna" happens to be pitched in the exact same angle that's perpendicular to the ground. What would be the purpose of a highly advanced craft to angle that antenna? Or have an antenna at all? Or any protrusion spiraling from the top of the craft? My answer is simple, it's a hoax showing the level of technology of the time. The level that 'common folk' relate to during the era in the 40's. Communication via antennas, so obviously a UFO would have an antenna as well, right? Antenna = convenient hanging point also. Where are all the photos of UFOs with antennas today? You don't find them. Did the creators of these UFOs stumble upon the answer 20 or 30 years later of how to communicate without the need for giant antennas? Or the need to add a protrusion at the top of their craft?



posted on Jul, 8 2013 @ 09:19 PM
link   
The "antenna" appears to be pointing up into the same direction in both pics. I've seen and read little on this particular case. I am aware that there is controversy surrounding it. But I've always felt pretty PRO-McMinville.



posted on Jul, 9 2013 @ 04:15 AM
link   
How do you account for the amount of light being reflected from the underside of the object? This normally suggests a larger object at a greater distance.



posted on Jul, 9 2013 @ 05:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by Ectoplasm8

Originally posted by smurfy
All well and good, but it does fall down if the 'antenna' is not in a perpendicular position in the first place. The other thing is that those toggles in wing mirrors, while intended to be stiff in operation often were ropey after a lot of useage, in fact a bit of a pain in the ass.


It would depend on how loose that bottom ball/wobble joint is with the body of the object. In the photograph, it's obvious the "antenna" is plumb while the object bottom is at a different angle. If that joint is worn, it's reacting the exactly as it should in a breeze or movement of some kind. Seems logical that a mirror that's worn and has lost it's ability to stay in one position would be removed and be lying around as well. Not saying definitely it's a mirror, but it's one possibility that can't be ruled out. If it were any object with a rod stuck through the center for a mounting point it's also reacting as it should. If we're to assume that object is a UFO flying around in the sky, we're also to assume that the "antenna" happens to be pitched in the exact same angle that's perpendicular to the ground. What would be the purpose of a highly advanced craft to angle that antenna? Or have an antenna at all? Or any protrusion spiraling from the top of the craft? My answer is simple, it's a hoax showing the level of technology of the time. The level that 'common folk' relate to during the era in the 40's. Communication via antennas, so obviously a UFO would have an antenna as well, right? Antenna = convenient hanging point also. Where are all the photos of UFOs with antennas today? You don't find them. Did the creators of these UFOs stumble upon the answer 20 or 30 years later of how to communicate without the need for giant antennas? Or the need to add a protrusion at the top of their craft?





Hi Ecto

What makes you believe its an antenna?

If the photo is a craft not of this planet then we could believe that radio as a communication is not viable in deep space and no doubt the craft would have a far more advanced system.

May be the antenna like protrusion is to do with propulsion or some kind of field generating device or both?



posted on Jul, 9 2013 @ 05:38 AM
link   
Plus, why did someone in Rouen France decide to fake almost exactly the same "craft"?



posted on Jul, 9 2013 @ 07:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by FireMoon
Plus, why did someone in Rouen France decide to fake almost exactly the same "craft"?


Perhaps because they are one and the same , the Rouen picture has no provenance which makes it suspicious .
The picture has been examined with the the overall conclusion that the Rouen picture is a retouched copy of the Trent picture .


Remarks: Dr. Willy Smith, in a unreleased paper dated June 20, 1990, reviews part of the above and concludes that both the 1950 McMinville and the 1957 Rouen photos “are one and the same, i.e., the Rouen photo (which lacks any background details) is only a copy, many generations removed, of the Trent photo”. The paper's last sentence reads: ”As it stands now, the Rouen incident is only a phantom”. I support that as well. In a January 7, 2004 discussion in the SHG e-List, Dr Bruce Maccabee wrote that the “aspects (of the two photos) are different”. Next, forum member Mary Castner replied that a comparison performed two years ago “concluded they were one and the same object”. Similarly, Loren E. Gross, in UFOs: A History. 1954: October,1991, page 68, writes: “...the Rouen photograph which bears such a strikingly compatible profile with the famous 1950 McMinville, Oregon, picture”.


Brad Sparks:
I have seen a heavily retouched Trent photo in some junky European UFO book that looks like the Rouen photo. It is quite possible some European newspaper in 1950 heavily retouched the Trent photo -- after all it was a German newspaper on April 1, 1950, that fabricated for April Fool's Day the famed "little alien" between the two tall g-men photo, so they were not above outright hoaxes.
www.nicap.org...



posted on Jul, 9 2013 @ 09:00 AM
link   
As I showed in another thread, comparing the two photos the "saucer" moves in relation to the shed and the background - implying it is travelling.

It's position related to the wires, however, remains fixed - suggesting it is attached to them.




posted on Jul, 9 2013 @ 09:47 AM
link   
If those two wires are one and the same, then the relative position of the object with respect to the wire does not appear to be fixed. You need to superimpose those two photos to give me a better idea of the match.....
edit on 9-7-2013 by Mogget because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 9 2013 @ 10:16 AM
link   
reply to post by gortex
 


Not so, the photo from Rouen was originally thought to be from 1954 and it turns out was 1957 and taken , supposedly, by the gun camera of a French jet sent to track an unknown radar trace. The two photos are not identical, the "protuberance, is slightly different in it's alignment than the Trent photo.

To add, .... in actual fact the Rouen photo is clearer, detail wise, than the Trent photo, which is amazing and probably impossible if it is a umpteenth generation copy. The leading edge of the Rouen photo is quite clearly longer and sharper than the Trent photo. I suspect the reason the report those who claim they are the same was never published is because, the person who wrote it, realised they were wrong?
edit on 9-7-2013 by FireMoon because: Add details



posted on Jul, 9 2013 @ 10:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by gortex Of course we can't know for certain



this.



posted on Jul, 9 2013 @ 09:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bob Down Under
Hi Ecto

What makes you believe its an antenna?

If the photo is a craft not of this planet then we could believe that radio as a communication is not viable in deep space and no doubt the craft would have a far more advanced system.

May be the antenna like protrusion is to do with propulsion or some kind of field generating device or both?

I'm relating the "antenna" to the era(40's) of what I believe are hoaxers. Their mindset to faking a UFO. It's not generally going to be a deep thinking process of a farmer. The huge advancement of technology may not even be in their mind seeing as some people at the time still thought Mars was an inhabited planet. Thoughts of a UFO travelling through the universe by unthinkable distances may not have even been thought of. UFO's could have as easily come from Mars in many peoples minds at the time.

It doesn't really matter if it's an antenna or not though. Look at it from another perspective. A propulsion system of some sort that disappeared from popularity. You never saw it in UFO photographs from the 60's on. Seems odd that an advanced civilization thousands or millions of years ahead of us, stumble onto the lack of need of whatever purpose this protrusion had, in 20 years. It doesn't make sense. With hoaxers, it does.



posted on Jul, 9 2013 @ 11:20 PM
link   
There's some real nice debate going on in this thread. I like it! I like your perspective on the subject ectoplasm. The superstructure on top of the thing does seem a little "Hoaky" to me as well. But from the evidence and analysis I have seen, the object clearly seems to be A: moving and B: not hung from anything. Ive seen this photo probably a thousand times and I love it because I myself am from this state, and it tickles me to see things from the pacific northwest, and because there is so much controversy on it. I cant in my mind rule out the possibility that this is just some object that a guy chucked through the air while his buddy snapped a couple of photos of it, but I can definitely not just assume that that is the story. Its just as likely to me that this is an unidentified object, as it is that this is some thrown object. Im undecided. I don't think there is enough evidence one way or another for me to make such a decision on the subject, But ill always have a fondness in my heart for the case!



posted on Jul, 10 2013 @ 04:51 AM
link   
I'm still waiting for a response to my "relatively light underside" question. Previous analysis of these photographs has indicated that this is strong evidence that the object is large, and at a considerable distance from the camera. There is also evidence of a slight "haze" around the object, which supports this conclusion.
edit on 10-7-2013 by Mogget because: (no reason given)





new topics

top topics



 
4
<<   2 >>

log in

join