James Fox "Phenomenon" out today

a reply to: Ophiuchus1

But IF it is legitimate.... one has to wonder

You can stop wondering. Because if you really knew your X-Files you will know that this footage was created as part of the introduction to S10 Episode 1 - "My Struggle". Where Mulder mistakenly says 1957 instead on 1952. But it is science fiction so...

About 1min and 35 sseconds into this clip.




youtu.be...

There is no film footage of the UFOs over Washington in 1952 and no photographs. Although the events really did cause near panic amongst some of the top brass. I have my suspicions it might have been a test of early radar spoofing [see Project Palladium].

As for Fox's film. I haven't seen it. He's a decent filmmaker but the argument on social media seems to be that there isn't much new in his movie because it wasn't made for people who already know about UFOs and it's ufology's greatest hits.That it is aimed at the more general and sceptical public Exactly the type of people who won't be watching it.

Well, I watched the whole thing, and it is very well made.

These are the cases presented in the order they are presented in the movie (SPOILER WARNING):

Introduction with videos from TTSA and statements from Chris Mellon

William T. Coleman sighting 1955 (Interview and recreation)
Kenneth Arnold Sighting - 1947 (statemets from Arnold and daughter, presentation of Phoenix Photo from same year)
Captain E. J. Smith sighting - 1947 (presentation)
Air Force reaction and so forth (declassified documents)
McMinnville photographs, the Trents (statement from Evelyn Trent)
Gordon Cooper unidentifieds in Europe, 1951 (statements Cooper)
Tremonton, Utah video (statement from Delbert Newhouse)
Wiliam B. Nash and Willam B. Fortenberry sighting, 1952 (statements from Nash)
Wahington flap, 1952 (interview with Albert M. Chop)
Pentagon press briefing, 1952 (clip with General John Samford)
Don Berliener on the Airforce explanation (temperature inversions)
CIA behind the scenes reactions CIA (statements from Col. Robert Friend)
Historical background (interview with Jacques Vallee)
Presentation of Vallee and Hynek and BlueBook (statements from Hynek)
H.C Cross letter, Batelle, and a paralell clandestine investigation (Vallee interview)
Donald Keyhoe statemets on government secrecy
Westall school (AUS) sighting, 1966 (interview of multiple witnesses)
On supression of witnesses (interview with anonymous science teacher)
Baldwin photo, 1966 (statement from witness)
Levelland, Texas sighting, 1952 (sheriff Weir Clem radio statements)
White Sands proving ground landing. 1952 (radio statements from Bill Haggard)
Socorro sighting, 1964 (recreation and statements from Lonnie Zamora and others, including his wife)
Similarities with Socorro in cases from France, Hynek becomes convinced this was real (statements from Vallee)
Ann Arbor Landing, 1966 (interview with several witnesses)
Hyneks infamous "swamp gas" statement and internal struggle
Ford and the congressional hearings, 1966 (Transcripts)
The Condon report, 1968
Great Falls Montana film, 1950 (as example of unknowns in the Condon Report)
Fallout from Condon Report, criticism (statements from several people)
End of Bluebook (1969)
National Press Club hearings, 2010 (statements from several witnesses on incursions into nuclear sites)
Malmstrom incident, 1966 (recreation and statements from Patrick McDonnough, Robert Salas, Robert Jamieson, Dwynne Arnesson and others)
R.A.F Bentwaters incident, 1980 (recreation, statements from Halt, Ivan Barker, James Carey, halt tapes)
Ukraine Nuclear missiles incident, 1982 (presentation)
Minot AFB nuclear missile incident, 1966 (statement from David Schuur)
Breakdown of USSR and opening of files (statements from George Knapp)
Brief presentation of several incident in the USSR (statements from Knapp, Vallee)
Bill Clinton and the Lawrence Rockefeller initiative (staement from Vallee)
Clinton inquiries into the Roswell Incident, 1947 (interview with John Podesta)
The Roswell incident and cover-up, 1947 (statements from Jesse Marcel, Thomas DuBose, Steven Schiff and others)
Air Force Roswell Report, 1994, (Project Mogul statements from USAF, Jesse Marcell, Bill Richardson)
Bill Clinton on failing to make headway
Edgar Mitchell on coverup (statement from Edgar Mitchell)
AATIP (statements from Harry Reid, Leslie Kean)
Navy videos and New York Times (2017)
USS Nimitz incident, 2004 (interview with David Fravor, Mellon, recreation)
Harry Reid on interference with nuclear weapons (Harry Reid)
Resistance to the AATIP program (Harry Reid)
Reid confronted with Gordon Cooper statements on missing film of landed craft, claiming most of the evidence is still hidden (interview with Harry Reid, Chris Mellon)
Mellon on missing oversight (interview with Chris Mellon)
Gary Nolan and Vallee on atomic properties of samples (interview with Gary Nolan and Jacques Vallee)
Isotopes and ultramaterials (interview with Gary Nolan and Jaques Vallee)
Reverend Gill sighting, 1957 (statements from Willam Gill)
Ariel School sighting,1994 (statements and interviews from several witnesses)
(several statments in the end credits, Vallee and others)

Apologies if I missed any or bungled the year, as they do jump a little back and forth.

This is a very compelling documentary made, obviously, to present the view that the Phenomenon is:

A - Real
B - A possible threat, at least worthy of some study
C - Has been suppressed by the US government (and still is) which might have lost control over the evidence
D - Should be more openly discussed and evidence released
E - Possibly extraterrestrial or local in origin, yet unknown
F - Due to some intelligence (it behooves us, to quote an old favorite of mine, to find out who they are and what they want)

There is very little counter arguments presented. No critics are interviewed, no alternative viewpoint.

All in all, I enjoyed it.

Cheers,

BT

originally posted by: mirageman
a reply to: Ophiuchus1

But IF it is legitimate.... one has to wonder

You can stop wondering. Because if you really knew your X-Files you will know that this footage was created as part of the introduction to S10 Episode 1 -

Damn Hollywood..... and see I have the entire box set plus the movies and never caught it to remember it......Welp, waiting for them to land at the next inaugural speech right on the lawn.

btw...i'll be jumping back onto your E115 thread soon to play seeing how nobody knows what color E115 should be....it will be fun to add a new theory (that I know of unless you or someone else thinks its not a possibilty)

a reply to: Ophiuchus1

the story about his map comes from some at the time secret magnetic and radar recovers so he marked the locations down in his pad.

a reply to: beetee

Amazing they covered that much ground

a reply to: beetee

"Reid confronted with Gordon Cooper statements on missing film of landed craft,"

Thanks for that call-out. Three independent investigations of that Cooper story all concluded it was imaginary. Another example of UFO industry's suppression of relevant research results for propaganda purposes.

originally posted by: penroc3
a reply to: Ophiuchus1

the story about his map comes from some at the time secret magnetic and radar recovers so he marked the locations down in his pad.

This is the "Cooper's Treasure" narrative, right? Cooper said a lot of weird stuff when he got old and sick, are we supposed to believe it all? Sadly, he was well along into Parkinson's by then, a terrible malady often accompanied by delusions and false memories. The guy was a true hero and earned his adulation, and he deserved his late-in-life privacy -- but the con men and exploiters circled like vultures to make money off his weakened mind and his desperate loneliness. Shameful.

My debunking of the ‘secret sensor’ and ‘five thousand photos’ --
www.thespacereview.com...

and...
Loss of Faith -- Gordon Cooper’s post-NASA stories www.thespacereview.com...

a reply to: 111DPKING111

It is pretty impressive, yes. The amount of detail varies, naturally, but all the cases are at least briefly presented, except for the Ukrainian missile silo case and the American Airlines sighting in 47, which is rather quickly just mentioned as background to the Minot / Malmstrom case and the Kenneth Arnold sighting respectively.

The discerning connoisseur of UFO lore might also notice that they have left out the more woo and disturbing aspects of the whole body of evidence, clearly on purpose. You will find no cattle mutilations, abductions (apart from a brief clip of Vallee with the Hills in the presentation of him as a UFO researcher) nor any of the more crazy ufonauts. The whole Men In Black thing is also passed right over, unless you count the science teacher from Australia who was threatened by two men (one in uniform) that he would loose his job if he didn't shut up.

They have also cherry picked, if such a term might be used, the encounters with beings they present, to three that conforms to the small aliens with large heads and pretty much humanoid shape (Zamorra case, father Gill case and the Zimbabwe school sighting), so no Flatwoods monster to be glimpsed anywhere :-)

Personally, I feel this is a bit dishonest, if you want to make the "ultimate primer", because anyone who starts to look into this will pretty much run into the more crazy stories pretty much instantly.

The whole thing is crafted, very carefully and very well, to present the narrative that TTSA and others, are pushing about the Unknown intruding into the US (and elsewhere) and a government conspiracy to ridicule and silence. Reasons unknown but with a definite undertone of "threat", or at least intolerable uncertainty.

It takes a bit of a weird turn, to my mind, in the end with lots of close ups of the Zimbabwe school children, which seemingly seeks to portray them as victims of something (not specified what). This was very strange. I think the director seeks to make the viewer uncomfortable about our unwillingness to seriously study he subject.

I feel this end note is rather over the top and awkward.

That's just my opinion, of course.

a reply to: JimOberg

They are using this as an illustration of "missing evidence". Of course, if it was ever filmed as Gordon Cooper claimed, then it would indeed be pretty astounding if it were ever to be produced and made public :-)

Reid then flatly states that nearly nothing has been released and so forth. Mellon goes on to say he looked for records of this, because Cooper had raised it with the President, but that the Air Force had cleaned it up to save space or thrown it out, with the addition that this seems ludicrous.

He then goes to imply that this shows that the US government has lost control of the evidence (it is buried so deep there is no oversight). This is a underlying theme throughout the whole documentary, from the mention of a secret Batelle parallel study to Bluebook by Vallee early on and hinted at several times later. Without pointing the finger more accurately than vaguely in the direction of the black world close to the US military. The good olde Millitary Industrial Complex, in fact.

They then bridge into the "Ultramaterials" with Gary Nolan and Jacques Vallee.

originally posted by: beetee

McMinnville photographs, the Trents (statement from Evelyn Trent)

Any mention of the McMinville fiasco?

It is Oberg who is the origin of the problem.

The inescapable fact is that it is Oberg who made the first public display on the net of the 'ladder boy' image- not me.

He did this three years ago on the ATS (Above Top Secret) forum. He deliberately dropped the "bombshell" photo of the boy on the ladder on a an ATS forum apparently in a misguided effort to further the belief that Trent had hoaxed the UFO photos.

All Oberg would state when questioned by those on ATS was that LIFE 'bought the rights' to the 'ladder boy' photo.

Oberg did not attempt to clarify the image beyond saying that LIFE had to pay for it, indicating that they had 'acquired' it. He preferred to perpetuate a mystery about the 'ladder boy photo' by failing to say anything more about it- and then deleting the image on the site.

And I am not the first or only to fall for the Oberg misinformation:

link

a reply to: karl 12

There was no mention of anything other than the witness starement of Evelyn Trent about what she saw, the sequence of events, as told by the Trents, the photo itself and the inability of the Condon report to adequately explain it.

There is, however, starements to the fact that the Trents were honest, ordinary people who never profited from the photo or attempted to.

originally posted by: karl 12

originally posted by: beetee

McMinnville photographs, the Trents (statement from Evelyn Trent)

Any mention of the McMinville fiasco?

Curiosity.... The whole Trent affair was based initially on the “ufo” pictures that made the McMinville newspaper back in 1950...

Not including any other picture(s) (the farm boy, Trent wife, ladder, Trent himself, newspaper photographer, etc.) ... how many different pictures (positions of camera and or angles) of the object itself was taken by Trent?

If possible where would those pictures of the actual raw pictures of the “object only“ would be found in one location online? Kindly provide, if not you, someone hopefully. One link is all, not an ATS link or bunch of non-ATS rabbit hole links to links ...

Thanks 🙏

Oberg is a known liar. And not for just his ladder hoax.

originally posted by: Ophiuchus1
Not including any other picture(s) (the farm boy, Trent wife, ladder, Trent himself, newspaper photographer, etc.) ... how many different pictures (positions of camera and or angles) of the object itself was taken by Trent?

Exactly two.

If possible where would those pictures of the actual raw pictures of the “object only“ would be found in one location online? Kindly provide, if not you, someone hopefully. One link is all, not an ATS link or bunch of non-ATS rabbit hole links to links ...

Thanks 🙏

Robert Sheaffer has linked various scans of the images. Scroll to the bottom where it says "High-Resolution Scans of Trent Photo First-Generation Prints".

The actual raw photos are negatives and those can't be put online, because it's a piece of plastic with emulsion on it, not a digital image like modern cameras take.

The other images I've seen like the boy on the ladder were taken by the Life magazine photographer, who went to the Trent's place and interviewed them for his story.

Joel Carpenter thought it resembled a rear-view mirror.

I don't know what the "UFO' was, but I can see a resemblance. He did some interesting analysis of the two photos.

originally posted by: Arbitrageur

Thanx Arbi .... that helps.

Presenting this for the record

My 2 Cents Worth.... Trent Photos Filtered

Filters applied using IPad mini bundled in image editor:

Brilliance = 100
Highlights = 100
Contrast = 100
Warmth = 100
Definition = 100
Vignette = 100

Brightness = -100

You can try for yourself with the same or equivalent filters on the Trent photos yourself... you should come up with the same results if they are pictures from the raw pictures, linked courteously in the previous post by Arbi...you will have to do some zoomed screenshots if needed.

Your not manipulating any physical features of the object, but through the combinations of filters...the goal is to draw out differences that may be hidden and unseen in a normal picture.

It seems to me that the object has a highlighted aura surrounding it... some would consider this, if the pictures were presented as such but cropped in the first place, as the object having an energy field of sorts.

And as well, the first shot may indicate the object was further away because of the lighter aura....the second shot below it, looks to be the object is closer because of the more intense brighter aura. Albeit the shot I used was ever so slightly blurred zoomed in closer to begin with (blurred or not, it still has the aura)

You make your own judgment......





If anything it’s worth debunking what I just did...

Or think of it as Filtering 101

Bottomline, I think that at least, the 2 Trent photos are real... the object in both photos do have the surrounding auras based on using the filters to extract them out. A Flying, not suspended object, it is ... imo


And now for something different....

There is one particular picture that may have been circulated on the internet without the accompanying pictures of the 2 raw pictures of the object to reference, and it came from the “created” analysis/comparison of Jay J. Walter of Phoenix, Arizona.

Only 2 pictures of the object itself are known to have existed. I agree ....or do I?

In J.J.’s work shown this link www.debunker.com... and below his created 3D experiment using a set of pictures so that you can cross your eyes to see the hoped 3D effect.... he shows a picture to the right side of the pair which seems odd to me, because if J.J. manipulated both true pictures to create a 3rd picture (the odd picture).....he did a damn good job imo.

Below the 3D attempt to compare the set of pictures J.J. used:



The picture J.J. used on the right side of the two.... is not cannon to the original 2 known pictures!

Below in the top two panels of the (cropped photos) collage I created, is the 2 pictures of the object known to exist. In the bottom three panels ... to the left is the picture used by J.J. (see above)... to the middle is yet again a picture used by J.J. ... finally to the right, one of 2 only pictures of the object known to exist.



Don’t you see the differences??? J.J. uses a picture as seen in the middle panel of my (cropped photos) comparison collage, that’s not from the original 2 pictures. Could J.J. have created a new picture using elements from both original pictures?

IF not....then how did J.J. come up with what looks to be a 3rd Trent object picture for his 3D experiment?

Look at the positions of every element....what doesn’t compare to the two original pictures is the shrubbery along the corner of the left structure has changed...the pole that was bottom right of the object is gone and changed position to the corner of the structure... the object itself almost looks like a slightly different angle or thickness.... the object is higher to the wire below it.....for example.

That’s why my general shout out asking how many original Trent pictures of the object are known to exist was asked.

Is there a hoax by J.J. being done?

Or... did Robert Sheaffer - from The Debunker's Domain created his own hoax.

Knowing that there are only two Trent object pictures....if you saw this third picture on its own, would you believe it as also being a Trent picture?

Perhaps all I presented here is mute. Perhaps this 3rd picture has been discussed and scrutinized in the last 60+ years. Perhaps from the website I’m referencing the pictures above from, I didn’t read and understood all that was written.

Who knows?

originally posted by: Ophiuchus1
Your not manipulating any physical features of the object, but through the combinations of filters...the goal is to draw out differences that may be hidden and unseen in a normal picture.

That may be the goal, but what filters can also do is create artifacts not in the original image.

It seems to me that the object has a highlighted aura surrounding it... some would consider this, if the pictures were presented as such but cropped in the first place, as the object having an energy field of sorts.

this "aura" may have been created with the filters. I see no evidence of any aura in the original photo. This is from the high resolution scans I linked above, the photo name is called "Trent2_UFOA_1200dpi.jpg" and I see not the slightest hint of an aura:

You make your own judgment......

If anything it’s worth debunking what I just did...

It looks to me like you're making the aura with the filters. I've seen contrast filters make strange artifacts before, that were not in the original image. I don't have your Apple gadget to play with but I tried my own contrast filter using software, and it increased the contrast but I still don't see any aura. This is a contrast-enhanced cropped edit of the photo "Trent2_UFOA_1200dpi.jpg" shown above.


No aura. I think your filters are making an aura.

Or think of it as Filtering 101

I think that is a course you need to attend, not one you should be trying to teach.

a reply to: Ophiuchus1
I never gave any weight to that attempt to make a "pseudo 3D image". I don't know if anybody else did.
I thought Joel Carpenter's analysis I linked above was interesting. He actually entered the dimension and positions of the house, garage, and other objects into a 3-D computer model to analyze things like how far the camera was above the ground, and how the camera was angled. His conclusion was that the camera was too close to the ground for Trent to have taken the photos while standing, and the camera was angled up, so it would show more sky than it would have if he had been standing. So why would Trent kneel and aim the camera up when taking the photos, instead of taking the photos while standing like you or I would normally do? Carpenter suggests his hypothesis here, at the bottom of the page.

Interesting point of view.....

No aura. I think your filters are making an aura.

Well let’s see... perhaps someone with gif skills could put together a What If sequence of these three pics. Just to animate some hypothetical flight using the picture representation J.J. used...and added into the 2 Trent pictures.





J.J.’s picture ( www.debunker.com... )

originally posted by: beetee
a reply to: JimOberg

They are using this as an illustration of "missing evidence". Of course, if it was ever filmed as Gordon Cooper claimed, then it would indeed be pretty astounding if it were ever to be produced and made public :-)

.....

My presumption is that the photographers themselves are the best authorities on what was filmed, not Cooper, who from ALL accounts from people who were directly involved, had zero connection with the original event.

The first investigation was conducted in the mid-1960s by James McDonald, the leading “pro-UFO” scientist of his time. He described his results here. www.project1947.com...
Case 41. Edwards AFB, May 3, 1957, page 75

Another was done for NICAP by Brad Sparks in the 1990-era. Here are his results. www.nicap.org...