Your favorite UFO image/s?

General UFO stories

Moderators: ryguy, chrLz, Zep Tepi

Re: Your favorite UFO image/s?

Postby chrLz » Wed Jul 20, 2011 1:22 pm

Lcars24>
..suggests that any UFO photo without strong corroboration is worthless.

Thanks for the links, Lcars24 - and yes, that is the most important point I want to make..

BTW, not only did you send me to a 'lunacognita' video :(, I note said person is now collaborating with Jose Escamilla..? eeeurgh! I feel dirty - am now scrubbing my hands, eyes, ears and heading to the nearest hospital for a stomach pump... But that video did remind me of a few issues I must include in my 'how-not-to' guide.. :D

The Mariana one..? Maybe that should get it's own thread, as it's not quite what I'm after. (hard to explain why until I finish writing the article..)

mosfet>
Check out these photos of the single saucer?

Interesting, but I think my only question is what did he stick to the bottom of that thrown hubcap? As for this:
Mr. S. had also brought along an FM portable radio .. the radio began picking up interference .. Mr. S. looked up into the sky, thinking an airplane must be going over-head.

Yes, who wouldn't. When my fm radio breaks up, I immediately look to the sky and yep, every time, it's a plane... :roll: Save me.


Access Denied>
.. a major “error” in {Maccabees} model of the scene..

No, surely not... :lol: I'm still not sure which Maccabee 'analysis' is my favorite, for mostly the wrong reasons. Might havta do a 'Top Ten'.

Hey Chrlz, I have a job that’s perfect for you, should you choose to accept it…

Woohoo. I'm ready for the MI tape (yes I remember the original series).

{thinks}
Must also remember to walk away quickly but calmly as it self-destructs, as burning cassette tape makes me sneeze...


DrDil>
..it was Roger Marsh) ... actually got a reply saying that he would post my findings, but he never did

Ah, Roger Marsh, eh..? Forgive me quoting myself at another forum many moons ago:
I've seen Roger Marsh at work before. He is "..a UFO writer, author, playwright and independent filmmaker. He is director of communications for both the Mutual UFO Network (MUFON), and ufologist Stan Gordon. As Tremont Avenue Productions he produces InCahoots.TV, stories of passion, resource and mystery."
Roger has often promoted his own websites as references for his MUFON stories and, frankly, people like this have turned MUFON into what it is today. Useless. A vast collection of uninvestigated stories, possibly penned by anyone...


As for that Sr. Troncoso image - that is a very poor multi-generational low-resolution copy of what *might* be an actual photo, maybe... I note that it has been cropped (or they are simply lying about the reflection in the river). And the story is poorly documented and has a few holes. So without digging out the original negative...


Anyways, sorry I am taking so long. I am trying to refocus (geddit) my efforts now, after a brief life intervention..
"To wear the mantle of Galileo, it is not enough that you be persecuted by an unkind establishment. You must also be right." - Robert L. Park (..almost)
User avatar
chrLz
Moderator
 
Posts: 258
Joined: Tue Nov 09, 2010 9:47 am


Re: Your favorite UFO image/s?

Postby mosfet » Wed Jul 20, 2011 4:14 pm

I don't have a problem with the clouds. Depending on atmospheric conditions, humidity, wind, clouds can form or dissipate within seconds. The photos show no time sequence so it's possible that the configuration of clouds could be genuine. What I find interesting is that there is no indication of CGI as the photos are examined. That doesn't rule out the possibility that a model was tossed into the air. However the distance shots would indicate somebody with a very long toss. The photos remain interesting to me especially since I could not find any CGI manipulation.
mosfet
On A Quest for Reality
On A Quest for Reality
 
Posts: 111
Joined: Fri Jul 23, 2010 9:03 pm

Re: Your favorite UFO image/s?

Postby LCARS24 » Thu Jul 21, 2011 10:22 am

Such an old one to be dragging out, but this thread seems to call for it. The gallery link I posted has this as a B-47 (but I say it's a B-57) photographed in 1957 (I say 1954) near Edwards AFB (I think not). Debunkers have called it a flaw in the negative, but it sure doesn't look anything like that to me--more like something in the air. If it's something that came off in flight, okay, but . . . Anyway, it's not a hoax, the object was not noticed until after the photo was released to the press, and it's something that someone who wants to analyze UFO photos can sink his/her fangs into.

By the way, I heard a physics professor say that those who knew about Project Mogul in 1947 called it a flying disc and that the first news release was actually truthful but misunderstood. So if anybody wants to call this thing a Mogul radar target, I won't gag too hard. Maybe it's the pilot's scarf.

Image
The beatings will continue until morale improves.
LCARS24
In Search of Reality
In Search of Reality
 
Posts: 59
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2011 10:32 am

Re: Your favorite UFO image/s?

Postby chrLz » Thu Jul 21, 2011 1:25 pm

LCARS24 wrote:Such an old one to be dragging out, but this thread seems to call for it. The gallery link I posted has this as a B-47 (but I say it's a B-57) photographed in 1957 (I say 1954) near Edwards AFB (I think not)....


This gets me thinking... See how that image is badly washed out on the right edge, yet the insert is not..? I'm guessing that will be (presumably) because this is a scan of a book page.

I reckon it would make a great tv series to do a genuine UFO evidence hunt, where the aim of the investigation was not just to re-tell these stories, but to try to find the dam originals!! Some of these images were probably taken on quite large negatives (and *some* of the old optics were simply excellent, with resolution exceeding many of the better current digital systems) - given a decent film scan and proper microscopic examination, they might reveal much more than they originally did.

I wonder how may still survive in someone's photo-box, or in some file somewhere... deep in the Area 51 warehouse (just next to the ark of the cov..). Oh, sorry, I was just drifting away there....
"To wear the mantle of Galileo, it is not enough that you be persecuted by an unkind establishment. You must also be right." - Robert L. Park (..almost)
User avatar
chrLz
Moderator
 
Posts: 258
Joined: Tue Nov 09, 2010 9:47 am

Re: Your favorite UFO image/s?

Postby LCARS24 » Thu Jul 21, 2011 2:43 pm

Okay, I found some more on that photo. This has two clearer images. The link to download another is dead.

http://wiki.razing.net/ufologie.net/htm/b57canberra.htm

And this one has the photos missing, the opinion that the object looks great in the original, and then comments from the NICAP investigator who analyzed the photos way back in the last century.

http://realtvufos.blogspot.com/2009/02/ ... b-57b.html

I couldn't find anything about it at NICAP's site but downloaded and read Captain's Ruppelt's book (pretty nice except for punctuation).

Anyway, the original seems to be property of the USAF Museum Photo Archives. Maybe they sell copies printed on placemats.
The beatings will continue until morale improves.
LCARS24
In Search of Reality
In Search of Reality
 
Posts: 59
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2011 10:32 am

Re: Your favorite UFO image/s?

Postby chrLz » Fri Jul 22, 2011 1:53 pm

LCARS24 wrote:Okay, I found some more on that photo. This has two clearer images. The link to download another is dead.

http://wiki.razing.net/ufologie.net/htm/b57canberra.htm

And this one has the photos missing, the opinion that the object looks great in the original, and then comments from the NICAP investigator who analyzed the photos way back in the last century.

http://realtvufos.blogspot.com/2009/02/ ... b-57b.html

I couldn't find anything about it at NICAP's site but downloaded and read Captain's Ruppelt's book (pretty nice except for punctuation).

Anyway, the original seems to be property of the USAF Museum Photo Archives. Maybe they sell copies printed on placemats.


That's quite an interesting one.. It struck me immediately that parts of the anomaly were way too dark for it to be near thr ground - it would have to be close, if it existed in the scene. The different variations of the anomaly, and the fact the claimed highest res 'original' clearly does *not* match the promoted image in numerous aspects all throw a huge doubt over it, and it looks very much as if someone has taken artistic license with a touch up pen, trying out numerous versions to see what s/he liked best...

I loved the 'analysis':
No one actually reported seeing with their own eye the saucer-like object in the upper right portion of the picture.

So how the hell did he determine it was 'saucer-like'? With his superman 3d glasses? Sheeesh. It's a flat two dimensional bit of light and dark. That's it. Anyway, given no witnesses, the very first thing would be to examine the negative to see if it really was part of the recorded image.. And this apparently hasn't been done.

Even so, the object evoked such curiosity that another flight was reportedly made over the same area to look for ground reflection that may have caused it - although I understand none were observed.

He understands? So he maybe knows someone who knows someone else, who's sister told their mum... :D
There are of course no details of this alleged second flight, let alone accurate details of the location of the first one.

A close scrutiny of the B57 photo shows the trees, bushes and houses all casting long shadows, but the object throws no shadow on the ground whatsoever.

Of course it doesn't - as he states below, it clearly is not on the ground, must be much closer, and couldn't possibly be throwing a visible shadow.

Moreover, (and this point is very important), the dark parts of the object are much too strong to be so far away. As the trees, bushes and houses get farther away, the haze cuts down their intensity and contrast. And the wooded area in the distance directly behind the object is fuzzy and weak by comparison with the strong highlights and shadows of the UFO itself.

Er, yes. So why does he not even mention the extreme likelihood that it is a negative fault, or later inked-in addition?

In my analysis report to NICAP, I also pointed out that the object obviously had dimension.

Well, I hope he worded it better than that. It does NOT obviously have dimension, it simply has dark and light areas on it that *might* be consistent with the image lighting.

Its pattern of light and shadow is consistent with the rest of the picture, with the sun low and coming from the left.

Chances are quite high (about 50% :D) that simply by chance, a randomly lit object will have light and shadow in the same general direction as any other image. There is no way to accurately determine the lighting angles on the anomaly without knowing its ACTUAL 3D dimensionality (if any), so the fact that the alleged shadows are roughly in the same direction means pretty much zilch. So no-one can possibly determine that the anomaly's lighting is low - we don't know the shape, we don't know if there are naturally dark areas on the anomaly, we don't know if it is simply a scrape on the negative, or even a deliberate addition.

Sorry, but that guy is no image analyst.

The best resolution crop seems to show an ordinary ground based bit of landscape - I wonder if that is what was on the original, and then 'enhanced'? Maybe I'll take a closer look later. It would be nice to see a full-res copy..

But as they say on that page - a photo showing an indistinct 'thing' without any supporting witness testimony...? It's hard to think what might be revealed by any analysis, other than the likelihood of fakery or simple misidentification.
"To wear the mantle of Galileo, it is not enough that you be persecuted by an unkind establishment. You must also be right." - Robert L. Park (..almost)
User avatar
chrLz
Moderator
 
Posts: 258
Joined: Tue Nov 09, 2010 9:47 am

Re: Your favorite UFO image/s?

Postby nablator » Fri Jul 22, 2011 4:12 pm

According to evil debunker friends of mine (from CNEGU), a Martin Aircraft promotional booklet "Plane Fact" contains a version of the image that does not have the 'anomaly'.

Image


Image


Source: http://membres.multimania.fr/cnegu/pages/B57B.htm

Patrick Gross (ufologie.net) claims that:
It is the scratch mark caused by the staples that one put on the top right corner to hang it on a display panel, quite simply. That's why it's there in some prints, missing in another, that's why it "changes" with time.

http://web.archive.org/web/200903250916 ... nberra.htm

Draw your own conclusion. :)
User avatar
nablator
On A Quest for Reality
On A Quest for Reality
 
Posts: 148
Joined: Wed Dec 08, 2010 9:44 am

Re: Your favorite UFO image/s?

Postby mosfet » Fri Jul 22, 2011 4:20 pm

There was a popular video on you tube, but the ufo was a scratch in the canopy of the plane filming the sequence.
mosfet
On A Quest for Reality
On A Quest for Reality
 
Posts: 111
Joined: Fri Jul 23, 2010 9:03 pm

Re: Your favorite UFO image/s?

Postby nablator » Fri Jul 22, 2011 4:31 pm

The 'UFO' is there at the San Diego Air and Space Museum Archive:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/sdasmarchi ... otostream/

I have been unable to locate this image in the online catalog at the Smithsonian Institution National Air and Space Museum
http://www.nasm.si.edu/collections/imagery.cfm
or at the National Museum of the Air Force
http://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/photos/
User avatar
nablator
On A Quest for Reality
On A Quest for Reality
 
Posts: 148
Joined: Wed Dec 08, 2010 9:44 am

Re: Your favorite UFO image/s?

Postby LCARS24 » Fri Jul 22, 2011 7:42 pm

This photo is from the 1950s, and in those days photos being developed in a darkroom were handled with tongs or chopsticks and immersed in pans of water with chemicals, and at least the prints were hung up to dry on the equivalent of a clothesline with wooden clothespins. And some negatives used to be individual sheets rather than being on rolls of film way back when. That anomaly is pretty far down into the picture, but maybe it is the result of less-than-careful clipping with a not-so-clean clothespin. It could easily have been an 8 x 10 print, typically clipped at a corner when hung up to dry.

But if that's it, and/or this anomaly was only on the original print and not on the negative, why did Martin Aircraft fail to explain that and then move on to the theory that it was some feature on the ground, and even to do an aerial search for a ground feature to explain it?

If it is an object in the air, wake turbulence from the B-57 wouldn't distort the image as much as would appear to be the case if interpreting it as a flying saucer, but Tesla's notions of how such things operate might (recalling his 1917 letter to George Westinghouse implying that he thought he was close to building this own knock-off, propelled by coronas of extremely high voltage).

Here's the best image we have of it from the original. As mentioned in the link I posted above, it got smoothed out and looked more like a spacecraft with subsequent reprints in the natural course of replicative fading of resolution (and maybe some retouching).

Image

What it might be remains pretty much a matter of pareidolia, where part of it looks like a flying saucer and some parts look goofy, although the same can be said for a Harrier to some extent when viewed as it's turning while hovering, even above the deck of an aircraft carrier (where there wouldn't be a cloud of dust from the ground to block our view). Clothespin mark? Feels like a stretch, but so does UFO for this one.

Despite the recent (supposedly 2004) claim that the anomaly didn't appear at all in the original, Martin Aircraft could have used that defense if it were true back at the time they were getting heat from the press (late 1954).
The beatings will continue until morale improves.
LCARS24
In Search of Reality
In Search of Reality
 
Posts: 59
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2011 10:32 am

Re: Your favorite UFO image/s?

Postby nablator » Fri Jul 22, 2011 9:31 pm

LCARS24 wrote:But if that's it, and/or this anomaly was only on the original print and not on the negative, why did Martin Aircraft fail to explain that and then move on to the theory that it was some feature on the ground, and even to do an aerial search for a ground feature to explain it?

Yes... either the image was sanitized for printing in the booklet or the original negative was lost before NICAP investigated in 1964 or the "Martin failed to explain that" part never happened or... something else. :)
User avatar
nablator
On A Quest for Reality
On A Quest for Reality
 
Posts: 148
Joined: Wed Dec 08, 2010 9:44 am

Re: Your favorite UFO image/s?

Postby chrLz » Sat Jul 23, 2011 12:33 am

Nab, well found. I'd say that this small crop from that page is reasonably convincing that the original image has no artefact:
Image
Unfortunately it has been cropped so closely, it is hard to verify it is exactly the right area. But assuming it is, if it's been cloned out, 'they' have done a *very* nice job given the tools of that era and the slapdash efforts that were generally accepted as 'near enough' back then.. :)
"To wear the mantle of Galileo, it is not enough that you be persecuted by an unkind establishment. You must also be right." - Robert L. Park (..almost)
User avatar
chrLz
Moderator
 
Posts: 258
Joined: Tue Nov 09, 2010 9:47 am

Re: Your favorite UFO image/s?

Postby LCARS24 » Sat Jul 23, 2011 8:17 am

Anyway, cold case, hard to investigate now. But as a simple example of problems when investigating anything, in the case of SpaceShipOne the Smithsonian and the maker disagree on the dimensions, and Wikipedia shows for the length "16 ft 5 in (8.05 m)," while 16 ft. 5 in. would really be about 5 meters. If it's that hard to get measurements of a solid object that's not going anywhere without going there and measuring it yourself, why should anyone believe any person or organization with regard to UFOs other than one's own strong, unmistakable personal sighting?

Given that photos can be hoaxed, using an ordinary camera and photographic film, by simply photographing a model in front of a flat-black background first then reusing the film to photograph a scene, and pass every kind of analysis, even a great-looking photo obviously requires reliable witnesses that saw the UFO and saw the person take the picture. In the O'Hare case, witnesses said they saw several people taking pictures, but all pictures would still be suspect, no matter how vigorously some ufologist might pursue the case in a effort to get airline employees to identify people who were snapping pictures with their cell phones plus confirm that the pictures do look like what the UAL people saw.

But the fact that the Trindade Island UFO photos (albeit a probable hoax that passed extensive analysis but had a lot of witness support plus one photo taken by another witness with a box camera, plus testimony that the photographer wasn't the one who first spotted the object and that he was being bumped by excited observers while snapping pictures, two of which ended up out for frame) were kept secret until the President of Brazil ordered their release to the press strongly suggests that some governments do have UFO photos backed by strong documentation that we don't get to see. And we all know there are people with verified credentials who now claim to have seen some.

That leaves hearsay. Here's a tidbit from Captain Ruppelt's book:

I knew the two pilots of the C-47; both of them now believe in flying saucers. And they aren't alone; so do the people of the Aeronautical Division of General Mills who launch and track the big skyhook balloons. These scientists and engineers all have seen UFOs, and they aren't their own balloons. I was almost tossed out of the General Mills offices into a cold January Minneapolis snowstorm for suggesting such a thing, but that comes later in our history of the UFO.


Dr. Hynek's survey that concluded that 11% of astronmers he talked to privately admitted to seeing UFOs they couldn't explain is also hearsay, but as hearsay goes, both seem pretty strong, especially taken together with the many pilots and radar operators who have expressed anger over being called incompetent, crazy, or untruthful. But if anything, these people's word should be better than that of Reagan (who said he saw and followed one in a plane with three other witnesses) or Gorbachev (who said, "The phenomenon of UFOs does exist, and it must be treated seriously," whatever that means).
The beatings will continue until morale improves.
LCARS24
In Search of Reality
In Search of Reality
 
Posts: 59
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2011 10:32 am

Re: Your favorite UFO image/s?

Postby James Carlson » Sat Jul 23, 2011 11:11 am

LCARS24 wrote:If it's that hard to get measurements of a solid object that's not going anywhere without going there and measuring it yourself, why should anyone believe any person or organization with regard to UFOs other than one's own strong, unmistakable personal sighting?

Good point. One shouldn't ...
User avatar
James Carlson
Clearly Discerns Reality
Clearly Discerns Reality
 
Posts: 783
Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2010 7:11 am
Location: Albuquerque, NM

Re: Your favorite UFO image/s?

Postby chrLz » Sat Jul 23, 2011 1:02 pm

LCARS24 wrote:...Wikipedia shows...If it's that hard to get measurements of a solid object that's not going anywhere without going there and measuring it yourself, why should anyone believe any person or organization with regard to UFOs other than one's own strong, unmistakable personal sighting?

I think that simply indicates that if you are after accuracy, you would be insane to think that Wikipedia should be confused for a reliable source... It's perhaps useful for quick grabs and concepts for dummies, but if you are seriously investigating..? Nah.

That leaves hearsay...

Problem is, hearsay is... hearsay. And when you add it to misuse of the term UFO and misuse of metastatistics to claim that because there are so many reports, there must be something to it.. well, sadly that pretty much sums up ufology to date.

Dr. Hynek's survey that concluded that 11% of astronmers he talked to privately admitted to seeing UFOs

A perfect example of all 3 of the above! Hearsay. Misuse of UFO term - the majority of planes/helicopters and satellites (and birds, bats, insects) I see at night are UFO's - because I don't bother identifying them. Plus, on occasion, due to their angle/distance being not what I had guessed, they perform maneuvers that may appear inexplicable until I think it thru.. I can't imagine any serious astronomer who would claim to be able to identify everything he sees...* and..
.. as {h}earsay goes, both seem pretty strong, especially taken together with the many pilots and radar operators who have expressed anger over being called incompetent, crazy, or untruthful..

...there's the third - misuse of metastatistics! The plural of anecdote is not data (let alone information, let alone wisdom). And why is the alleged discomfort of these alleged 'many' pilots/radar operators a factor? I'm sorry, but I don't find that sort of hyperbole/handwaving very useful.


* to be fair - do you, or anyone have a decent cite for Hynek's 'survey' of astronomers? I understand that it was a sample size of just 44.. - how were those lucky 44 selected? And the 11% (ie 5) astronomers that apparently reported they had seen things that were not explainable - just how exactly was that determined/asked? I've read a fair bit of Hynek's stuff, and I have to say I am unimpressed with his continual use of flowery speech, anecdotes and hearsay - it is very obviously for dramatic effect and seems to cover a lack of substance.
"To wear the mantle of Galileo, it is not enough that you be persecuted by an unkind establishment. You must also be right." - Robert L. Park (..almost)
User avatar
chrLz
Moderator
 
Posts: 258
Joined: Tue Nov 09, 2010 9:47 am

PreviousNext

Google

Return to UFOs

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], Majestic-12 [Bot] and 19 guests

cron