• NEW! LOWEST RATES EVER -- SUPPORT THE SHOW AND ENJOY THE VERY BEST PREMIUM PARACAST EXPERIENCE! Welcome to The Paracast+, eight years young! For a low subscription fee, you can download the ad-free version of The Paracast and the exclusive, member-only, After The Paracast bonus podcast, featuring color commentary, exclusive interviews, the continuation of interviews that began on the main episode of The Paracast. We also offer lifetime memberships! Flash! Take advantage of our lowest rates ever! Act now! It's easier than ever to susbcribe! You can sign up right here!

    Subscribe to The Paracast Newsletter!

Fight Over UFO Photos Pits Family Versus Newspaper (Trent Photos)

Forums New posts

Free episodes:

Thanks for the link, that makes me angry as hell. The paper has absolutely no right to those negatives, they are clearly the property of the family, and if I had the money, I would sue the paper and demand they return the negatives. On the other hand, you would hope the family would do something more significant with them besides just shoving them in a safety deposit box. People are strange.

dB
 
David Biedny said:
On the other hand, you would hope the family would do something more significant with them besides just shoving them in a safety deposit box. People are strange.

dB
Click to expand...

Possible shame felt by the family over those photos? Shame from the knowledge that they were faked?

Just throwing it out there. Either they were faked, or they are some of the best photos of a flying disk ever taken. As you said David, very strange indeed to do what they are doing if the latter is true.

But then again people are just weird.
 
I'll tell you what - I would bet anything that those are genuine photos of a UFO. They're not faked, in fact, I think they're two of the best UFO photos in existence. I've read Bruce's analysis, which is spot on, and I totally agree with his conclusions. My $0.02, for what it's worth.

dB
 
David Biedny said:
I'll tell you what - I would bet anything that those are genuine photos of a UFO. They're not faked, in fact, I think they're two of the best UFO photos in existence. I've read Bruce's analysis, which is spot on, and I totally agree with his conclusions. My $0.02, for what it's worth.

dB
Click to expand...

I have to admit that these are 2 of the "WOW" photos for me after reading Dr. Bruce M's analysis. There are such precious few "wow" pictures, are there not?

Here is my question when it comes to folks like these people. What did they have to gain by lying about this? Why would they fake this? How could they fake this (Bruce M explains how so that is no longer a question). But you get even the "pros" like Stan and Paul Kimball and the like. What do they have to gain from deceit? Now I am talking about the real guys. The fakers are self evident to anyone with half a brain.
 
Wotta buncha crap, the paper hanging on to these negatives now. I do hope that possession won't prove to be 9/10 of the law in this case. Bah.
 
The McMinnville photos are classics, I think, in UFOlogy. I don't think they've ever been "debunked".
I hope the family regains possession of the negatives.
 
Mr. Hummer said:
The McMinnville photos are classics, I think, in UFOlogy. I don't think they've ever been "debunked".
I hope the family regains possession of the negatives.
Click to expand...


Best the debunkers do is point at a scratch on one of the photos and say it's a string.

It's a pity video of clear disc shaped craft is rare. They sure turn up a lot in still photos though.
 
David Biedny said:
Thanks for the link, that makes me angry as hell. The paper has absolutely no right to those negatives, they are clearly the property of the family, and if I had the money, I would sue the paper and demand they return the negatives. On the other hand, you would hope the family would do something more significant with them besides just shoving them in a safety deposit box. People are strange.

dB
Click to expand...

David's right. YOU take the pictures, the negatives belong to YOU.

If YOU'RE dead, your family gets them back. The paper already made tons of money selling "thousands of photographs", they should be gracious and give the negatives back. If they want to hang on to prints to preserve posterity, they should still have to ask the family to put them in a museum.

Somebody ought to sue that paper's ass off.
 
Aaron LeClair said:
Best the debunkers do is point at a scratch on one of the photos and say it's a string.

It's a pity video of clear disc shaped craft is rare. They sure turn up a lot in still photos though.
Click to expand...

Well, their arguments are a bit better than that, but they do contend the possibility of fabrication, notably with a string. And while I don't know much about the technicalities of photography, I wonder what some of you experts think about this skeptical look at the photos.

http://www.debunker.com/texts/trent1969.html

Maccabee is pretty darn good, but he has been duped before as well. Please don't take this wrong, just saying their are always two sides to the story (at least 2).

Either way, the photos belong with the family. Sadly, even if they end up never seen again.
 
TClaeys said:
Well, their arguments are a bit better than that, but they do contend the possibility of fabrication, notably with a string. And while I don't know much about the technicalities of photography, I wonder what some of you experts think about this skeptical look at the photos.

http://www.debunker.com/texts/trent1969.html

Maccabee is pretty darn good, but he has been duped before as well. Please don't take this wrong, just saying their are always two sides to the story (at least 2).

Either way, the photos belong with the family. Sadly, even if they end up never seen again.
Click to expand...


Robert Sheaffer's never been duped or incorrect?

In regards to Bruce being duped, what case or cases are you referring to ?
 
Back
Top