Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

SETI Institute chief offers his views on UFOs and alien visitors


Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

Apparently, you missed the part where I said I am not going through this again. And as I recall it. this person's analysis has been discussed in here twice. I ain't going for three.

So, it's ok for you to sling opinions and insult people, but not ok to then be called to account.  What a pitiful attitude.  This is a discusssion forum, and you think that's a valid tactic?  Shame on you.

I'll be back later to shred your claims, even though you are not worth the time.

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 2
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
3 hours ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

 

Think about this:

My father was one of many men on duty in the building in the background, the Salem Power Plant. There were also eyewitnesses from the neighborhood
right behind the Coast Guard Station called the Willows. Don't even think of calling my father a liar.

The photo is real

I don't think he was inferring that the photo was fake...I think he was suggesting that if the lights were as bright as the picture suggest, there would be a reflection of some sort on the cars.

During the solar eclipse, in the short period of totality...I took a picture with my camera. All it showed was a bright light similar to the ones in the photo.  Even though it was twilight.  Pictures, especially those from way back don't tell much of the story of lights in the sky unfortunately.

I don't doubt the lights were real...I just don't think there is any conclusive evidence as to what they were.

I think it's awesome that your father worked there actually.  What is that place anyway? never mind...the Salem Power Plant you already said that.

Edited by joc
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thread cleaned

Let's keep things civil and respectful please.

  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/27/2024 at 8:30 PM, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

 

Think about this:

My father was one of many men on duty in the building in the background, the Salem Power Plant. There were also eyewitnesses from the neighborhood
right behind the Coast Guard Station called the Willows. Don't even think of calling my father a liar.

The photo is real

 

On 4/27/2024 at 8:46 PM, Dejarma said:

prove it

Yes, here's a chance for eot to once prove himself not completely devoid of integrity and credibility , provecdad worked there,

Now let's watch him cop out and utterly humiliate himself

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/25/2024 at 7:27 PM, Earl.Of.Trumps said:


Well, then, you just haven't seen this one:

 

image.png.9771526a800b9ff1d5646da4cb3db88d.png

Oh this again no wonder he posts it then has a tantrum about even proving his dad worked there, since your dad isn't here and you are speaking for him and refuse to prove he was there going by your past antics here I'll just assume you are again making up stuff as you type.

This pic is one of those that true believer cling to yet I can't see why, to my untrained eye I see weird contrast etc like overexposed or something odd and that a photo expert couldn't get a good image and why only one shot?

Look how crisp like too much contrast the cars have but the rest is subdued, the lights are useless in fact to me they have that feel of a reflection on glass thru the window the pic was taken from

A very dubious lacking supporting evidence picture showing what?

It sure doesn't in any way even prove anything was even in the sky.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 2
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

image.png.9771526a800b9ff1d5646da4cb3db88d.png

 

Were there any eye witness statements taken or is this another "decades later story" ?

Im guessing that there were plenty of other people around than just one guy with a camera?

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Hazzard said:

image.png.9771526a800b9ff1d5646da4cb3db88d.png

 

Were there any eye witness statements taken or is this another "decades later story" ?

Im guessing that there were plenty of other people around than just one guy with a camera?

The only statement I can find is from the fella who actually took the photo. EoT and I discussed it in another forum but apparently he dismisses the statements from the guy who took the photo. I have yet to see anything beyond his claims his dear old dad worked nearby or whatever.

 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Hazzard said:

image.png.9771526a800b9ff1d5646da4cb3db88d.png

 

Were there any eye witness statements taken or is this another "decades later story" ?

Im guessing that there were plenty of other people around than just one guy with a camera?

At this point looks like a years later embellished by believers no witnesses nothing burger.

 

13 minutes ago, Trelane said:

The only statement I can find is from the fella who actually took the photo. EoT and I discussed it in another forum but apparently he dismisses the statements from the guy who took the photo. I have yet to see anything beyond his claims his dear old dad worked nearby or whatever.

 

How utterly humiliating to believe something that even the source of the tale says you are wrong, I would feel badly for eot.

I can not find admitting I didn't look too hard any documentation of any witnesses past the two coastguard guys Shell Alpert and Thomas Flaherty who seem a bit dubious in that my vibe is Alpert hoaxed it or knee jerked on some reflections and his buddy embarrassed for him but not wanting to make Alpert look more ridiculous down played it,

As far as members making claims about their father's working at that plant I have to go on both that members total lack of supporting any claims they make and being caught countless times out right making up stuff combined with the fact there is zero documentation online making any references that a plant worker witnessed this event, my conclusion is it's moot.

Of course the member could post links proving themselves for once.

salem picture

more on the salem nothing burger

Quote

On July 16, 1952 at 09:35 AM Coast Guard seaman Shell Alpert, took this picture of four roughly elliptical blobs of light in formation through the window of his photographic laboratory. The objects were also witnessed by Coastguardsman Thomas Flaherty. Both were assigned to the base in nearby Salem, Massachusetts. The first analysis by US Air Force's Project Blue Book concluded it was probably a double exposure hoax. A second analysis by Blue Book concluded that it was probably reflections of street lamps on a window. Finally, the case was considered unexplained by Project Blue Book.

If we are on true believer nothing burgers who remembers this one...

br55d32c79.jpg

DC hoax

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/27/2024 at 11:43 PM, joc said:

I don't think he was inferring that the photo was fake...I think he was suggesting that if the lights were as bright as the picture suggest, there would be a reflection of some sort on the cars.

During the solar eclipse, in the short period of totality...I took a picture with my camera. All it showed was a bright light similar to the ones in the photo.  Even though it was twilight.  Pictures, especially those from way back don't tell much of the story of lights in the sky unfortunately.

I don't doubt the lights were real...I just don't think there is any conclusive evidence as to what they were.

I think it's awesome that your father worked there actually.  What is that place anyway? never mind...the Salem Power Plant you already said that.


Let's not forget, the screen was in the window at that point. 

That iconic photo was in every UFO book of the 1950's and 60's. 

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Hazzard said:

image.png.9771526a800b9ff1d5646da4cb3db88d.png

 

Were there any eye witness statements taken or is this another "decades later story" ?

Im guessing that there were plenty of other people around than just one guy with a camera?


Oh, sure. I've mentioned it at least once before.

There were about 40 men per shift in the plant, most could leave their station. Also there were residents in the Willows neighborhood, that witnessed it too.
The local newspaper, The Salem Evening News, had interviewed those residents and the stories were published one at a time. That went on for months.

I can understand a little confusion about the photo lighting, but the things to remember are -  the screen was in the window when the photo was taken, 
and the digital variations of the pic didn't make it look quite right.

 

pics 1952 ufo salem coast guard station - Search (bing.com)

 

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said:


Oh, sure. I've mentioned it at least once before.

There were about 40 men per shift in the plant, most could leave their station. Also there were residents in the Willows neighborhood, that witnessed it too.
The local newspaper, The Salem Evening News, had interviewed those residents and the stories were published one at a time. That went on for months.

I can understand a little confusion about the photo lighting, but the things to remember are -  the screen was in the window when the photo was taken, 
and the digital variations of the pic didn't make it look quite right.

 

pics 1952 ufo salem coast guard station - Search (bing.com)

 

Sorry eot you epic fail yet again how humiliating

You posted nothing to back up your claims and as we well know monkey see monkey jump on bandwagon, I'm not surprised months even years later people clam they were there saw this or that with zero to support claims I saw a guy on a forum claim his father was there with zero to support the claim,

Screen in window? So what? But moot as it's just you claiming it but offering zero to prove it.

Yep, epic fail.

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
12 hours ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said:


Oh, sure. I've mentioned it at least once before.

There were about 40 men per shift in the plant, most could leave their station. Also there were residents in the Willows neighborhood, that witnessed it too.
The local newspaper, The Salem Evening News, had interviewed those residents and the stories were published one at a time. That went on for months.

This again???

You never explained why the over 200 feet of water that separates the power plant the the Coast Guard base (it's called "Cat Cove") is not visible in this photo of lights reflecting off windows.

Edited by astrobeing
  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said:


Let's not forget, the screen was in the window at that point.

Of course, because if those were glass windows then this would just be a silly photo of lights reflecting off the windows instead of alien spacecraft from the beyond the Moon! My gosh, which explanation makes more sense?

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
On 4/29/2024 at 3:11 AM, the13bats said:

Look how crisp like too much contrast the cars have but the rest is subdued, the lights are useless in fact to me they have that feel of a reflection on glass thru the window the pic was taken from

A very dubious lacking supporting evidence picture showing what?

It sure doesn't in any way even prove anything was even in the sky.

It was taken with a 4x5 camera with a 135mm lens, the equivalent of a 33mm lens on a 35mm camera. That is nearly a wide angle lens yet we're supposed to believe that this "power plant" which was over 600 feet away (across 400 feet of water) is filling an eighth of the frame.

This is a photo of the garbage incinerator that existed at the Coast Guard base. It was across the parking lot from the photo lab in which the photo was taken. That's what it shows.

Now watch Earl ignore this information and reiterate his false details about this photo that don't exist in any report.

https://www.saturdaynightuforia.com/html/articles/articlehtml/thephotographerstale.html

Edited by astrobeing
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said:


Let's not forget, the screen was in the window at that point. 

That iconic photo was in every UFO book of the 1950's and 60's

That's not saying much. Those books were only good for providing the foundation for a lot of bad storytelling and misremembering of events. 

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Trelane said:

That's not saying much. Those books were only good for providing the foundation for a lot of bad storytelling and misremembering of events. 

For a brief period UFO hoaxers stopped hanging models from telephone lines (the practice that the Trent photo started in 1950) and began shooting double exposures of white blobs in cloudy skies. I guess they had thought double exposures would look fake but the bar had been lowered greatly in 1952. Newspapers were publishing almost any photo of a UFO that didn't have an obvious wire above it.

Here's a better blob shot from Rhodesia the next year. The photographer took some care to at least give it the shape of a flying saucer but the giveaway is that no part of it is darker than the surrounding clouds. You can find several more double exposure UFO shots from the early 1950s.

Rhodesia1953.png

  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, astrobeing said:

Now watch Earl ignore this information and reiterate his false details about this photo that don't exist in any report.

Seriously how do we have a decent fact based discussion when we have members who make up stuff then toss a tantrum when simply asked to support their claims, did eot dad work there then ? We don't know does it even matter at this point? No, because we are getting the story second party decades later from a dubious source know for making up stuff.

4 hours ago, astrobeing said:

For a brief period UFO hoaxers stopped hanging models from telephone lines (the practice that the Trent photo started in 1950) and began shooting double exposures of white blobs in cloudy skies. I guess they had thought double exposures would look fake but the bar had been lowered greatly in 1952. Newspapers were publishing almost any photo of a UFO that didn't have an obvious wire above it.

Here's a better blob shot from Rhodesia the next year. The photographer took some care to at least give it the shape of a flying saucer but the giveaway is that no part of it is darker than the surrounding clouds. You can find several more double exposure UFO shots from the early 1950s.

Rhodesia1953.png

That is so very true , and this a great example of how the trends of hoaxing changed from time to time,

As far as this garbage incinerator photo at this point going on info at hand and I mean actual information not made up stuff I lean towards hoax and not just a stupid photographer being fooled by reflections etc

But I can rule out alien craft

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, the13bats said:

Seriously how do we have a decent fact based discussion when we have members who make up stuff then toss a tantrum when simply asked to support their claims, did eot dad work there then ? We don't know does it even matter at this point? No, because we are getting the story second party decades later from a dubious source know for making up stuff.

Before Earl can throw another tantrum, let me snip some actual verified information from three reports.

From the official investigation on July 16th, 1952:

Quote

Analysis was made from the original negative which was returned to the Coast Guard at their request. The results of this analysis indicated that the photo was a hoax. Extensive photographs were taken under similar conditions. Failure of the light source to cast reflections on the highly polished cars below indicated that the light was not outside and it was assumed by the analyst at the time that the photo was a double exposure and for this reason was a hoax...

...Conclusion: It is believed that the photos represent light reflections from an interior source (probably the ceiling lights) on the window through which the photo was taken. With the camera set on infinity the window would be more out of focus than the lights. The lights would still be out of focus since the distance from the lights to the window and back to the camera lens would still be shorter than the distance required for a clear picture with the lens setting on infinity. The objects outside the building would be in focus. The apparent brightness of the reflection would decrease as the photographer approached the window.

The second and only other witness Thomas Flaherty said on July 17th, 1952:

Quote

Looking out the window to the North West there appeared to be what was thought to be a quick flash. I actually could not say that it was anything. It could have been reflections from passing cars or from the ocean.

From Donald L. Boyer, USAF on August 28th, 1952:

Quote

The central point in question is the apparent brightness of the 4 objects coupled with the total absence of any corresponding highlights or reflections of these objects from the automobiles in the picture. The brightness of these objects would appear to be of the same order of magnitude as the reflections of the sun in the chromium bumpers and trim of the automobiles.

Nothing Earl says about this event is supported by any documentation. No one reported forty witnesses, no one reported seeing actual physical objects, and there was not a series of articles in the local newspaper about it. This is another disproved case with a mundane explanation and the photograph isn't even all that good.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
41 minutes ago, astrobeing said:

Before Earl can throw another tantrum, let me snip some actual verified information from three reports.

From the official investigation on July 16th, 1952:

The second and only other witness Thomas Flaherty said on July 17th, 1952:

From Donald L. Boyer, USAF on August 28th, 1952:

Nothing Earl says about this event is supported by any documentation. No one reported forty witnesses, no one reported seeing actual physical objects, and there was not a series of articles in the local newspaper about it. This is another disproved case with a mundane explanation and the photograph isn't even all that good.

Many thanx!

I'm not feeling great so lazy in research today , I'm not bashing eot and not even knee jerking to call him a troll but it's very odd to me that he does for fact make up stuff, like his gellar tonight show account it was total fictional and when called out to support his claims he cops out,
When he stirs mud into the water of these discussions it gets to the point of ruining the whole discussion.

With everything you have posted there is little doubt at all that this was a hoax perpetrated by a bored coastguardsmen for a bit of fun and attention, I've seen these reflection type photos look far better.

Edit to add, reflection and or double exposure pics.

Edited by the13bats
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, the13bats said:

Sorry eot you epic fail yet again how humiliating

You posted nothing to back up your claims and as we well know monkey see monkey jump on bandwagon, I'm not surprised months even years later people clam they were there saw this or that with zero to support claims I saw a guy on a forum claim his father was there with zero to support the claim,

Screen in window? So what? But moot as it's just you claiming it but offering zero to prove it.

Yep, epic fail.

If it isn't bats the liar!

I have the info in another thread on this matter that I put up in here at UM long before you arrived. 
Bluebook said the objects were a reflection in the window, and were promptly told by the Coast Guard that the window was taken out for the summer, and a screen put in.

The screen in the window will collect some of the light and make objects in the photo take on a false sheen. So, ya, it maters. 

Don't you feel silly for getting caught lying? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, astrobeing said:

This again???

You never explained why the over 200 feet of water that separates the power plant the the Coast Guard base (it's called "Cat Cove") is not visible in this photo of lights reflecting off windows.

I was never asked.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
8 hours ago, astrobeing said:

Of course, because if those were glass windows then this would just be a silly photo of lights reflecting off the windows instead of alien spacecraft from the beyond the Moon! My gosh, which explanation makes more sense?

oh, so it makes more sense to put the glass in the window in the dead of Summer (July)?? and then put the screen back in in the winter?? 

Great idea, astrobeing. In either event, we are told by the Coast Guard that the screen was in place when the photo was taken,
and even if the window was in place at the time of the incident, are you  going to say that about 60 witnesses all lied to the police?? (1 was a cop)

Sure you will!!!! It works good in your world

Edited by Earl.Of.Trumps
  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
27 minutes ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

If it isn't bats the liar!

I have the info in another thread on this matter that I put up in here at UM long before you arrived. 
Bluebook said the objects were a reflection in the window, and were promptly told by the Coast Guard that the window was taken out for the summer, and a screen put in.

The screen in the window will collect some of the light and make objects in the photo take on a false sheen. So, ya, it maters. 

Don't you feel silly for getting caught lying? 

 

You really are so pathetic your are resorting to a toddler like ",I know you are but what am I?" Defense thinking it will smoke and mirror cover the fact you still have not posted evidence, proof to support your your claims, how utterly humiliating for you.

Now post your evidence.

 

Edited by the13bats
  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

oh, so it makes more sense to put the glass in the window in the dead of Summer (July)?? and then put the screen back in in the winter?? 

Great idea, astrobeing. In either event, we are told by the Coast Guard that the screen was in place when the photo was taken,
and even of the window was in place at the time of the incident, are you  going to say that about 60 witnesses all lied to the police?? 

Sure you will!!!! It works good in your world

So which is it? Window, screen or both? You can't keep your own lies straight,

When did these coastguard guys talk to you?

What 60 witnesses?

You really do make it up as you type. Busted again.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, the13bats said:

 

You really are so pathetic your are resorting to a toddler like ",I know you are but what I'm I?" Defense thinking it will smoke and mirror cover the fact you still have not posted evidence, proof to support your your claims, how utterly humiliating for you.

Now post your evidence.

 

I ^claim^ your IQ is lower than your shirt size. As for evidence, all one has to do is read what you are writing and asking for.

  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.