UFO Conjecture(s)

Thursday, March 15, 2007

The Skeptical Milieu


Sure UFOs exist – unidentified flying objects (and unidentified aerial phenomena), even “flying saucers” if you insist.

(Some of the Iconoclasts have seen Tremonton-like lights, and a glowing rectangle – reported in Detroit newspapers and Fate magazine; plus one Iconoclast caught an early-morning v-formation of sliver-gray or dimly lit objects flying too fast to be birds or airplanes and too slow to be meteors or descending satellite debris.)


Yes, UFOs are a reality, but what are they? That’s the continuing but less demanding question for most Earthlings, who have other things about which they are concerned: taxes, jobs, gasoline prices, warfare, starvation – existence itself.

Rabid UFO mavens, and they’ve come into their own since blogging has arrived on the social scene, believe almost everything that enters the UFO universe.

A few are more cautious (Clark, Randle, Hall, even Stan Friedman), weighing the “evidence,” hoping the enigma will be solved – someday.


Others are vehemently opposed to anything UFO-related (Menzel and Klass were examples).


And some question certain aspects of the UFO anecdotal panoply.

For instance, something happened in Roswell, that’s certain. The newspaper accounts at the time indicate that.


It wasn’t a weather balloon or secret Mogul detritus that caused the stir. (Mogul is a canard since the U.S.S.R. didn’t even have an atomic test before 1949, and the United States had no indication that the Russians were able to do so in 1947 when Mogul was supposedly established to detect fallout from A-Bomb tests occurring in the Russian motherland.)

But what exactly happened in Roswell? Why didn’t anyone spirit away some of the alleged wreckage that was said to be strewn all over the landscape? (Were all of the Roswellians so afraid of the United States military that they cow-towed to the reported threats made by Army personnel and gave up the “souvenirs” they had their hands on? Rebels and outlaws were extant in the Old West well before 1947, so it seems odd that none existed in New Mexico, circa 1947.)

Where were the Kodak Brownie cameras that other community citizens used to snap photos of everything and everyone that met their fancy? (One can find dozens of photographs after World War II which show that cameras were rather abundant, and used to document everything from sunsets to cars to memorabilia of a lesser import than pieces of an alien aircraft.)

Where are the Roswell witnesses who don’t have some flaw in their background or story?

Where are the flying discs and alien bodies that no one, reputable and in situ at the time, saw or touched?

Yes, something happened at Roswell but it wasn’t Redfern’s Japanese corpses or Ramey’s pieces of tin-foil. But what was it?



What about the Betty/Barney Hill episode — the alleged abduction and examination by UFOnauts?


Yes, something happened to the Hills. They had an experience, surely. Mrs. Hill didn’t seem pathological during her life-time and not in 1961 when she says she was aboard an alien ship, probe by entities that were not human.

But was Betty and Barney Hill’s experience a true flying saucer kidnapping? That has yet to be determined, regardless of the unquestioning belief by most UFO believers.

What about the so-called ten best UFO cases that one UFO sideliner is highlighting with a badly done documentary making the rounds, in pieces, on the internet?

Every case, and we mean every case, has a discordant element that science and skeptics, even some UFO truth-seekers, find inconclusive.

Yes, the ten cases may be the “best” of the UFO breed, but that just goes to show how pathetic the UFO evidence is; how unverifiable, when it gets right down to it, the UFO experience is.

Yes, UFOs exist, they are real, but what they are, what they mean, still is grist for skeptical evaluation.

That UFO true-believers get livid with those who question the UFO “faith” has to be ignored, eschewed even, since truth, and the search for it, are more important than the self-aggrandizement of many UFO devotees.

That’s the skeptical milieu.

Tuesday, March 13, 2007

Egad! Another Trent-like photo


This is a photo (not a Photoshop-manipulated photo!) from 1950, the same year that the Trent photos appeared.

Note the similarities.

Meanwhile, lets have a go at finding out the provenance of this snapshot.

The person who comes up with the source will get our booklet of UFO newspaper clippings for the period 1948-1968.


Monday, March 12, 2007

The "lost" Trent photo -- not lost any more?

From an anonymous source:

I hate to tell you this, but this photo is old news. It's been on the "ufocasebook" site for quite some time, in the "best UFO pics ever taken" section.

Here's the link: http://www.ufocasebook.com/bestufopictures3.html

Scroll about two thirds of the way down, or so. The caption alongside the photo says "March 3, 1977 Walter Schilling took this photograph in Hamburg, Germany. The object possessed a strange rotating effect with a glowing fluorescent mast. The UFO was close enough to the ground to create a 30 foot shadow."

Whether it's a fake or not is another matter, but at any rate, this is no "long lost McMinnville Photograph."

Sorry to burst the bubble.

Sunday, March 11, 2007

An "exegesis" of the lost Trent/McMinnville photo


Attached are three enhancements. [of the “lost Trent photo”].

The first photo…is compensated for motion and focus. By compensating for motion on the object in question, the rest of the picture changed:


The second photo…is a crop and adjustments. After the adjustments were made, I reduced the size again (for email purposes). Notice on the left side of the object, there appears to be some type of vents or ribs in a dark outline:


The third photo is the same as the second one… [and] has brightness adjustment.

The second [object] in the picture is just there smaller, to show more contrast. The top appears to be an indentation, with a protrusion from the center. There is also one from the bottom. The object reminds me of a Roulette wheel and spindle. I'm not calling it that:


Unfortunately, there is also pixelation produced in the three pictures.

There are too many people that tend to pass photos off as being Photoshopped.

Also, unfortunately, there are too many times that people fake this type of thing.

I am not a debunker, but only my own skeptic. I am not an expert, but with working on the motion of the original picture, I would tend to believe the object in question is real because of the difference in motion between the background and the object.

Both appear to motion blur but in different perspectives.

As far as my belief, I would also have to call this inconclusive. It is too bad that you don't have a higher res pic. Hopefully, you can show that the negative came from the same roll.

Denver Page