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

3 minutes ago, the13bats said:

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.

I think your brain sprung a leak

go play in traffic

ta ta

  • Haha 1
  • Confused 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

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.

Childish ad hominem lame attempt at insult aside ,

You have yet to post any evidence to support your made up claims.

1 hour ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

I think your brain sprung a leak

go play in traffic

ta ta

And yet more childish attacks and zero to support your made up claims.

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

On 4/28/2024 at 1:43 PM, joc said:

if the lights were as bright as the picture suggest, there would be a reflection of some sort on the cars.

Exactly.  And I have no intention of spending any more time on another thread polluted with EoT's insults and attitude.  If anyone else needs further info, feel free.

To summarise, those 'blotches' are NOT in the sky above the cars.

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

On 4/30/2024 at 5:50 PM, the13bats said:

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.

Hey, we're up to sixty witnesses now! It was only forty last time. And the official reports stated exactly two witnesses and the witness that wasn't behind the camera says all he saw was a flash.

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

On 4/30/2024 at 5:38 PM, 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??

Earl thinks windows don't have glass in them during the summer.

He also doesn't know that many windows have both glass and screens.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/30/2024 at 5:33 PM, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

I was never asked.

I asked you the last time you posted this completely debunked story and you ignored me. Look it up: Cat Cove was between the Coast Guard station and the power plant over 600 feet away yet all we see are a few parked cars.

Now go back to ignoring this gigantic hole in your story.

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

1 minute ago, astrobeing said:

Earl thinks windows don't have glass in them during the summer.

He also doesn't know that many windows have both glass and screens.

And Astrobeing does not know the window technology of the time which -in many cases, went like this:

You had an in-place window, to which one could install the glass or the screen but not both. 
So install the screen and put the glass into storage, and mark which window it goes to. In the Fall,
take the screen  out, install the glass, and mark and store the screen section, "rinse and repeat"

  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, ChrLzs said:

Exactly.  And I have no intention of spending any more time on another thread polluted with EoT's insults and attitude.  If anyone else needs further info, feel free.

To summarise, those 'blotches' are NOT in the sky above the cars.


The light is hitting the screen, Einstein

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

And Astrobeing does not know the window technology of the time which -in many cases, went like this:

You had an in-place window, to which one could install the glass or the screen but not both. 
So install the screen and put the glass into storage, and mark which window it goes to. In the Fall,
take the screen  out, install the glass, and mark and store the screen section, "rinse and repeat"

The double-hung windows in my house are over a hundred years old. You raise the glass window and put a screen insert in. To close the window you remove the screen insert and close the window.

You really think people had nothing but screens in their windows all summer during cold nights and heavy rain storms?

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

18 minutes ago, astrobeing said:

Hey, we're up to sixty witnesses now! It was only forty last time. And the official reports stated exactly two witnesses and the witness that wasn't behind the camera says all he saw was a flash.

No no no.

Read the original thread and you will see that the Coast Gardsman said (roughly) that when he first saw the objects, ,he ran to get his camera.
On the way back, he notified his workmate. When he got back to the window, the objects were darkened,, so he waited for them to brighten up, and when they, he snapped the photo.

Witnesses: Yu don't think Project Bluebook is going to go look for witnesses, do you? Caramba, Bluebook is there to cover it all up, as best they could.

I would say 40 in the Salem Power Plant, the building in the background, and another 25 in the Willows neighborhood behind the photogtapher.
 

 

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

26 minutes ago, astrobeing said:

I asked you the last time you posted this completely debunked story and you ignored me. Look it up: Cat Cove was between the Coast Guard station and the power plant over 600 feet away yet all we see are a few parked cars.

Now go back to ignoring this gigantic hole in your story.

There is nothing wrong with the photo

the autos are in the parking lot on Winter Island. I have no idea what you are complaining about. I do know the photo is 73 years old and NOBODY ever busted it.

it is a genuine photo. If you feel the issue is not settled, show me what you found out. further,

it is NOT my story, and it has never been debunked. 

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

23 minutes ago, astrobeing said:

The double-hung windows in my house are over a hundred years old. You raise the glass window and put a screen insert in. To close the window you remove the screen insert and close the window.

You really think people had nothing but screens in their windows all summer during cold nights and heavy rain storms?

Oh, there was a main glass window, too. of course. it usually had 6 small panes. but the rest is the same.

Now, truly, i really do not wish to debate this with you. The US Coast Guard said the glass was out of the window.
If you think you can disprove that, go ahead. What I will need from you though, is a picture taken from the same spot, in the same direction. 

ciao

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

2 minutes ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

Read the original thread and you will see that the Coast Gardsman said (roughly) that when he first saw the objects, ,he ran to get his camera.
On the way back, he notified his workmate. When he got back to the window, the objects were darkened,, so he waited for them to brighten up, and when they, he snapped the photo.

I'm reading the original reports from people who investigated it, not the words of an Internet rando decades after it.

3 minutes ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

Witnesses: Yu don't think Project Bluebook is going to go look for witnesses, do you? Caramba, Bluebook is there to cover it all up, as best they could.

In dozens of other investigations Project Bluebook went around neighborhoods knocking on doors, so yes Project Bluebook did regularly look for additional witnesses. And if they had existed we would have their accounts of what they saw in newspaper articles. We don't and you don't therefore they never existed.

6 minutes ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

I would say 40 in the Salem Power Plant, the building in the background, and another 25 in the Willows neighborhood behind the photogtapher.

Behind the photographer??? The Coast Guard base was on the south coast of Winter Island. According to the photographer he was facing northwest so what was behind the photographer was the South Channel of the Atlantic Ocean. For Willows to be behind the photographer, he would have to be taking a photo directly south towards Salem Harbor. You don't even know which direction is which in this case.

And sure you would say that because you keep increasing the number of make-believe witnesses. Why do you think making the numbers larger is going to convince us of anything other than you're lying?

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

3 minutes ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

Now, truly, i really do not wish to debate this with you. The US Coast Guard said the glass was out of the window.

No, they said there was glass in the window. Their report of July 16th, 1952 said that the four light sources in the photo...

"represent light reflections from an interior source (probably the ceiling lights) on the window through which the photo was taken."

This completely explained why they were out of focus when the lens was focused at infinity (they were just feet away from the camera) and why there are no reflections of these intense light sources on the cars outside.

And that my friend was how experts debunked the photo through examination and how the case was closed.

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

16 minutes ago, astrobeing said:

I'm reading the original reports from people who investigated it, not the words of an Internet rando decades after it.

bass-ackwards. You have not shown your evidence but the military historical society article that was recently released is bogus as heck. Why don't you show it.
my original thread is here at UM but to go full blown in this thread would be wrongful and I am not sure I would want to revive the old thread. but I can tell you this...
The Salem Evening News interviewed many witnesses and 0 one at a time, placed their stories into the paper. They are still in operation, and that will prove to you 
that you are wrong, flat out WRONG. The photo was not immediately released so I don't know when this got written up my the media.

Now, , my father was an employee in that power plant and was on duty when the incident happened, many workers ran to the window, some went up on the roof.
And I am telling you, my father told my older brother all about it, and even told him about the AirForce getting caught lying, by saying it was a reflection.

one last word.., a worker friend of my father, who went up to the roof, took a photo of the "reflection" from up there. 

Like I said... bass-ackwards.

 

16 minutes ago, astrobeing said:

In dozens of other investigations Project Bluebook went around neighborhoods knocking on doors, so yes Project Bluebook did regularly look for additional witnesses. And if they had existed we would have their accounts of what they saw in newspaper articles. We don't and you don't therefore they never existed.

You're lying, whether or not you realize it. Project Bluebook NEVER interviewed any witnesses outside the two Coastguardsmen.
I think you watched too much of the TV program. Lie...? jeepers, that's their middle name.

 

16 minutes ago, astrobeing said:

Behind the photographer??? The Coast Guard base was on the south coast of Winter Island. According to the photographer he was facing northwest so what was behind the photographer was the South Channel of the Atlantic Ocean. For Willows to be behind the photographer, he would have to be taking a photo directly south towards Salem Harbor. You don't even know which direction is which in this case.

No. I know that to get to Winter Island you have drive right past the power plant on your right, for about a quarter mile maybe, and take a right. and if you go on the island, 
it is natural that the power plant will be in front of you, as is shown in the photo. there are houses to the left and right, and behind the photographer, but not on the island.
 

16 minutes ago, astrobeing said:

And sure you would say that because you keep increasing the number of make-believe witnesses. Why do you think making the numbers larger is going to convince us of anything other than you're lying?

You're lying again. I have been steady about that all along, although I have separated the two groups - power plant employees and residents of the neighborhood.
35 or so in one group, and who knows - 30 in the other.

Here's one for YOU.
when Bluebook first announced that what was in the photo was a reflection, they admitted that they did not know what they were a reflection of. 

Care to debate it?

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

34 minutes ago, astrobeing said:

No, they said there was glass in the window. Their report of July 16th, 1952 said that the four light sources in the photo...

"represent light reflections from an interior source (probably the ceiling lights) on the window through which the photo was taken."

This completely explained why they were out of focus when the lens was focused at infinity (they were just feet away from the camera) and why there are no reflections of these intense light sources on the cars outside.

And that my friend was how experts debunked the photo through examination and how the case was closed.

you just don't get it do you.

when they first said that they solved the situation by saying they were reflections in the glass, the Coast Guard immediately said that the glass was NOT in the window when the incident happened.

The photo as never debunked, the two Coastguardsmen never altered their story. the information you have is bogus. and belated.

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

4 hours ago, ChrLzs said:

Exactly.  And I have no intention of spending any more time on another thread polluted with EoT's insults and attitude.  If anyone else needs further info, feel free.

To summarise, those 'blotches' are NOT in the sky above the cars.

I'm really not interested in the eot smoke and mirrors make up bs as he types then tantrums when ask for support of his bogus claims comedy but.

However, I am interested in which trick this hoax photo used, double exposure or reflected lights, if you feel like giving me your opinion I would very much appreciate it.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, the13bats said:

However, I am interested in which trick this hoax photo used, double exposure or reflected lights, if you feel like giving me your opinion I would very much appreciate it.

A good question!  I have limited experience in darkroom trickery, but I'll make a few comments, make of them what you will...

First, the 'things' are blocked white, in other words they are overexposed and lacking any useful detail.  If you look at the rest of the image, there are very few areas that are similarly as 'blown', ie featureless bright white.

The image itself looks weird, sort of like it was shot in that light you get near dusk, when the sun is shining through a hole in the clouds.  So it is hard to know what the 'base' exposure was.. it could even be a moonlit time exposure!

Of concern is the fact that image has a dotty texture, as if it was scanned off a magazine print.  Puzzling.
Because the blobs have no internal detail anywhere there are no real clues about whether they were a bank of lights inside the room reflecting in the glass, or simply something done in the darkroom, with a torch.

I lean slightly towards the latter, and I do invite people to examine the magnified shots I posted earlier and look at the cars.  If the things were in the sky, whether close to the building, in front of the cars or more distant behind them, those many highly polished curved and flat surfaces of the cars would definitely show a reflection of the lights.  They don't, not a trace.  So they were NOT outside.

How they were done (I doubt it was an accidental shot), I don't know, and I expect only one person ever did - and they are likely passed away now...

 

(Earl, this is how you debate and discuss.  Try it sometime.)

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

BTW, I think there's a bit more yet to be uncovered in this story, and I might be back later to try to pin this location down and find out exactly where this was taken.  Are they really power station smokestacks or the alleged Salem Coastguard incinerator...

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, ChrLzs said:

BTW, I think there's a bit more yet to be uncovered in this story, and I might be back later to try to pin this location down and find out exactly where this was taken.  Are they really power station smokestacks or the alleged Salem Coastguard incinerator...

Ty, I greatly enjoy actually discussing these topics and possibilities and learning from those who know more than I do.

I see the scanned from magazine grain you spoke of, do you have any guess why the smokestack building looks subdued and the cars kind of pop, I'm a novice in photography analysis but almost seems tampered with to my eyes,

The light blobs are nothing to me and prove aliens about as much as my flashlight

 

 

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

you just don't get it do you.

when they first said that they solved the situation by saying they were reflections in the glass, the Coast Guard immediately said that the glass was NOT in the window when the incident happened.

This is not stated in any report. The report I quoted stated that there was glass in the window. You're lying. Again.

And it's utterly ridiculous to think that a government office would only have a screen covering a window even during summer. I lived in the Northeast for three years and every summer we had powerful storms with heavy rain and strong winds. I can only imagine how much rain would blast through a bug screen right on the Atlantic coast! Not to mention the office would be chilly 50F when people came into work most of the summer.

So yes I do get it and you don't.

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

15 hours ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

No. I know that to get to Winter Island you have drive right past the power plant on your right, for about a quarter mile maybe, and take a right. and if you go on the island, 

it is natural that the power plant will be in front of you, as is shown in the photo. there are houses to the left and right, and behind the photographer, but not on the island.

You definitely don't know Winter Island in the real world. The Willows neighborhood is north of Winter Island. The power plant is west of Winter Island. North and west are perpendicular to each other.

 

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

12 hours ago, ChrLzs said:

The image itself looks weird, sort of like it was shot in that light you get near dusk, when the sun is shining through a hole in the clouds.  So it is hard to know what the 'base' exposure was.. it could even be a moonlit time exposure!

The photographer claimed it was 1/50th of a second at f4.7 on Kodak Super XX (ISO 200) 4x5 sheet film. This corresponds to EV 9 which is a very dark day indeed. That's four stops darker than a typical cloudy day so it's likely that it was shot through both a reflective window glass and a screen.

For fun I just pointed my light meter through an open window with a screen. The screen removed less than one stop of light! I guess I'll keep using my ND filters.

12 hours ago, ChrLzs said:

Of concern is the fact that image has a dotty texture, as if it was scanned off a magazine print.  Puzzling.

I thought it might be caused by shooting through a screen. An "Learning Photography" book that Kodak published in the 1960s showed how you could create this kind of effect by putting a thin screen mesh in front of the lens. But I don't think that's it because we shouldn't see the screen with the lens stopped down to just f4.7 and focused at infinity assuming the window was just a few feet away from the lens.

12 hours ago, ChrLzs said:

I lean slightly towards the latter, and I do invite people to examine the magnified shots I posted earlier and look at the cars.  If the things were in the sky, whether close to the building, in front of the cars or more distant behind them, those many highly polished curved and flat surfaces of the cars would definitely show a reflection of the lights.  They don't, not a trace.  So they were NOT outside.

There are many ways to create this effect both in camera and in the darkroom. Clearly a lot of photographers in the early 1950s realized this because several more famous UFO photos with the same white blobs were published soon after this one. The one taken in Rhodesia is the best (I think) since it's the one that sort of has the familiar shape of a flying saucer that everyone expected. Good effort.

I like the idea of double exposing sheet film. If you screw up then you throw that exposure in the trash and try again just like hoaxers delete the photo on their cameras now. Double exposure leaves absolutely no trace of manipulation on the negative so it's sure to be declared "genuine".

  • Like 6
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

A quick shout to astrobeing - your answers and points are absolutely spot on - and it's great to have someone here who actually knows the area...  My life is a bit on the busy side at the moment so I'm struggling to find time to battle the you-know-what from Earl and others.  So I really appreciate it when I call back in to UM, and find the stuff I was going to do or say is already being done.  Thanks!

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So next time one of the believers ask me why I come here if I dont believe in ET visitation... Im going to link to this page.

Learning new stuff is awesome.

Thanks guys.

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 3
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.