UFO Conjecture(s)

Thursday, July 19, 2012

A Corroborative UFO Photo?

rouen.jpg

The McMinnville/Trent photo of 1950 and the 1954 Rouen, France photo were provided in  Flying Saucers and UFOs 1968 {No.2, Page 24].

The similarity is blatant.

The Trent photo(s) -- there were two, as you know -- have been considered hoaxes by some (Robert Sheaffer particularly) and authentic by others (Bruce Maccabee, David Rudiak).

The Rouen photo, taken by a French Air Force pilot, has gnerally been considered to be authentic.

But doesn't the Rouen photo corroborate the Trent photo and sighting of four years earlier?

Martin J. Powell offers a thorough analysis of the two photographs which can be read by clicking HERE.

Mr. Powell noted that there is a question about the actual date of the Rouen photo, citing Vicente Juan Ballester-Olmos' corrected dating of 1957, and VJB's suggestion that the Rouen photo was a  doctored copy of the Trent UFO photo, although the Rouen photo contains more detail than the Trent UFO photo -- which is a virtual impossibility if one is making a copy of a photo; the new photo will be degraded not enhanced.

As with other UFO photos or incidents, the details are always compromised by something iffy; in this case the date of the Rouen photo and the suggestion by a bona fide UFO researcher -- Ballester-Olmos -- that the Rouen photo was a copy.

Yes, there are legitimate questions about the Trent photos -- addressed by Phil Klass and others, such as why they didn't develop their film for some time if, indeed, they thought they had captured a flying saucer.

But if the Rouen photo is authentic -- although that seems to be up in the air also -- doesn't it give validation to the Trent photos?

And, as we usually ask, were there other sightings and/or photos with the air-foil configuration that is unique to these photographs -- either before 1950 or after 1954/1957?

While some discount pursuing such sightings, from long ago -- we are of that ilk ourselves, usually -- the "saucer" seen in these two photos invite retro-investigation....to corroborate the Trent photos and to show that flying saucers of the 1950s time-frame seem to have had tangibility, and aero-dynamic characteristics, which is no longer the case.

Today's UFOs are amorphous generally, without substance or materiality.

What happened to UFOs?

Why have they changed?

RR


18 Comments:

  • "Why have UFOs changed?"

    Perhaps its we who have changed? We see things relative to our current environment. Media outlets subliminally tell us what a UFO should look like. A guess on my part, since you and others seem to be correct...the saucer vision is dead...long live the triangle.

    With that said, the cigar-shape (blimp) seems to be making a come back. We should be seeing more drone-shape UFOs in the coming future...if not already.

    Personally, I'm more interested in WHY people see UFOs...there are more things crowding the skies at the present, than would have been back in the 50s, 60s, etc.

    Thanks for the thought provoking post...as always.

    By Blogger Tim Hebert, at Thursday, July 19, 2012  

  • Tim:

    Plus ca change, plus c'est la meme chose.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Thursday, July 19, 2012  

  • I might just kick myself for this...but...wasn't the Rouen shot found to be the Trent shot? I seem to recall it being a very good match in someone's analysis.

    It's buried in the NICAP site as e-mail chatter I think.

    By Blogger Kandinsky, at Thursday, July 19, 2012  

  • Got it...http://www.nicap.org/france57rep.htm

    By Blogger Kandinsky, at Thursday, July 19, 2012  

  • As noted in my posting Kandinsky, the suggestion that the Rouen photo was a copy of the Trent photo is iffy, NICAP notwithstanding.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Thursday, July 19, 2012  

  • Whoops. My apologies for skimming the text whilst my memory was focused on that NICAP chitter-chatter.

    I usually pay more attention.

    By Blogger Kandinsky, at Thursday, July 19, 2012  

  • K:

    A lot of us have become skimmers of late.

    Information overload I think.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Thursday, July 19, 2012  

  • I read some years ago, early 1990s I think, an analysis by Willy Smith that the Rouen photo was a doctored copy of the Trent photo. Forget where. It may have been in a zine called ORBITER, now long defunct.

    There is no pedigree of the Rouen photo, no photographer and no date.

    By Blogger cda, at Thursday, July 19, 2012  

  • It might be good to read Powell's analysis.

    The "Rouen is Trent" barb is iffy.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Thursday, July 19, 2012  

  • The article by Dr Willy Smith of UNICAT appears in ORBITER, issue 25, July/Aug 1990.

    The date of the photo is sometimes given as 1954. But it is given as March 1957 by Geoffrey Norris in the July 1957 RAF Flying Review where the photo first appeared.

    Smith ends his short article with "As it stands now, the Rouen incident is only a phantom".

    By Blogger cda, at Thursday, July 19, 2012  

  • Again, I suggest the Powell exegesis.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Thursday, July 19, 2012  

  • The Powell piece is ridiculous.

    He sees whatever he want to see in the grainy unsourced photo. In particular he sees stuff that isn't there.

    This is a common occurrence amongst obsessed UFO buffs.

    Lance

    By Blogger Lance, at Friday, July 20, 2012  

  • Lance:

    Aside from your broadside, what's your take on the photos themselves. leaving Powell out of it?

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Friday, July 20, 2012  

  • Well, the Trent photos themselves are a beautiful part of the UFO mythology. I think there are legitimate questions about the circumstances in which they were taken that tend to suggest (but not confirm) a hoax.

    The other photo (if it really is another photo) has no provenance as far as I can see and therefore isn't worth even considering.

    Lance

    By Blogger Lance, at Friday, July 20, 2012  

  • Lance "The other photo (if it really is another photo) has no provenance as far as I can see and therefore isn't worth even considering."

    If you follow that logic to its logical conclusion Lance then you'd have to chuck nearly every piece of archaeological and evolutionary evidence.

    By Blogger alanborky, at Friday, July 20, 2012  

  • Alan Borky does not seem to understand understand what archeology is. It is really all about adding context, analyzing and searching for the provenance of the artifacts discovered.

    A silly UFO photo that turns up without attribution in a field replete with fakes is somewhat different.

    Rather than a logical conclusion, I suggest that his statement is really the kind of illogical conclusion that saucer nuts make all the time.


    Lance

    By Blogger Lance, at Friday, July 20, 2012  

  • Gosh, I missed the equally inane mention of evolution, the very epitome of building upon a chain of evidence.

    It's amazing the things that people somehow come to believe are true!

    Lance

    By Blogger Lance, at Friday, July 20, 2012  

  • ||what's your take on the photos themselves||

    There were rear-view mirrors on 1950s cars in the USA and there were very similar rear-view mirrors on cars in France! (g)

    By Blogger zoamchomsky, at Sunday, July 22, 2012  

Post a Comment

<< Home