3 ms·

Absolutely nuts: https://catalog.archives.gov/id/305558927 https://catalog.archives.gov/id/305558927 Though, I'm not sure how good finishing technology was bac

by tomrod 2y ago

Absolutely nuts: https://catalog.archives.gov/id/305558927 https://catalog.archives.gov/id/305558927 Though, I'm not sure how good finishing technology was back then, this could have been faked. I really wonder why we can't get a clear answer on whether these are really extraterrestrial or just advanced tech. One would imagine if it were a conspiracy that it would have leaked in full by now.

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
MetaWhirledPeas 2y ago
That looks like some hubcaps hanging from the trees by a fishing line.
- ukuina 2y ago
  Yeah, modern sci-fi has embraced sharp aerodynamics so extensively that saucers now seem laughably fake.
- tomrod 2y ago
  Great catch. Shadows look off too -- shadow as presented looks like sun is late afternoon, but the grass looks closer to noon.
ghc 2y ago
That photo is so perfectly framed, I think it has to have been faked. I bet the "disk" was probably hung from a tree and the fishing wire was just invisible to the camera.
- awesome_dude 2y ago
  Look, the photographer just happened to be setting up a photo of a random spot in the woods. It was pure chance that a UFO entered the view, and stayed still enough to not distort in the photo in any way. Don't spoil the magic!!!!!!
losteric 2y ago
What do you mean by “clear answer”? How would you definitively prove this is fake or real? Some photo might be proven to be eg distant lights or inconstant lighting… but a bespoke prop and old / bad cameras? we can only say “it looks super fake”
- tomrod 2y ago
  Noted. Also, I need better glasses -- the reminder is appreciated :)
- 1970-01-01 2y ago
  >How would you definitively prove this is fake or real? What's old is new again. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Billy_Meier#Photographs,_films:~:text=Just%20because%20photographs%20are%20real%20%E2%80%93%20ie%20real%20images%20made%20with%20a%20real%20camera%20%E2%80%93%20doesn%27t%20mean%20they%20are%20of%20what%20the%20person%20says%20they%27re%20of.%22 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Billy_Meier#Photographs,_films...
- lutusp 2y ago
  > What do you mean by “clear answer”? How would you definitively prove this is fake or real? Most UFO/UAP lore relies on the impossibility of proving a negative, which BTW is a recognized logical fallacy. I normally say it this way: * A pseudoscientist assumes a theory is true until it's proven false. * A scientist assumes a theory is false until it's proven true.
  - tomrod 2y ago
    I don't think a scientist assumes a theory is false until it is proven true. I think a scientist thinks about how to capture data, and enough of it, to position evidence to a theory. By necessity that means the scientist must be open to the theory being either true or false before testing. But they must be willing to pre-register what the experiment would say. And, of course, healthy skepticism is required. The scientific method requires replication, and there are events in the universe that are inherently long-tailed and leave little trace evidence. That doesn't make their observers crazy or pseudo-scientists. There are some weird things out in this wide universe of ours that happen on the tails of observability.
nullorempty 2y ago
Or advanced extraterrestrial tech :) How 'bout a photo from july 1975 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Billy_Meier#/media/File:Billy_Meier_UFO_66.jpg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Billy_Meier#/media/File:Billy_...
- bigyabai 2y ago
  > According to Meier, the Plejaren gave him permission to photograph and film their beamships so that he could produce evidence of their extraterrestrial visitations. ...but not photograph any of them, of course. These "Plejaren" sound suspiciously indistinct from Second Directorate goons.
random3 2y ago
It’d be so interesting to correlate the occurrence object types with the sci-fi trends in contemporary trends books/movies. E.g. saucers are less trendy these days
ivape 2y ago
That one has to be faked. It matches the design of what people expected around that time, cars had the same aesthetic.
bigyabai 2y ago
The more interesting stuff is the stuff that spooks the Pentagon: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentagon_UFO_videos https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentagon_UFO_videos Still not your concrete proof of alien craft, but the Navy FLIR footage has always spooked me a lot more than the 1960s Roswell-era stuff.
- willsoon 2y ago
  It's all fake, just a prop to distract people with a poor judgment so the people with highest minds, like us, from raising a revolution against tyranny. Or sort of that.
quuxplusone 2y ago
That photo series in particular is well-debunked. See: https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/57629/whats-the-origin-of-wikipedias-stock-ufo-image-nara-naid-303938034/ https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/57629/whats-the... > These are known to be Paul Villa’s UFO photographs from 1964 and are part of a larger narrative where he claimed contact with extraterrestrial beings. [...] > > How these photographs wound up in the Goddard Space Flight Center records collection is unknown. https://xcancel.com/humansareindef1/status/1758152485305512156 https://xcancel.com/humansareindef1/status/17581524853055121... > Initial observations: narrow focal depth...object sharpness in front of trees implies it's small, around 8 to 12 in. > > Vented disc brake rotors were introduced in the 60s, patented in 1929. This looks like a vented disc brake rotor with a domed hubcap on top. Compare the images. (Click through to either the Twitter thread or the StackExchange quotation-of-the-Twitter-thread to see the images of the original hubcap and the "UFO" side by side.)
- tomrod 2y ago
  I freaking love the HN commenters and community. Thanks for sharing the takedowns with me.
- CrimsonCape 2y ago
  It's obviously someone a few feet from the camera tossing the hubcap into the air. When you focus a SLR camera "to infinity", ie. the maximum settable focus for distant objects, the lens has an actual physical distance at which things will still be focused. Usually it's like 50 feet from the camera. So when the camera lens is focused to infinity, things >= 50 feet away will be in focus. Because the trees are slightly out of focus, the lens has been set shallower than infinity, which means the UFO is closer to the camera than the physical infinity (50'). It's physically impossible for an object more distant than the trees to be in focus without the trees being in focus.

by tomrod 2y ago

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

MetaWhirledPeas 2y ago

That looks like some hubcaps hanging from the trees by a fishing line.

ukuina 2y ago
Yeah, modern sci-fi has embraced sharp aerodynamics so extensively that saucers now seem laughably fake.
tomrod 2y ago
Great catch. Shadows look off too -- shadow as presented looks like sun is late afternoon, but the grass looks closer to noon.

ghc 2y ago

That photo is so perfectly framed, I think it has to have been faked. I bet the "disk" was probably hung from a tree and the fishing wire was just invisible to the camera.

awesome_dude 2y ago
Look, the photographer just happened to be setting up a photo of a random spot in the woods. It was pure chance that a UFO entered the view, and stayed still enough to not distort in the photo in any way. Don't spoil the magic!!!!!!

losteric 2y ago

What do you mean by “clear answer”? How would you definitively prove this is fake or real? Some photo might be proven to be eg distant lights or inconstant lighting… but a bespoke prop and old / bad cameras? we can only say “it looks super fake”

tomrod 2y ago
Noted. Also, I need better glasses -- the reminder is appreciated :)
1970-01-01 2y ago
>How would you definitively prove this is fake or real? What's old is new again. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Billy_Meier#Photographs,_films:~:text=Just%20because%20photographs%20are%20real%20%E2%80%93%20ie%20real%20images%20made%20with%20a%20real%20camera%20%E2%80%93%20doesn%27t%20mean%20they%20are%20of%20what%20the%20person%20says%20they%27re%20of.%22 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Billy_Meier#Photographs,_films...
lutusp 2y ago
> What do you mean by “clear answer”? How would you definitively prove this is fake or real? Most UFO/UAP lore relies on the impossibility of proving a negative, which BTW is a recognized logical fallacy. I normally say it this way: * A pseudoscientist assumes a theory is true until it's proven false. * A scientist assumes a theory is false until it's proven true.
- tomrod 2y ago
  I don't think a scientist assumes a theory is false until it is proven true. I think a scientist thinks about how to capture data, and enough of it, to position evidence to a theory. By necessity that means the scientist must be open to the theory being either true or false before testing. But they must be willing to pre-register what the experiment would say. And, of course, healthy skepticism is required. The scientific method requires replication, and there are events in the universe that are inherently long-tailed and leave little trace evidence. That doesn't make their observers crazy or pseudo-scientists. There are some weird things out in this wide universe of ours that happen on the tails of observability.

nullorempty 2y ago

Or advanced extraterrestrial tech :) How 'bout a photo from july 1975 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Billy_Meier#/media/File:Billy_Meier_UFO_66.jpg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Billy_Meier#/media/File:Billy_...

bigyabai 2y ago
> According to Meier, the Plejaren gave him permission to photograph and film their beamships so that he could produce evidence of their extraterrestrial visitations. ...but not photograph any of them, of course. These "Plejaren" sound suspiciously indistinct from Second Directorate goons.

random3 2y ago

It’d be so interesting to correlate the occurrence object types with the sci-fi trends in contemporary trends books/movies. E.g. saucers are less trendy these days

ivape 2y ago

That one has to be faked. It matches the design of what people expected around that time, cars had the same aesthetic.

bigyabai 2y ago

The more interesting stuff is the stuff that spooks the Pentagon: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentagon_UFO_videos https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentagon_UFO_videos Still not your concrete proof of alien craft, but the Navy FLIR footage has always spooked me a lot more than the 1960s Roswell-era stuff.

willsoon 2y ago
It's all fake, just a prop to distract people with a poor judgment so the people with highest minds, like us, from raising a revolution against tyranny. Or sort of that.

quuxplusone 2y ago

That photo series in particular is well-debunked. See: https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/57629/whats-the-origin-of-wikipedias-stock-ufo-image-nara-naid-303938034/ https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/57629/whats-the... > These are known to be Paul Villa’s UFO photographs from 1964 and are part of a larger narrative where he claimed contact with extraterrestrial beings. [...] > > How these photographs wound up in the Goddard Space Flight Center records collection is unknown. https://xcancel.com/humansareindef1/status/1758152485305512156 https://xcancel.com/humansareindef1/status/17581524853055121... > Initial observations: narrow focal depth...object sharpness in front of trees implies it's small, around 8 to 12 in. > > Vented disc brake rotors were introduced in the 60s, patented in 1929. This looks like a vented disc brake rotor with a domed hubcap on top. Compare the images. (Click through to either the Twitter thread or the StackExchange quotation-of-the-Twitter-thread to see the images of the original hubcap and the "UFO" side by side.)

tomrod 2y ago
I freaking love the HN commenters and community. Thanks for sharing the takedowns with me.
CrimsonCape 2y ago
It's obviously someone a few feet from the camera tossing the hubcap into the air. When you focus a SLR camera "to infinity", ie. the maximum settable focus for distant objects, the lens has an actual physical distance at which things will still be focused. Usually it's like 50 feet from the camera. So when the camera lens is focused to infinity, things >= 50 feet away will be in focus. Because the trees are slightly out of focus, the lens has been set shallower than infinity, which means the UFO is closer to the camera than the physical infinity (50'). It's physically impossible for an object more distant than the trees to be in focus without the trees being in focus.