+Hammerclaw Posted January 14, 2022 #26 Share Posted January 14, 2022 (edited) 11 minutes ago, astrobeing said: No, you are dismissing statements that are in the very report that you refuse to read, therefore all of your arguments are from ignorance. That's why at first you incorrectly said that the report concluded the photographs are "unexplainable by any conventional means" then after I posted some quotes from it you then said "they didn't rule out authenticity". I'm sure if you actually read the section of the report on the McMinnville photographs your next conclusion will be even closer to mine. No, it will not and you, sir, owe me an apology for suggesting I'm lying. Edited January 14, 2022 by Hammerclaw 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
astrobeing Posted January 14, 2022 #27 Share Posted January 14, 2022 1 hour ago, Hammerclaw said: No, it will not and you, sir, owe me an apology for suggesting I'm lying. Now read the section on the McMinnville report, verify the quotes I posted from it, and explain why an "extraordinary flying object" is "simpler" than a pie tin hanging from the overhead line. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+Hammerclaw Posted January 15, 2022 #28 Share Posted January 15, 2022 (edited) 1 hour ago, astrobeing said: Now read the section on the McMinnville report, verify the quotes I posted from it, and explain why an "extraordinary flying object" is "simpler" than a pie tin hanging from the overhead line. That's not the point, even though I agree with it. I was reading about UFOs in my teens, even before the Condon Report. According to their strict methodology, back then in the slide rule days, this was one of maybe two or three reports they couldn't eliminate from possibly being factual 100 percent. I can pretty much guarantee you that, privately, off the record, they pretty much agreed with us. They were suppose to project objectivity, publicly, even if privately they thought UFOs farcical and a humbug. They had already gotten in trouble for revealing their true skepticism. Edited January 15, 2022 by Hammerclaw Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChrLzs Posted January 15, 2022 #29 Share Posted January 15, 2022 What a load. And why did they crop the image????? It isn't half obvious... 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
astrobeing Posted January 15, 2022 #30 Share Posted January 15, 2022 (edited) 10 hours ago, Hammerclaw said: That's not the point, even though I agree with it. I was reading about UFOs in my teens, even before the Condon Report. According to their strict methodology, back then in the slide rule days, this was one of maybe two or three reports they couldn't eliminate from possibly being factual 100 percent. I can pretty much guarantee you that, privately, off the record, they pretty much agreed with us. They were suppose to project objectivity, publicly, even if privately they thought UFOs farcical and a humbug. They had already gotten in trouble for revealing their true skepticism. And you continue to ignore the text in your own hands just as you ignored every single quote I posted from it that contradicts what you said about it. Edited January 15, 2022 by astrobeing Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+Hammerclaw Posted January 15, 2022 #31 Share Posted January 15, 2022 6 hours ago, astrobeing said: And you continue to ignore the text in your own hands just as you ignored every single quote I posted from it that contradicts what you said about it. I'm not ignoring anything, but ignoring you is probably a good option. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stereologist Posted January 16, 2022 #32 Share Posted January 16, 2022 On 1/14/2022 at 3:00 PM, Hammerclaw said: They did an objective analysis and determined it was more likely a real object at a distance than anything else. They made no determination as to what the object actually was. The most innocuous speculative explanation would be that of a piece of airborne debris. The Condon Report was done under the auspices of the Unite States Air Force by The University of Colorado, not some amateur UFO group of the tImes, such as NICAP or APRO, who, themselves, rejected the report as biased. The idea that science professionals would have missed considering such obvious explanations as you propose is patently ludicrous. Your complaint is ludicrous. You seem to latch onto one group and claim it is as a "science professionals" analysis. The report to which you refer relies on one and only one person's analysis. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+Hammerclaw Posted January 16, 2022 #33 Share Posted January 16, 2022 (edited) 2 hours ago, stereologist said: Your complaint is ludicrous. You seem to latch onto one group and claim it is as a "science professionals" analysis. The report to which you refer relies on one and only one person's analysis. Then by that logic what exactly is the opinion of another single individual, far removed in time and space from the investigation, worth? Echoes answer, mournfully. If you like, you can read about the individual whose opinion you are disputing. William Kenneth Hartmann - Wikipedia Edited January 16, 2022 by Hammerclaw Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+and-then Posted January 16, 2022 #34 Share Posted January 16, 2022 On 1/9/2022 at 12:36 AM, Earl.Of.Trumps said: Ahhhh, no. Ain't buying it. I like the skeptic claim here, wing mirror - or something like that. nothing in those photos shows "exotic", non human design. And no need to suspend the wing mirror from fishing line, they just throw the object in the air and take a pic. easy peasy. Today, sure. Were there a lot of commonly-owned cameras that could snap pictures with fast enough film to get a crisp image like this in 1950? The edges of, whatever the thing is, aren't really blurred at all. I'm not a believer in alien visitation in the form of craft we're allowed to see. My guess is that any entity that could travel this far either wouldn't be be bothered with us or would be likely to not be seen. Also, remember that I'm a believer in that book of fairy tales and I think an "alien visitation" could well be the "strong delusion" God sends to the earth to test people. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChrLzs Posted January 16, 2022 #35 Share Posted January 16, 2022 Quote Were there a lot of commonly-owned cameras that could snap pictures with fast enough film to get a crisp image like this in 1950? Yes. The speed of the film was the most restricting factor, 25-100 ISO film was common, with 200 ISO available but not commonly used. Most cameras of the day were capable of shutter speeds up to 1/500 second, and there's this thing called the Sunny 16 rule... Essentially, it means that in bright daylight you will mostly get a good shot by setting the camera's aperture to f16, and then using the inverse of the ISO speed as your shutter speed. Ie, f16 with 1/100 sec will work if using 100 ISO film. As photographers know, f16 is a small aperture - so if you increase the size to f11, then the shutter speed will double to 1/200, f8 will be 1/400 sec, f5.6 will be 1/800 sec. Anything shorter than 1/200 will start to freeze moderate rates of motion, but of course it depend on how fast it's moving. PLUS, bear in mind that if you throw the object directly away from the camera instead of across the field of view, the angular motion will be b***** all and easily frozen by shutter speeds as slow as about 1/60... Given that would also make it much easier to capture in the image frame, then the angle at which it is moving is VERY important. Anyway, yes, easily done. 4 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stereologist Posted January 16, 2022 #36 Share Posted January 16, 2022 11 hours ago, Hammerclaw said: Then by that logic what exactly is the opinion of another single individual, far removed in time and space from the investigation, worth? Echoes answer, mournfully. If you like, you can read about the individual whose opinion you are disputing. William Kenneth Hartmann - Wikipedia Thank you for admitting the "science professionals" analysis is the opinion of one person. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+Hammerclaw Posted January 16, 2022 #37 Share Posted January 16, 2022 (edited) 33 minutes ago, stereologist said: Thank you for admitting the "science professionals" analysis is the opinion of one person. He was one of a group of fellow scientists and with noteworthy, impeccable credentials. He's certainly somebody whose opinion I value far more than that of any nameless nobody I might have the misfortune to encounter on the internet. Thank you ever so much for your own, uninformed, opinion. Edited January 16, 2022 by Hammerclaw Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stereologist Posted January 16, 2022 #38 Share Posted January 16, 2022 6 minutes ago, Hammerclaw said: He was one of a group of fellow scientists and with noteworthy, impeccable credentials. He's certainly somebody whose opinion I value far more than that of any nameless nobody I might have the misfortune to encounter on the internet. Thank you ever so much for your own, uninformed, opinion. All I did was point out that you purposely misrepresented the issue. I never posted anything on this subject therefore you are again wrong. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+Hammerclaw Posted January 16, 2022 #39 Share Posted January 16, 2022 4 minutes ago, stereologist said: All I did was point out that you purposely misrepresented the issue. I never posted anything on this subject therefore you are again wrong. Well thank you for admitting you contributed nothing to the discussion, only that little straw man gotcha moment that's s-o-o-o-o important to you. This coming from someone who was pounding the table about the veracity of fake yellow journal reports, of turn of last century UFOs, is particularly droll! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the13bats Posted January 17, 2022 #40 Share Posted January 17, 2022 On 1/15/2022 at 4:18 AM, ChrLzs said: What a load. And why did they crop the image????? It isn't half obvious... Did you know bruce macabee hails this one as likely real... 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChrLzs Posted January 17, 2022 #41 Share Posted January 17, 2022 1 minute ago, the13bats said: Did you know bruce macabee hails this one as likely real... I'm afraid Macca is near the top of the image analysis pretenders. He very often gets suckered, and also tends to roll out 'interesting' but completely unsupported and unsupportable pseudoscience. He rather reminds me of folks like Kevin Knuth, who posts some decent scientific stuff to well respected journals. but then he does wacky stuff like bell-curve statistical / probability analysis of a video... wth..? In both cases those folks do NOT submit their bull****-laden 'studies' to decent journals - in Kevin Knuth's case, he owns his own journal for that! .. but it's not well-respected. I might look up Maccabee's paper (was it ever peer reviewed - I think he self published... of course) for a bit of a laugh... and so we can answer the burning question: Real what? It's a real photo of a staged fake? 3 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the13bats Posted January 17, 2022 #42 Share Posted January 17, 2022 2 minutes ago, ChrLzs said: I'm afraid Macca is near the top of the image analysis pretenders. He very often gets suckered, and also tends to roll out 'interesting' but completely unsupported and unsupportable pseudoscience. He rather reminds me of folks like Kevin Knuth, who posts some decent scientific stuff to well respected journals. but then he does wacky stuff like bell-curve statistical / probability analysis of a video... wth..? In both cases those folks do NOT submit their bull****-laden 'studies' to decent journals - in Kevin Knuth's case, he owns his own journal for that! .. but it's not well-respected. I might look up Maccabee's paper (was it ever peer reviewed - I think he self published... of course) for a bit of a laugh... and so we can answer the burning question: Real what? It's a real photo of a staged fake? I made that remark being a wiseass, I place macca in with meldrum, I really laughed hard when macca was pushing that his wife while up a tree hunting hogs photographed a predator alien while it was in stealth mode, no kidding, look it up, As far as this threads pics iirc what macca said was no one was able to find evidence the item was suspended or tossed, he didnt say how he came to that end and i didnt know any of his "UFO" stuff was up for peer review. macca greatest blunder he was on board with that utterly riduculous carp Ontario "guardian" vhs tape case that included Bob Oechslers buffooning, when exposed bobby resigned from mufon who replied to the effect " good riddance." 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vorg Posted January 17, 2022 #43 Share Posted January 17, 2022 Amazing how UFO pictures like this seem to mimic UFO's from movies in every era. 2 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
astrobeing Posted January 20, 2022 #44 Share Posted January 20, 2022 On 1/16/2022 at 5:02 AM, ChrLzs said: Yes. The speed of the film was the most restricting factor, 25-100 ISO film was common, with 200 ISO available but not commonly used. Most cameras of the day were capable of shutter speeds up to 1/500 second, and there's this thing called the Sunny 16 rule... Essentially, it means that in bright daylight you will mostly get a good shot by setting the camera's aperture to f16, and then using the inverse of the ISO speed as your shutter speed. Ie, f16 with 1/100 sec will work if using 100 ISO film. As photographers know, f16 is a small aperture - so if you increase the size to f11, then the shutter speed will double to 1/200, f8 will be 1/400 sec, f5.6 will be 1/800 sec. Anything shorter than 1/200 will start to freeze moderate rates of motion, but of course it depend on how fast it's moving. PLUS, bear in mind that if you throw the object directly away from the camera instead of across the field of view, the angular motion will be b***** all and easily frozen by shutter speeds as slow as about 1/60... Given that would also make it much easier to capture in the image frame, then the angle at which it is moving is VERY important. It's interesting that the Condon report didn't consider any of these factors when it declared that the McMinnville UFO could not have been a thrown object because there was no visible motion blur. Anyone who knows anything about photography knows that fast shutter speeds can freeze motion in a photo, so the informed thing to do would have been to find out the maximum shutter speed the camera was capable of and then seeing if it could achieve that shutter speed with the film used for the photo in the conditions the photo was taken in. Instead, the "science professionals" who wrote the report simply declared that freezing motion in a photograph was impossible. 4 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
astrobeing Posted January 20, 2022 #45 Share Posted January 20, 2022 On 1/16/2022 at 8:08 AM, Hammerclaw said: He was one of a group of fellow scientists and with noteworthy, impeccable credentials. He's certainly somebody whose opinion I value far more than that of any nameless nobody I might have the misfortune to encounter on the internet. Thank you ever so much for your own, uninformed, opinion. So you're saying that you don't really understand how the Condon report came to its conclusions, and you don't really understand the glaring flaws in the report that we're talking about, so from this lack of understanding you have to assume that the conclusions in the report must all be correct because of the credentials of its author. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now