When is somebody going to show us some good eveidence?

[JD Thompson]

lots of trashcan lids and pieplates flying around on this thread......
and
photographic manipulation was very well known to Victorians. Witness: all the super cheesy Spritualist photos.

 

[dyingsun]

Spiritualists...Tablecloth as 'ectoplasm'. Shame it is a hell of a lot easier to fake things these days.

 

[Trajanus]

the mcminville pics look like a pie-plate. really, guys.

Nobody has debunked them in 60 years. Investigators have estimated the size of the object at 20-30 feet. A little big for a pie plate.

 

[JD Thompson]

Nobody has debunked them in 60 years. Investigators have estimated the size of the object at 20-30 feet. A little big for a pie plate.

sigh......

for a link to multiple debunks of these pics see:
http://www.debunker.com/trent.html

et al.

 

[Trajanus]

for a link to multiple debunks of these pics see:

The truck mirror is just speculation not proof. Someone else said it came from a phonograph IIRC; to some, it could be anything except an alien craft. This case was discussed more recently on KDR's blog and the photos still stand.

---------- Post added at 07:09 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:07 PM ----------

Q. When is somebody going to show us some good eveidence?
A. When armchair ufologists start participating instead of waiting around for "somebody" else to go and get it.<!-- BEGIN TEMPLATE: bbcode_quote -->

UFOlogists have no control over when and where the phenomenon can be photographed or other evidence obtained.

 

[Hotkafka]

Spiritualists...Tablecloth as 'ectoplasm'. Shame it is a hell of a lot easier to fake things these days.

Cheesecloth. That was the gag.

 

[Ron Collins]

So why would anyone add an object like that into such a photograph in 1870? What purpose would it serve? It doesn't make any sense. It would make more sense that there was an artifact of some sort on the lens.

If it were a true stereo image it would have been taken from 2 separate cameras thus eliminating the lens artifact argument. How do we know it was a stereo image?

---------- Post added at 07:42 AM ---------- Previous post was at 07:38 AM ----------

lots of trashcan lids and pieplates flying around on this thread......
and
photographic manipulation was very well known to Victorians. Witness: all the super cheesy Spritualist photos.

I get tired of hearing this bullshit explanation. If you want that to be taken seriously start by showing us complimentary pie pans that are dead ringers. Just as I want providence regarding the photo, I would like some supporting evidence from the detractors. Until you are intellectually honest you can't really research anything.

 

[Ron Collins]

Can images be faked, ,yes. But there are some that have withstood the years and serious attempts to discredit them. Personally I feel that not every good UFO image is the product of a "He who shall not be named" clone. Is it really the contention of some here that none of the existing UFO images are of something more than pie plates and hub caps? Honestly?

 

[The Pair of Cats]

If it were a true stereo image it would have been taken from 2 separate cameras thus eliminating the lens artifact argument. How do we know it was a stereo image?

Good point. I have not seen any veracity to the "stereo" claim. All the info for the photo was taken from the website UFO Casebook, UFO Case files, UFO Photos, UFO Video, Aliens, UFO News, Magazine. Hence why I put the comments in italics. As for the "artifact" explanation, I felt that it was more plausible than somebody deliberately hoaxing that photo. If, as some have said, elsewhere in this thread, that manipulation was common in that era, especially ones you would see in relation to the "spiritualism" types, then why just be satisfied with a virtually non-descript, unrecognisable or indistinct addition that would not have the frames of reference that we have today in regards to UFOs? Why not put in a fairy or a representation of a ghost or God?
The mountain photo just isn't sensational enough to my mind.

 

[The Pair of Cats]

Can images be faked, ,yes. But there are some that have withstood the years and serious attempts to discredit them. Personally I feel that not every good UFO image is the product of a "He who shall not be named" clone. Is it really the contention of some here that none of the existing UFO images are of something more than pie plates and hub caps? Honestly?

I agree. I thought we had moved on from the immature giggle factor when discussing these types of photos. And as for the Robert Sheaffer site? C'mon. Are we still trying to promote Phil Klass as a serious researcher? Please!

 

[Trajanus]

The point I was trying to make is the same one I have been trying to get across to ufologists for the last 20 years. A truly united worldwide network of active participants, rather than armchair critics has a better chance of securing good evidence that can be widely shared by the general population than any other means. We may not be able to control where the UFOs are, but we can control where we are, and if we are everywhere ... well I think you get my point. The problem is that the ufology community remains fragmented and focused more on self-promotion and politics than on generating the kind of cooperation needed to dramatically increase our chance of securing good "evidence".

ufology

Well I don't know...a lot of evidence comes from people with no prior interest in or involvement in this field. The Trents were an example. A united network might have a better chance of getting information released. But, given the proliferation of cameras, it might not be relevant.

 

[Simone_m]

If this were to somehow turn out to be a hoax, methinks I shall -never- "saucer" again.

 

[plumbbob12]

The question of “why don’t we have any good pictures of UFO’s to date” brings up a very interesting sociological paradox. If the picture is real, but has some blur, than it is fake, because the debunkers say “it’s always blurry”. On the other hand, if the picture is sharp and clear, the debunkers say “it has to be fake; it is too good to be true”. This is a great example of proof verses belief. No amount of sharp clear photos will prove one way or another whether these things really exist or not. What if a UFO really landed on the White House lawn? The debunkers would claim that it was a <?xml:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-comffice:smarttags" /><st1lace w:st="on">Hollywood</st1lace> stunt, or another country trying to hoax us. Or, they would say that it was a mass hallucination by means of LSD in the water, (yes that one has been used before). In conclusion, no amount of proof will work for those who have a belief system in place. Look at the morons who don’t believe that the moon landing is real. You can easily defeat there arguments with Jr. High school science, and they will never believe. You can let them talk to people who were there when the Sat.5 rocket took off, and they will call them liars. We even have pictures of the modules sitting on the moon taken by satellites only a year or two back, and they call these fake. The only way to change the minds of the masses is for the old generation to die out, and the younger generation to bring there ideas with them.
<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-comfficeffice" /><o> </o>

 

[Simone_m]

You are 100% right on, I AM GUILTY of cynicaly snarking that if the US gubbermint gave me Full Disclosure, I would instantly not believe, and suspect it was something sneaky. Today, I am in a mood represented by this vid in my post here. Maybe my brain is melting due to ugly-weather inflicted cabin fever, but right now I want to feel giddy again.

 

[Trajanus]

You make an excellent point. It may end up being that the best evidence arises out of the general population, conceivably by some idiot who has no idea what he or she has until it is pointed out to them. However, the general population doesn't really take much time to observe the sky. Any ufologist who spends time outside knows this. Even when it is reported on the radio, they don't look up. A case in point. I live in Calgary Canada, a city with about a million people. It was announced on the radio that the ISS was going to pass over the city during the day at an angle to the sun that would make it very bright and visible. I was doing some business at City hall and went out to have a look at the designated time. I was standing right across from city hall in a crowded downtown section and I could see the ISS make its pass over the city, but nonbody else, except for two or three people who saw me looking up, even bothered to look up. I've seen an airliner get hit by lightning over the city as well. It didn't even make the news. I saw a large green meteor pass east of city, it never made the news ... why do I see them and other people don't? It's because I'm looking. So a worldwide network of ufologists who know what to look for is still the best hope we have. The rest is pure chance.

It's interesting that there are already many amateur astronomers, besides the pros, watching the skies but the bulk of reports are made by ordinary people who can't help but notice. UFOs are often very conspicuous. But their appearances are so rare and unpredictable.

---------- Post added at 11:14 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:05 AM ----------

The question of “why don’t we have any good pictures of UFO’s to date” brings up a very interesting sociological paradox. If the picture is real, but has some blur, than it is fake, because the debunkers say “it’s always blurry”. On the other hand, if the picture is sharp and clear, the debunkers say “it has to be fake; it is too good to be true”. This is a great example of proof verses belief. No amount of sharp clear photos will prove one way or another whether these things really exist or not. What if a UFO really landed on the White House lawn? The debunkers would claim that it was a <?xml:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-comffice:smarttags" /><st1lace w:st="on">Hollywood</st1lace> stunt, or another country trying to hoax us. Or, they would say that it was a mass hallucination by means of LSD in the water, (yes that one has been used before). In conclusion, no amount of proof will work for those who have a belief system in place. Look at the morons who don’t believe that the moon landing is real. You can easily defeat there arguments with Jr. High school science, and they will never believe. You can let them talk to people who were there when the Sat.5 rocket took off, and they will call them liars. We even have pictures of the modules sitting on the moon taken by satellites only a year or two back, and they call these fake. The only way to change the minds of the masses is for the old generation to die out, and the younger generation to bring there ideas with them.
<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-comfficeffice" /><o> </o>

I agree with your assessment of moon landing deniers but there's a difference between them and UFO skeptics: evidence for the phenomenon, while good, does not, as far as laymen know, constitute definitive proof. With regard to your last statement, unfortunately, a few generations have grown up with the idea of UFOs and aliens, but it hasn't meant general, open acceptance. Only mass landings or official disclosure can do that.

 

[Simone_m]

Only mass landings or official disclosure can do that

I wonder if ufology (people who are serious and dedicated to solving the phenomenon) should throw 'The baby out with the bath water' in regards to ufo videos. Deem them --wholly-- as unacceptible, no matter what the vid contains and where it came from. The Jerusalem vids are being shredded by internet debunkers. It doesn't matter if they would be real. It used to be, like with the 'Tremonton' film, it was very hard to fake? I heard that the Rex Heflin pic was bogus, though. (Although that was a pic not a film?)
The current tech makes it easy for children even, to make "CGI"s.
It might boil down to, that "I know what I saw" and "mass landings or official disclosure" I know I'm not gonna wait for Penn & Teller and James McGaha and Robert Schaeffer to tell me something is real.

 

[Trajanus]

I wonder if ufology (people who are serious and dedicated to solving the phenomenon) should throw 'The baby out with the bath water' in regards to ufo videos. Deem them --wholly-- as unacceptible, no matter what the vid contains and where it came from. The Jerusalem vids are being shredded by internet debunkers. It doesn't matter if they would be real. It used to be, like with the 'Tremonton' film, it was very hard to fake? I heard that the Rex Heflin pic was bogus, though. (Although that was a pic not a film?)

More than one pic and AFAIK it wasn't shown (proven) to be bogus.

---------- Post added at 06:59 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:48 PM ----------

Hey there Trajanus,

You express a certain truth about skeptics in ufology, and you make an excellent point about not waiting for the so-called "establishement" to tell us that UFOs are a reality. Just don't forget that any good ufologist will not deny that UFOs are real. We know they are here, or at the very least that they have been here many times in the past and seem to be continuing their visits. The things we are skeptical about are individual case reports that do not have enough data to be sure beyond a reasonable doubt that what is being reported deserves to be classed as ATECH ( Alien TECHnology ). If ufologists were not skeptical and simply agreed with everything they were told ( like certain unamed talk show hosts ), we would have no credibility at all. It's already bad enough out there and we don't need more criticism from those who would love to be able to discredit everything.

ufology

Unfortunately, as if credibility problems stemming from less than perfect data aren't bad enough, the field is awash with charlatans and disinfo. We've got to be careful, but some go too far IMO, like Randle at times. I think we can be "sure without a reasonable doubt" that many reports represent ATECH. But some people reject this, preferring more exotic notions like the EDH or that the phenomenon is "a projection from our consciousness."

 

[Trajanus]

Hey Trajanus,

Are you referring to Kevin Randle there. I have never heard of him going "to far", although for me going too far is to resort to unconstructive criticism and ridicule. I regard holding a position that is different, even without good reason, as counterproductive, but in my mind it wouldn't be going too far.

He seems to dismiss the whole abduction phenomenon, including Walton, despite other witnesses.

 

[Trajanus]

K.D. Randle is just a skeptical ufologist, and I don't have any problem with that. With particular respect to UFO abductions, he suggests that most of the reports are probably not the result of alien intervention, and he does not dismiss the possibility entirely.

Yes I know. But IMO it's not reasonable to reject the Walton case, in view of multiple witnesses, while accepting other UFO cases.

 

[trainedobserver]

He seems to dismiss the whole abduction phenomenon, including Walton, despite other witnesses.

Have you read his book The Abduction Enigma? I bought his book last month but haven't gotten to it yet, although I did read the preface and the conclusion (I'm bad that way.) I think it is safe to say that Randle didn't arrive at his point of view flippantly or with minimal research.