The McMinnville case revisited - New analysis online, page 1

+2 more
posted on Mar, 18 2013 @ 03:10 PM

link

Dear ATS friends, I'm proud to make public the result of almost six months of work on this well-known 1950 case, by our photo analyst team (Geoff Quick, Francois Louange and myself).

The full 27 pages report can be read here

Extract2:

Of course, the case is still open and I would be glad to discuss it here and answer to all your questions!

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

Hopechest

posted on Mar, 18 2013 @ 03:24 PM

link

You make an awful lot of assumption in that 27 page report. So many in fact that I would have to question your entire hypothesis.

I'm not being critical without a reason.

When every other paragraph contains the phrase "reasonably assume" it implies that your basing a lot of your findings off of normative rather than emprirical evidence.

It makes the whole report more opinion orientated than scientific.

draknoir2

posted on Mar, 18 2013 @ 03:30 PM

link

It's apparent that the Trent #2 object is significantly more distant than it is in the Trent #1 photo. It's quite a bit smaller and much more haze obscured. Do you have an explanation for this?

CottonwoodStormy

posted on Mar, 18 2013 @ 03:37 PM

link

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

draknoir2

posted on Mar, 18 2013 @ 03:40 PM

link

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?

No.

draknoir2

posted on Mar, 18 2013 @ 03:43 PM

link

Originally posted by draknoir2
It's apparent that the Trent #2 object is significantly more distant than it is in the Trent #1 photo. It's quite a bit smaller and much more haze obscured. Do you have an explanation for this?

Also, the vantage point differs between the two shots from left to right.

edit on 18-3-2013 by draknoir2 because: (no reason given)

CottonwoodStormy

posted on Mar, 18 2013 @ 03:43 PM

link

reply to post by draknoir2

well there is definitely a reflection on the photo and I can make out figures more to the right of ithe photo where the white spots are there is definite shapes of something.

draknoir2

posted on Mar, 18 2013 @ 03:49 PM

link

Originally posted by CottonwoodStormy
reply to post by draknoir2

well there is definitely a reflection on the photo and I can make out figures more to the right of ithe photo where the white spots are there is definite shapes of something.

Probably Pareidolians.

elevenaugust

posted on Mar, 18 2013 @ 04:09 PM

link

Originally posted by draknoir2
It's apparent that the Trent #2 object is significantly more distant than it is in the Trent #1 photo. It's quite a bit smaller and much more haze obscured. Do you have an explanation for this?

The geometrical analysis concludes that it's very likely a small model suspended under the electric wires. For a model that small and close to have this radiometric value on its top which varies between shoots of only 12% while the other close contrasted objects (roof, upper wires) varies ca. 30%, it would have to be made of a non-opaque (translucent) material. (i-e don't have a "black bodies" behavior)

This is the main conclusion (for this precise point) at which arrived Maccabee and Poher and we agreed.

Originally posted by Hopechest
You make an awful lot of assumption in that 27 page report. So many in fact that I would have to question your entire hypothesis.

I'm not being critical without a reason.

When every other paragraph contains the phrase "reasonably assume" it implies that your basing a lot of your findings off of normative rather than emprirical evidence.

It makes the whole report more opinion orientated than scientific.

Thank you for your criticism.

If we have done such assumptions, it's mainly because we felt that they are insignificant and will not redo neither the final result for each point nor the conclusion.

Anyway, if you have some more precision about what point you find "too unclear", feel free to detail it!

ImpactoR

posted on Mar, 18 2013 @ 04:16 PM

link

reply to post by elevenaugust

There are fingerprints on the 2nd picture.

SloAnPainful

posted on Mar, 18 2013 @ 04:22 PM

link

reply to post by ImpactoR

Top left corner? I see the marks too.

-SAP-

Blue Shift

posted on Mar, 18 2013 @ 04:26 PM

link

Originally posted by draknoir2
It's apparent that the Trent #2 object is significantly more distant than it is in the Trent #1 photo. It's quite a bit smaller and much more haze obscured. Do you have an explanation for this?

You're not looking at the same side of the object. It's just as plausible that the bottom side was simply inherently darker than the top, only suggesting greater distance and atmospheric haze with that view.

You also note that the camera angle and position change significantly between shots, which could also have an effect on the apparent size, particularly on a smaller object.

xpoq47

posted on Mar, 18 2013 @ 04:28 PM

link

Originally posted by draknoir2

Originally posted by CottonwoodStormy
reply to post by draknoir2

well there is definitely a reflection on the photo and I can make out figures more to the right of ithe photo where the white spots are there is definite shapes of something.

Probably Pareidolians.

Good one!

By the way, the Balloon Boy case illustrates that it is possible to build a balloon the shape of a flying saucer with plastic tarps and duct tape, but if this were something like that, I would expect more frames taken by Mr. Trent. Regardless, it could have been a balloon, if so, probably made by someone else a hoax. It's a remote possibility.

This never seems to get mentioned in discussions of the Trent case, but about 100 miles from that farm there was a major refitting project for U.S. Navy ships going on after WWII. The Kenneth Arnold case was also not so far away. It could be what off-worlders found most interesting in the Washington area.

Puget Sound Naval Shipyard

edit on 18-3-2013 by xpoq47 because: (no reason given)

ImpactoR

posted on Mar, 18 2013 @ 04:36 PM

link

reply to post by SloAnPainful

Also next to the house, it's good, does not look CGIed to me, or hoax in any way.

Druscilla

posted on Mar, 18 2013 @ 04:45 PM

link

The apparent size of the pole at the corner of the house relative to the viewing position decreases substantially more between photos than the relative size of the 'object'.

This would support the 'object' being much smaller and closer to the photographer than one might be led to believe. The illusion of distance through forced perspective is maintained in examining each photo individually without the contextualization of both photos together for comparative analysis.

Both photos examined side by side, however, show this discrepancy in apparent size of reference points relative to the observing positions where the 'object' does not perform as expected were it of any substantial size and/or distance as indicated in the photos.

In other words, it's a small object closer to the camera than the photos would lead one to think.
It could be suspended and dangling from a fishing pole out of frame, or possibly even a thrown object photographed over several takes until desired effect was accomplished.

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

Kandinsky

posted on Mar, 18 2013 @ 04:49 PM

link

reply to post by elevenaugust

The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.

Very interesting.

I found the points about unknown albedo (shininess/brightness) thought-provoking as our brains naturally tell us that the difference in brightness (MM1 v MM2) is due to a distinct change in distance. In reality, the object could have been a dull object that our senses over-compensate for.

Reading further, you and the team make a pretty good case for the object being something small and closer to the lens than my senses want to believe. My brain wants to perceive the object as something larger and at a distance.

Your closing thoughts and comparisons with the later LIFE image reflected my own impressions that the way the wire was 'kinked' seemed unusual. If we allow for something being suspended from the wire, the 'kink' can be understood.

On the other hand, if we look at the other wires in the MM1 image, they appear kinked too. This lessens the strength of that argument considerably.

UFO photographs are overwhelmingly found to be hoaxes and/or misidentifications. On that basis, the McMinnville photos have a high probability of being hoaxes and your conclusions most likely accurate.

In mitigation, I'm not as quick to dismiss the accounts of alleged witnesses of UFOs, saucers and unusual objects. A few researchers spoke directly with the family and came away with the impression that they were honest. That doesn't mean I believe the photos are genuine captures of something unusual...ambiguity goes a long way.

As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.

Blue Shift

posted on Mar, 18 2013 @ 05:26 PM

link

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.

Druscilla

posted on Mar, 18 2013 @ 05:51 PM

link

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.

This is a problem I see voiced to varying degree time and time again.
"He/she was honest simple folk"
"He/she didn't seem sophisticated enough to pull off such an elaborate ... "
"That one armed farmer (Meier) couldn't possibly have ..."

It's a fallacy to underestimate the ingenuity or cleverness of anyone put to any question.
Everyone lies.
Everyone.

In the greater forum of the UFO topic, the overwhelming propensity for most reports and claims to be the stuff of either misidentification and/or embroidery and/or outright hoax is substantial enough to discount ALL witness testimony as either inaccurate or potentially false until any or all (if any) corroborating evidence is tested and verified.

Reports reliant solely on eye-witness testimony should be largely ignored as having any real relevance except where corroborating evidence comes to light expressing support as real data.

In cases as described above where a hoax is perpetuated, testimony only serves as misdirection and obfuscation of the fraud.
Thus, testimony should be the least and last of any data examined.

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

cripmeister

posted on Mar, 18 2013 @ 06:16 PM

link

reply to post by elevenaugust

Very interesting analysis as always

Your proposition that the object is hollow underneath is probably spot on. It is probably a common object that all of us, under normal circumstances, would recognize immediately.

edit on 18/3/2013 by cripmeister because: (no reason given)

draknoir2

posted on Mar, 18 2013 @ 07:20 PM

link

Originally posted by Blue Shift

Originally posted by draknoir2
It's apparent that the Trent #2 object is significantly more distant than it is in the Trent #1 photo. It's quite a bit smaller and much more haze obscured. Do you have an explanation for this?

You're not looking at the same side of the object. It's just as plausible that the bottom side was simply inherently darker than the top, only suggesting greater distance and atmospheric haze with that view.

You also note that the camera angle and position change significantly between shots, which could also have an effect on the apparent size, particularly on a smaller object.

Yeah, I did notice the change in vantage point, as I mentioned. Might account for the change in apparent distance.

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.