UFO Conjecture(s)

Tuesday, September 16, 2014

The Trent/McMinnville UFO is a truck mirror?

Over at Kevin Randle's blog our friend Zoam Chomsky [The Iron Skeptic] posted a comment purported to tell readers there that farmer Trent, who took the (in)famous McMinnville flying disk photos (1950), used his truck mirror to hoax the photos he took, and this photo shows the mirror used:
Now we like Zoam but this photo was taken after the May 1950 photo session. Did Farmer Trent re-attach the mirror he supposedly used to create his flying saucer photos?

Yes, there are several arguments made for a Trent family hoax, but there are equally valid arguments that the Trents did see and, indeed, photographed an odd flying object.

Zoam's comment at Randle's blog is off the mark however, as here we have the mirror, mischievously used, back in place on farmer Trent's truck.

One skeptical comment bites the dust.



  • As I pointed out on Kevin's blog, this topic is getting nowhere. Although a number of well-meaning enthusiasts are presenting evidence either way, and persevering with it, the net result seems to be a big zero.

    What is it about these photos that defeats all attempts to really get to the root of the matter?

    Why did the Trents never confess to the hoax (if that be what it was)?

    Your flat statement that "one skeptical comment bites the dust" is false. On the contrary, with these photos, nothing ever 'bites the dust' And the said 'dust' never settles either.

    By Blogger cda, at Wednesday, September 17, 2014  

  • Rightly or wrongly, based on the analysis you posted some time ago, I suspect that a moving target versus a stationary target would be extremely difficult to capture, given the stance required by the photographer in relation to the elevation of the camera from the ground and the very small size of the viewfinder.
    Why would someone chose such an awkward stance if time was of the essence to grab a shot of a moving target? How could he see the target in the viewfinder? It would have been interesting to replicate the position of the target and it’s velocity in relation to this stance and elevation of the camera using the original equipment and see if the target could be caught. I think it would be difficult to get a “lucky shot”...
    However I am just not seeing any motive for faking the shot.
    The truck mirror theory resembles the generic psycho- social theory of Zoam’s which has enough holes in it to be Swiss Cheese.
    Zoam seemingly just does not have the same wherewithal as other skeptics in providing alternative scenarios to explain anomalies.
    He makes a great deal of noise with snarky comments but, “Where’s the beef?”

    By Blogger Bruce Duensing, at Wednesday, September 17, 2014  

  • "One skeptical comment bites the dust."
    -or a sly pose returning to the scene of the crime showing off his tools.

    By Blogger Bryan Daum, at Wednesday, September 17, 2014  

  • By the way, how do you know the truck picture was taken AFTER the UFO photos? In fact, can you really put the photos in time/date order? I admit there is, or was, an order on the film while being developed, but has anyone else seen this film and can say, with any degree of certainty, that the photos are in a particular order?

    In a way, I'd have preferred it if you had not introduced this McMinnville affair, yet again.

    It is one of those things that is stuck forever in 'could be' and 'might be' land,

    By Blogger cda, at Wednesday, September 17, 2014  

  • CDA:

    This is a photo from the LIFE archive, pictures taken by photog Loomis for the magazine after the sighting.

    It's not a "selfie" by Trent.


    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Wednesday, September 17, 2014  

  • Christopher (& All),

    In general, all "Trent" pictures in square format are from Loomis Dean serie for LIFE Magazine, surely using a 6X6, like the one with Trent'soon on the ladder which the object of a psychodrama here at this blog ^^

    There are all the pictures made by Loomis Dean in David'site (thank to him who participated to solve this psychodrama): http://www.roswellproof.com/LIFE_Magazine_Trent_Photoshoot_1950.html

    We have "analyzed" in 2011 if the truck mirror corresponded or not to the object, and our fast results were that it doesn't match. A Ford-T one is more compatible, as RIP J. Carpenter suggested probably the first.

    Concerning why the trent hoaxed (if they did and which is my opinion), we made several hypotheses in recent CNES/CAIPAN/GEIPAN workshorp in private after IPACO team presented her work. Difficult for me to summerize in English my/our hypotheses directly in a blog answer :( Maybe in ongoing works.



    By Blogger Gilles Fernandez, at Wednesday, September 17, 2014  

  • CDA
    I think you pointed out what is at the nexus of the current nadir of what is called Ufology, which has shrunk into the purview of historical archivists debating creakingly old accounts simply due to the fact that Ufology has not evolved in tandem with the discoveries of science.
    It is lodged in a tiny net that has proved to be irrelevant to the larger picture. It cannot see the forest for the trees.
    It is a reactive and post editorial debate over effects rather than causes confined to the physicality of the environment.
    So it exists in a sort of zombie state of self awareness unable to see the box it has placed itself in by the surface of appearances.
    It is unable to examine itself so it hammers minutia to bits to no effect.
    Right now its in it's afterlife, having no purpose other than to perpetuate it's own stereotypes.

    By Blogger Bruce Duensing, at Wednesday, September 17, 2014  

  • Bruce:

    The current issue of The Times Literary Supplement has a piece on Thucydides and another on Rome, along with topics that have been hashed and rehashed by academics.

    UFOs can stomach the rehash of its lore, as the lore is filled with unexplained yet interesting events.

    So take it easy.

    Ufology is dying but some UFO reports and/or sightings remain vibrant in their essence.

    McMinnville is one, Roswell another and many more.


    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Wednesday, September 17, 2014  

  • That was my point. It is largely a debate over past history and innuendo, interpretation. I am not proclaiming it has no interest to some as the evidence is overwhelming it is the main focus of "investigation"
    Personally, I see it as a dry canal.
    Although other subjects of history have always and will continue to be of keen interest as they serve a larger purpose.

    By Blogger Bruce Duensing, at Wednesday, September 17, 2014  

  • I like the McMinnville photos because they are beautiful and sum up everything about UFO's in the 1950's.

    It is fun to look at the evidence (to me).

    We have gone over the pros and cons of the photos (with carrying degrees of accuracy) and the problem is that it is simply very hard to prove a negative.

    There is a huge stack of stuff that suggests the photos are hoaxed. There is a smaller set of evidence that suggests they could be as the Trent claimed, much of that technical, conditional and, I think, subject to measurement error.

    We don't even know if the truck in the photo referenced here was Trent's. Those photos appear to have been taken in town--we can't see the truck in any of the farm photos--it could be his, but we don't know.(I am distressed that my copy this photo is cropped-I thought I had catalogued all of these).



    By Blogger Lance, at Wednesday, September 17, 2014  

  • Here's the actual comment, that addressed several points studiously ignored by DR, Larry and others:

    "There must have been dozens of very similarly shaped mirrors manufactured before 1950 in both cast alloy and (much lighter) form-pressed stainless steel. [I've got a dozen or more of both kinds on MGs and spares--and every one is slightly different!]

    "Paul Trent's truck's mirror or one like it--possibly broken, without its glass so just a shell [as IPACO suggests]--is the most likely candidate.


    "And it would be an inconsequential weight on solid non-pliable copper wires which would display virtually no additional sag along their entire lengths--and certainly no imaginary 'pinch point' due to a small weight."

    Now, whether this is Paul Trent's truck in this picture or not and whether that is the actual mirror used in his hoax or not isn't the point. (The shots do appear to be taken in town.)

    There are a half-dozen or so of Trent like it with the truck mirror positioned over his head. Did Loomis Dean suspect or know something for a fact at the time? Has the truth of this hoax been in plain view since the day these pictures became available?

    Sometimes a single picture is worth a million pseudoscientific mathemagical mumbo-jumbo manipulations; and this one just might be in this case. Is that better?

    Your Bad Skeptic, ZO

    p.s. Rich, I thought you'd pick this up! (vbg)

    By Blogger zoamchomsky, at Wednesday, September 17, 2014  

  • Zoam:

    The LIFE photographer seems to have been suggesting something with his photo of the truck and mirror and the one of Trent's son on the ladder, as Tony Bragalia noted here a while back.

    I think, too, that LIFE was hinting, without straining its journalistic cachet, that farmer Trent's photos were "suspicious."

    But that's all we have: a gut feeling, which many of us have about the photos.

    My ongoing plaint about the lazy movement of the flying disk -- it was just cruising along if Trent was able to go into the house, grab his camera, set it up, using the viewfinder, and snap two shots -- seems to be ignored by David Rudiak et al.

    So the photos are surely iffy.

    But there is an outside chance that Trent was an honest guy -- farmers usually are -- and he actually got a pic of an odd thing flying overhead.

    It's a mystery -- hoax or not - -and grist for debate, regardless that some find that debate to be worthless or boring.


    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Wednesday, September 17, 2014  

  • Despite what I said before, I have a good idea why the Trents were still reluctant to admit to a hoax, even decades later.

    They kept up the pretence of authenticity because the Condon committee endorsed them as such. And Condon was a semi-official investigation, using government funds. Thus once this committee (i.e. Hartmann) endorsed them, the Trents felt under no obligation to set the record straight.

    It is similar in a way to the 13-year old Stephen Darbishire and his 'Adamski-like' photos of a UFO in 1954. He was invited to Buckingham Palace of all places. You would hardly expect a young boy (clever though he certainly was) to admit to a hoax after a visit to royalty.

    So maybe after all there is method in the Trent's actions.

    But, after all is said & done, we are precisely nowhere, again.

    By Blogger cda, at Wednesday, September 17, 2014  

  • CDA
    Your premise as to the lack of a confession due to official acceptance as authentication by the famous reminds me of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle and the young ladies behind the Cottingley Fairies hoax.
    Only after everyone else had passed away did a confession appear.

    By Blogger Bruce Duensing, at Wednesday, September 17, 2014  

  • I wonder why no one has done the math on the speed of the "object."

    That is, couldn't an approximate speed be deduced from the time the thing was spotted or, at least, from the the first shot to the second shot, taking into account Trent's need to get his camera, roll the film (inside the camera for the second shot surely), and view the object before snapping the shutter, twice.

    Did the Condon Committee do that?

    The object hasn't moved very far from shot one to shot two, and it stuck around from its initial sighting by Mrs. Trent until she could get to call her husband as he retrieved his camera and set himself to shoot his pictures.

    Just as the JFK shots were determined from the Zapruder filming seconds, couldn't the distance between the Trent object in photo one be calculated from the position of the object in photo two?

    Flying saucers of the day were reported to be zipping all over the place, while the Trent disk was lollygagging overhead it seems.


    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Wednesday, September 17, 2014  

  • Zoam continues to foolishly write:
    Here's the actual comment, that addressed several points studiously ignored by DR, Larry and others:

    "And it would be an inconsequential weight on solid non-pliable copper wires which would display virtually no additional sag along their entire lengths--and certainly no imaginary 'pinch point' due to a small weight."

    ZoamBot in disingenuous spin mode. Studiously NOT ignored by me or Larry, who studiously pointed out that Zoam is scientifically illiterate and totally demolised the above argument. Only somebody who has no knowledge of the real world (such as thin housing electrical wire being "non-pliable") or claim that such wires cannot be made to very noticeably and measureably sag with a relatively large weight added to it.

    Basic REAL WORLD physics known for a very long time: Sag of any line, even a "stiff" (even a baby could bend such wire) "non pliable" piece of wire is proportional to the weight of the wire. So if you had a 1 pound wire and add a 1 pound weight to it, it will sag twice as much. If you add 2 pounds, it sags 3 times as much, etc., etc.

    There is nothing to argue or debate here. That's just the way the REAL world works in gravity. Trying to argue the opposite is classic pseudoscience.

    Weight of length of wire in Trent photos generously 2 pounds. Weight of "truck mirror" proposed by Zoam and other scientifically ignorant skeptics: ~1 pound. This is added to the weight of the wire, making it sag a great deal more. Since the Trent "non-pliable" wire already sags about 1 foot, the weight of the wire increases 50% and it will sag about 6 inches more.

    Even if Zoam tries to strip out the glass mirror, invent some super-light version of steel that doesn't exist in this universe, somehow gets the weight of the mirror down to 1/2 pound or 1/4 pound, the wire is still going to sag an additional 3 inches or 1-1/2 inches, a very significant and easily seen amount.

    By comparing LIFE's Loomis Dean's photo of the two wires (no weight attached), the real sag (if it exists at all) is one or less wire width (~5 mm) as I determined recently, or if you believe IPACO's result, 2 wire widths (~10 mm). So if a model were there, it couldn't have been more than about an ounce in weight, far less than any real world "truck mirror".

    Again, Zoam can ignorantly drone on how an object around 50% of the weight of the wire has an "inconsequential weight" and will cause "no additional sag". You have to be seriously removed from reality to CONTINUE to make seriously stupid statements like that, especially after the reality of the situation has already been explained to him.

    By Blogger David Rudiak, at Thursday, September 18, 2014  

  • "And it would be an inconsequential weight on solid non-pliable copper wires which would display virtually no additional sag along their entire lengths--and certainly no imaginary 'pinch point' due to a small weight."

    Is exactly what I've said all along, even two years ago on KR's blog.

    But DR continues to ignore the fact that he doesn't know the gauge of the wire, and he continues to refer to it as "thin housing electrical wire" when it's most probably solid copper telephone wire typical of the time. And any additional sag along its entire length from attachment point to point caused by the weight of a truck mirror would be virtually unnoticeable.

    Poor old logically challenged DR can't seem to understand that for all his efforts--all of his mathemagical mumbo-jumbo manipulations of unknowns and contingencies--he can never prove that the object in Trent's photos is not a truck mirror.

    Or practically any other earthly manufactured thing for that matter hanging by a thread, so one can only wonder what he thinks he's accomplishing.

    By Blogger zoamchomsky, at Thursday, September 18, 2014  

  • Well, it's official! Zoam Chomsky is the bubble boy who's never been outside of his bubble. In fact, the more he opens his mouth, the more obvious he is a complete idiot and scientific illiterate.

    He says we don't know the gauge of the wire and don't know how much it will bend or sag. First of all we DO know how much his "nonpliable" copper wire will sag because you can look at the photos and actually see it arc or sag. These are about 45' length of wire and they sag about 1' along that length (measured from photos and 3D models).

    (EVERYTHING sags under gravity, even the strongest, stiffest metals will sag a little bit, just not as much as something easily bendable like COPPER wire, a soft, malleable metal. Yes, another thing Zoam never learned in his bubble is that thin copper wire like this is only a little bit stiff and VERY bendable. Even a toddler could bend it.)

    Next, we DO know the approximate gauge because the wire diameter can be measured directly off the photos. We also know that it was powering only one light bulb and very typical home electrical line would have been far more than sufficient. And we know the approximate gauge because I don't live in the bubble with Zoam. I did two site visits and found the 1/2" electrical conduit the two lines had pass through to get inside the garage. That alone limits the diameter of wire+insulation to maybe 5.5 mm. (Wider and you can't pull two wires through the inside diam. of the conduit.)

    These factors limit the gauge to a maximum of about #10, which would be gross overkill for powering one bulb, and more likely cheaper and lighter, and yes, thinner, #12 or #14, standard housing wire capable of powering 20 to 25 100 watt bulbs, much less only one.

    But for the sake of science-challenged Zoam, let's assume #10 wire to give his "truck mirror" every chance it can get. (In the REAL sciences, not phony DebunkerScience, bubble boy, this is called worst case analysis.)

    Bare #10 wire (2/10" solid copper core) weighs about 2 pounds per 100 feet. (The more likely #12 wire weighs about half this and #14 about one third.) Let's be generous and double the weight with insulation to 4 pounds/100 ft. But the Trent wire is only about 45 feet. So the total weight MAX for 45' of #10 wire is about 2 pounds (the figure I was already generously using for assumed thinner #12 or #14 wire--worst case again, but remember most likely only half that, like #12 wire).

    The wire sag depends directly on the weight of the wire--period! That's the well-known physics. Double the weight and the wire sags twice as much. Adding a 1 pound weight to a 2 pound wire increases the weight 50% and increases the sag 50%, regardless of what the actual sag is .

    Thus even if incredibly strong, stiff wire sagged only 1 inch in the middle, increasing the weight 50% will still add 1/2" of sag. In the Trent case the sag sans weight is about 12". Add 50% to the weight the wire will sag an additional 6 inches. This is what a one pound weight like a "truck mirror" will do to a 2 pound wire.

    Most likely the wire probably weighs no more than 1 lb., and the sag will increase 100% to 2 feet. But the Trent photos show little or NO sag when compared to unweighted LIFE photos a month later. (Any sag is under 5-10 mm or 2 wire diameters). So doesn’t matter whether the wire is 1 or 2 pounds.

    Real World Conclusion: You cannot add something like a truck mirror to such lightweight wire and not cause a very large and easily measurable sag, and it doesn't matter how much you now try to strip down the mirror to lighten it, such as remove the mirror, substitute thinner chrome for cast iron, etc. (Yes we KNOW with CERTAINTY it was lightweight wire because we don't live in a bubble of delusion and denial but in the real world where we can measure and calculate upper bounds for such wire weight and see it ultimately doesn't affect the conclusion one whit—NO “TRUCK MIRROR” IS POSSIBLE.)

    By Blogger David Rudiak, at Thursday, September 18, 2014  

  • I noticed a math error in my last post. Bare #10 wire will weigh more like 3 pounds per 100 feet, not 2 pounds. Add insulation and the weight might increase to 4-6 pounds (I used the figure of 4 pounds previously). Let's be generous and say 6 pounds/100 feet, cut that in half because the Trent wire is only 45' long and the Trent wire will weigh 3 pounds max.

    Assuming this heavier weight, the Trent wire will sag 1/3rd less. Thus a 1 pound "truck mirror" added to a 3 pound wire already sagging ~12 inches will sag "only" 4 inches more instead of 6" if it weighed only 2 pounds.

    And remember, this was a WORST CASE analysis, where I assumed the maximum possible gauge wire (#10) that fits the constraints of actual measurement of wire diameter in the photos and on-site. More likely the gauge was lighter, say #12 wire, which would still be far more than adequate to power one light bulb and weigh half as much, meaning twice as much sag as for #10 wire.

    So this still doesn't affect the outcome, because the real measured sag, if any exists at all, is less than 1/4"-1/2". This puts a very low ceiling on the weight of a hoax model--well under an ounce (<30 gm), maybe as low as 1/4th ounce (7 gm), or down in paper plate range.

    By Blogger David Rudiak, at Thursday, September 18, 2014  

  • I love Zoam!

    The two wires we are chatting about are almost certainly electrical wires and not telephone wires.
    We can see them in a Dean photo attaching to the back of the garage.

    We do not know the gauge for sure. The arguments that David makes about the gauge are not convincing and, like much of what he does, always aim towards the side of promoting the ooga booga.


    By Blogger Lance, at Thursday, September 18, 2014  

  • Thanks, Lance!

    By Blogger zoamchomsky, at Thursday, September 18, 2014  

  • ZO "says we don't know the gauge of the wire and don't know how much it will bend or sag."

    And we don't so we don't. Get it, DR?

    Don't know weight of mirror, don't know gauge of wire, don't know tension so cannot predict sag. And based on unknowns we certainly cannot dismiss one identity out of various common manufactured objects of that size and shape.

    It could be a teapot lid, a pole cap or an automotive part, maybe a truck mirror; you just don't know. And pretending that you do know and have proven it in order to manufacture doubt about that one identity is practicing pure pseudoscientific mumbo-jumbo.

    So one can only wonder what you think you're accomplishing. Much like your sad case of Ramey-memo pareidolia, the only person you've convinced is yourself.

    Pseudoscientists like DR are seemingly oblivious to the fact that the fundamental requirement for the scientific method is a rational mind.

    By Blogger zoamchomsky, at Thursday, September 18, 2014  

  • Lance wrote:
    We do not know the gauge for sure.

    We do not need to know the gauge "for sure". You guys obviously not trained in the physical sciences or engineering do not seem to get this. Parameters are often not known "for sure" but are known approximately. Bracketing or bounding uncertain values is done all the time to create worst or best case analyses.

    All we need to establish here is the heaviest possible wire that fits the constraints of what can be seen and what would likely have been used given the very light power load (one light bulb, 100 watts). Measurement of wire thickness from the photos bounds the wire diameter to about 5 mm max as does the 1/2" metal conduit they had to pass through, thus about #10 wire gauge max, more likely #14 or #12 which are rated 2000 to 2500 watts, already far more than the 100 watts used.

    Even if we assume an overkill #10 wire, it could only weigh about 3 pounds max given the measurable 45' length of the Trent wires. (and the wire diameter and density of copper--that damn quantitative physics again--or just consult a table of wire gauge and physical characteristics).

    The wire is known to sag under its own weight by about 1 foot. (Damn measurement again. Again not known "for sure" but within a few inches. Still doesn't affect the ultimate conclusion.)

    Even assuming the heaviest possible or plausible gauge of the wire (meaning it will sag less when a weight is added), this means a heavy model like a truck mirror (roughly 1 pound) will STILL sag several INCHES minimum, not millimeters, if hung from the wire. End of story. This 100% PROVES that it can't be something heavy like a "truck mirror" no matter what extreme assumptions you use.

    The arguments that David makes about the gauge are not convincing...

    Please explain IN DETAIL using real physics/engineering and/or actual on-site measurements (not your standard hand-waving denial) what is "not convincing" about these arguments. How do you make the wire diameter larger than what it is in the photos? How do you cram fatter gauge wire down a 1/2" conduit? Why would you even bother using such heavy gauge to power one light bulb?

    and, like much of what he does, always aim towards the side of promoting the ooga booga.

    Oh, so proving with real world physics and measurement that a hoax model could not be something like a "truck mirror" is now "oogo booga" stuff?

    "Oogo booga" seems to really mean you and Zoam don't like the outcome and have to resort to your usual inane insults instead because you have nothing rational left to argue.

    Notice (unlike how Zoam tried to dishonestly posture it) I have NEVER said this proves Trent photographed a craft from Alpha Centauri. I have INSTEAD said that the measurable lack of sag or extremely small sag (i.e., not inches but at most millimeters), shows that if a model, it had to be extremely light weight one, on the order of a paper plate. Again, in the physical sciences and engineering, this is called bounding the parameters. It could still be a model, but NOT something heavy like a "truck mirror".

    You already apologized on Randle's blog and admitted that I and Larry were right. Yes, by golly, wires do sag and adding weight to them sags them further in very predictable ways. That's called physical law. We're merely the guys who have actual university physical science and engineering degrees. Do you?

    Now your back to calling it "ooga booga"? What next with you and Zoam? Galileo and Newton promoted "ooga booga" stuff like gravity where things actually sag under their own weight and sag even more when more weight is added?

    Go join Zoam in his bubble world where you wish away physical law when it goes against your cherished "truck mirror" Jesus religion.

    By Blogger David Rudiak, at Thursday, September 18, 2014  

  • Zoam continues to inanely and hypocritically write:
    Pseudoscientists like DR are seemingly oblivious to the fact that the fundamental requirement for the scientific method is a rational mind.

    In reality, Zoam's incredibly idiotic and science ignorant arguments demonstrate the exact opposite. He is the one who lacks a scientific or rational mind and is arguing true pseudoscience. Only fools, Net trolls, fanatics, and/or the delusional and deranged argue the way Zoam does.

    Zoam "Science": Simply deny the hard data that can be measured with reasonable accuracy (length of wire, diameter of wire, sag of wire), what can be reasonably estimated from these measurements (gauge and weight of wire), and thus predict with reasonable accuracy the degree of extra sag that a given weight will produce in such wire (physical law which Zoam apparently does not believe in).

    The results go against Zoam's foaming anti-saucer religious beliefs. Thus his idiotic posturing that we can't possibly have any idea about how a wire will sag when extra weight is added to it.

    A real world object like a "truck mirror" is not weightless but has a very significant weight compared to the weight of the wire and will make it sag INCHES, anywhere from about 2 inches using the most extreme assumptions (greatly stripped down mirror, extremely if not absurdly heavy gauge wire to power one light bulb), to around 12 inches (more realistic, lighter gauge wire and more realistic non-stripped down mirror).

    Actual result: Wire sags maybe 10 millimeters (.4 inches) at MOST, probably less, maybe not at all. This means if there was a model there, it had to be very lightweight, ruling out everything heavier than about one half to one ounce.

    Realistic one pound "truck mirrors" or fantasy stripped down 1/2 pound "truck mirrors" need not apply as candidates. We're in pie pan, paper plate, and balsa wood territory instead for a model.

    There is no way around this given the way the REAL world works. You can set upper and lower bounds to things using physical law and more extreme assumptions about parameters. The wire will sag a few inches to many inches if something as heavy as a "truck mirror" is attached to it. The minor uncertainties in gauge or actual sag or weight of the hypothetical mirror don't matter. The sag, if any, is far less than even the most extreme, truly rational assumptions will allow.

    (Please notice, once AGAIN, that I am NOT arguing the data currently proves absolutely no model hung from the wires, only a heavier model.)

    By Blogger David Rudiak, at Thursday, September 18, 2014  

  • I agree with DR that the 'thing' is not a spacecraft from Alpha Centauri (nor Zeta Reticuli either).

    I just cannot imagine any intelligent humanoid beings from several light-years distance travelling to earth in such a simple object of a few inches, or even feet, in diameter. The damn thing doesn't even have any doors or windows.

    So as we are not talking about certainties but about upper & lower limits, I'd stake my money on the object being something small and light made on earth rather than a much larger, heavy craft from outer space.

    But of course I COULD be seriously wrong.

    By Blogger cda, at Thursday, September 18, 2014  

  • While I think this is a circular excursion, one thing that is another piece of flotsam to add to the whirlpool is the remarkable resemblance of the craft to an item I have seen in one of my other hobbies in historic preservation.
    It is a rigidly mounted ( with narrow stem) light fixture specifically manufactured for gasoline stations back in the day. The resemblance is in the flaring of the hood to the stem, the rimmed lower circumference as well as the shallow profile of the dish itself. I will ask around for a example if anyone is interested.

    By Blogger Bruce Duensing, at Thursday, September 18, 2014  

  • "Zoam's foaming anti-saucer religious beliefs."

    I don't have a single thought about nonexistent "saucers," much less beliefs, religious or otherwise. And my refusal to buy your kooky upside-down world mathemagical mumbo-jumbo manipulations doesn't justify your rude, multipart histrionics.

    I simply have little tolerance for pseudoscientists--especially those of the "flying saucer" kind.

    By Blogger zoamchomsky, at Saturday, September 20, 2014  

  • "The truck mirror theory resembles the generic psycho- social theory of Zoam’s which has enough holes in it to be Swiss Cheese."

    The PSH is mainstream social psychology, Bruce. Duh!

    The truck mirror identity was the suggestion of an excellent skeptical investigator of the Trent photos. If it was so obviously mistaken, he wouldn't have suggested it! Geesh.
    (Something DR should ponder.)

    "Zoam seemingly just does not have the same wherewithal as other skeptics in providing alternative scenarios to explain anomalies."

    What "anomalies?" Real PSHers (Scientific realists) take the Null hypothesis for granted: There aren't any ghostly "anomalies" haunting the stratosphere. It's all been nothing but a mass-media manufactured myth and social delusion--even if one refuses to accept that fact about the world. This PSHer has little patience for what is mostly tabloid trash. Still, I've done my share of debunking nonsense online over decades. Pick a case, Bruce!

    "He makes a great deal of noise with snarky comments but, 'Where’s the beef?'"

    Where's the phenomenon, Bruce, or as you sometimes say the "enigma?" (Gasp!)

    That's right, there isn't one!

    There never were any "UFOs" of any kind, much less visiting spacecraft from another world.

    By Blogger zoamchomsky, at Saturday, September 20, 2014  

  • "I just cannot imagine any intelligent humanoid beings from several light-years distance travelling to earth in such a simple object of a few inches, or even feet, in diameter. The damn thing doesn't even have any doors or windows."

    Exactly. As I said,

    Either Trent hoaxed the photos or TINY ET traversed the vast interstellar distance and arrived on Earth in a spacecraft that looks exactly like a mid-century truck mirror!

    By Blogger zoamchomsky, at Saturday, September 20, 2014  

  • Come to think of it, didn't a certain esoteric thinker of the day, Gerald Heard, once propose that the UFOnauts were insects, i.e. Martian bees, who could take the strain of the massive accelerations observed in these vehicles.

    This must surely be the answer to the Trent saucer. A tiny ET is indeed the answer - a Martian insect!

    We (you & me) have solved it Zoam. Of course they don't need doors or windows, or truck mirrors either.

    Case closed, eh?

    By Blogger cda, at Saturday, September 20, 2014  

  • Hello CDA:

    sorry but, from where did you take the indication that it was a small object?

    By Blogger Don Maor, at Saturday, September 20, 2014  

Post a Comment

<< Home