Iconic UFO photos that intrigue (me)

Copyright 2017, InterAmerica, Inc.

In the October 1978 issue of UFO Report [pictured], long-time UFO researcher Hayden Hewes provided a “scientific analysis” of the July 7, 1947 photo [below] of a UFO taken by William A. Rhoades of Phoenix, Arizona.

The photo has become iconic and discussed ad infinitum, ad eternum, ad nauseum, some would say.

The analysis via Mr. Hewes seems thorough and diligent, using “Color contouring, edge enhancement, digitized for pixels, computerized, digitized, and with a high-pass filter” the magazine indicates with examples.

There has been the usual skeptical and belief arguments about the photo, and scrutiny by a few UFO buffs who used to frequent this blog or Kevin Randle’s and comment on the photo.

What intrigues me about the photo is something I’ve mentioned about the McMinnville photos taken by farmer Paul Trent on May 11, 1950, also discussed to the point of tedium but also iconic and rife with controversy.

This photo, one of two by farmer Trent, is from ufoevidence.org:

Note the UFO or flying disk is flying overhead, askew to the ground. That is the UFO is not flying level with the ground; it’s tilted.

And if William Rhoades’ photo is genuine, his UFO (or “flying heel” with an intriguing underbelly light or spot) is also askew with the ground, flying with a tilt as if ready to zoom upwards.

You, who’ve looked at older flying saucer photos, have noticed that almost all of them show the “object” askew, some in such a weird fashion that one intuitively thinks the photos are hoaxed: no flying machine would be flying around so haphazardly.

Yet, the 1947 and 1950 photos, by Rhoades and Trent, ostensibly non-hoaxed many believe, seem to show a flying disk and “heel” not following the terrain in a serious way.

The “objects” are oblivious to the ground, as if the mission isn’t to surveil anything underneath but rather to just make an appearance, for whatever reason.

Now if both the Trent photos and the Rhoades photo are concoctions, why didn’t those who created their contrived models place them level with the ground, as it would seem a person, not throwing something in the air, would do?

The trouble that both parties went to, if they were indeed hoaxing, would call for a stabilized “craft” – not unlike that one sees when an airplane is flying over, unless …

… in the Trent case, the alleged mirror some say he used as a model for his object went atilt because of its unbalance on the purported string used to hoist the mirror into position for the faked photo(s).

As for Mr. Rhoades’ photo, if it were a thrown-in-the-air thing, then it would be askew.

Mr. Rhoades, like Paul Trent, took two photos. The first showed a cigar configuration, then we have the second shot, shown above, of the heel-like object.

The other thing that has always bothered me about the photo-taking is that both men were not privy to the objects when they first appeared.

Paul Trent was told of the sighting by his wife and had to run into the house to grab his camera and set it to take a photo when he got back outside, where he took his two shots.

Mr. Rhoades heard a “whooshing sound” as he was approaching his workshop in the rear of his house, and thinking it was a low-flying jet, grabbed his camera and ran outside to take his two snapshots.

Now, either Trent’s flying disk or Mr. Rhoades’ flying heel were both lallygagging (flying slowly and without purpose), allowing the men to snap their photos or the pictures are fake – taken with care and easily because the “objects” weren’t really going anywhere.

RR

How much more unprofessional can Ufology get?

I took the time to sit through an over two-hour podcast of a UFO personality, interviewed by a UFO personality, neither well-noted in UFO circles and certainly neither known by the public or news media in any way.

I won’t name the podcast or persons involved as they don’t deserve attention of any kind, from me or anyone.

But I will state that if you come across this podcast, you will hear an example of the kind of “madness” that I keep insisting is part and parcel of the UFO community; you will hear a metaphorical thousand “ums,” “I means,” and “ahs” interspersed with insane-like ruminations of a personal kind that indicates, to even those without a psychological background, a kind of subliminal mental upheaval that permeates Ufology and its practitioners.

I’ve been in news media for a large part of my long life, and I did a radio show in Detroit, in which I often interviewed persons.

And while I may have been funky, my guests never were. They were chosen for their ability to speak sensibly and with exquisite enunciation and loquacity.

And all of you have watched interviews with ufological notables on the many cable shows catering to UFOs or the paranormal.

You know that the persons interviewed, often not highly educated, come off as relatively articulate.

But those UFO podcasts we keep getting notices to listen to are beneath amateurish. The one I listened to today [3/31/17] was as awful as one could find.

It’s not that the podcaster hasn’t been doing this for some time. He has. And he was okay, just not smart enough to know that his guest was a dope, about UFOs and everything else he touched on.

Such podcasts further diminish ufology, by presenting the dregs of the UFO community and giving them two hours plus of air-time to spout their absurd and ridiculous ideas, and doing so like an ill-educated bum off the streets of hoboland.

It’s shameful and disheartening to hear ill-prepared and stupid people speaking for the UFO community.

Podcasters: choose your guests wisely, not just because they may be your friend.

RR