Ron James UFO crashed UFO pictures

[Mendel]

Closed? What do they mean by close a case?

https://www.oregonmufon.com/PDFs/OMInvestigatorsGuide.pdf

 

[FatPhil]

While contemplating attending the McMinnville UFO festival this year I looked at the speakers from the last few events. I noted some of them where MUFON people:

View attachment 69696

Another MUFON hit:

https://twitter.com/onwinges?lang=en

jennifer w stein
@onwinges

Jennifer W Stein, Is a graduate of the University of Arizona in Textiles. She is a state section director MUFON. Jennifer is a documentary film maker.

According to IMDb, she's known for producing that terrible /Accidental Truth/ "documentary" mentioned upthread. And a movie about her co-speaker at your event. Such a tight-knit community they've got there.

 

[MyMatesBrainwashed]

Is there anyone in MUFON that isn't a film maker?

 

[jarlrmai]

Surely someone needs to do a Louis Theroux type documentary on this whole scene.

 

[jdog]

Agree. Unless it's a quirk of ET technology that they can only land on giant mah-jong tiles/ white plastic dominoes.

There are loads of examples of UFO-related dioramas online, posted by modellers showing their skills or just for their own/ their friend's entertainment, just like other hobbyists document their pastimes. (Click to enlarge).

View attachment 69599 View attachment 69601 View attachment 69602 View attachment 69604 View attachment 69605
View attachment 69607 View attachment 69608 View attachment 69609 View attachment 69610 View attachment 69611

Can't help but feel that for a couple of these, if someone took a narrow focus photo from the right angle and then suitably reduced the picture quality, they'd have "possible evidence" of the most momentous event in recent history for Ron James and MUFON to be willingly taken in by study in an impartial and scientific investigation.

We were lucky that the figures used in James' (OP) photo appear to have been largely "built from the box"; many modelmakers are well-practiced at converting shop-bought figures into original poses.

Plastic limbs can be straightened or bent with careful heating and cooling, or substituted with a corresponding part from another figure; careful filing and use of Green Stuff-type modelling putty allows joins to be imperceptible. Heads/ headgear are often easy to transplant. Unwanted webbing straps, pockets and buttons etc. can be filed down, and new ones added as required using plasticard or Green Stuff. Backpacks, webbing pouches, weapons can be cannibalised from other kits, or scratch-built, or sometimes bought as separate sets (particularly WW2 German, WW2 to modern US, British and Soviet/ Russian gear).
Green Stuff can add scrim/ foliage to helmets, hiding their origins, likewise facial features can be changed, beards added etc.

It's alarming to think that had the diorama-maker of James' photo been a bit more original/ experienced in model-making,
the source of the "soldiers" would have been unidentifiable.
Something maybe made in a fourteen year-old's bedroom on a pocket money budget would still be touted as possible evidence of US government agencies (including AARO) lying, and of ETI visits to Earth.
(As others here have noted, digital image manipulation will allow far more sophisticated fakes).
Maybe James/ MUFON will develop a protocol to take into account the possibility of this type of hoax, but I doubt it.

They are serial type-1 error makers; "evidence" which conforms to their prejudices is seen as confirmatory (or at least potentially so) regardless of source, likelihood or indeed in-evidence contradictions (e.g. the US troops with perhaps WW2 German boots and helmets). Evidence against their hypotheses is resisted, unless it is overwhelming and they realise they're courting ridicule.
This isn't how science works (well, not testable non-pathological science anyway), but maybe MUFON's people wouldn't get on TV so often / get so many viewing hits if they were took a more prosaic view of claimed evidence.
The truth they claim to pursue might not be as exciting as they (and some viewers/ surfers) would want it to be.

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________


Like on other threads with unidentified but probably hoax UFOs, there must be lots of possible candidates for James' saucer.

It appears misshapen (unless it was always an irregular shape). It's probably about 1 foot/ 30.48 cm diameter.
I've wondered about the two small circular bumps/ marks on the centre "disc". Maybe rivets, or injection-mould marks?

View attachment 69618

If the central disc/ dome was a separate object, it has some resemblance to a wall-bell, though most of those have a single, central point of attachment (which seems sensible).

There's the usual suspects- an old wheel-trim or battered lid from some cooking vessel etc.
We don't know it's metal; maybe a spray-painted frisbee? Well, a slightly warped frisbee?
For some reason it made me think of the underside of an old-style plastic bedpan/ commode insert, but I don't think it is.

Tried an image search, got this lid from a Kazakh website
View attachment 69619 but of course similar items might be found in the USA!


__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________


UFO, with Gabrielle Drake as Lieutenant Gay Ellis (sigh). Set partly on the Moonbase, in the future year of... 1980!

View attachment 69620

In real life, Gabrielle's brother was musician Nick Drake, who is much more widely appreciated now than during his life.
And I never had the courage to ask the gf to wear a metallic purple wig.

In the modern era, you don't even need found objects or kit-bashing. A free STL file and a few hours with your sub-$400 3D printer will get you a model of anything. I see hundreds of UFO designs on thangs.com (one of the indexing sites for 3D files). And you can design almost anything with a little CAD knowledge. A resin printer will give you a fairly smooth look out of the box; an FDM print will show layer lines, but a bit of sanding and filling and painting will take care of that.

 

[Skalman]

Apparently, Ron James has responded to the "debunking" of the photo.


Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bm71rg9GzoY


I haven't watched the whole video, and skimming through it the second part just seems more like casual rambling. The part where he does directly address the idea of it being a diorama/having toy soldiers is this bit at 3:20


I think they also address the fact that there's a book with a drawing of the picture, if anyone's interested in that.

Now, this had long been proved to be a hoax before I got here, but his explanation of the "gigantic tree trunks" being "consistent with trees in that part of the country" is a horrible, horrible argument.

First of all, the tree trunks are not gigantic. Large, yes, but nothing out of the ordinary for most temperate or tropic biomes. It's only deserts, really high mountainous areas and tundra that I would say are excluded, size-wise.

Second, with that picture quality, what is his rationale for saying they are consistent with trees in that part of the country? The trunks are almost uniform in colour, there's no texture to give even a hint of what the bark looks like. The only clues are what looks like wound wood scar formations from branch "shedding" (cladoptosis) on the stem to the left and a possible large polypore on the one to the right. Here in Sweden, my guess would be Populus tremula, but it could be more or less anything, and since it's supposedly taken in Oregon, which has 67 native tree species according to The Oregon Forest Resources Institute, which is about three times what we have here, that does absolutely nothing to narrow it down. The other clues we have are that there is what looks like conifers in the background (most prominently in the upper right corner) but as to what kind, I have no clue. It could be basically any of them except for the white larch since there are what looks like two deciduous trees in the upper left part of the picture, and they are naked and the larch needles would've been either a lot lighter in colour or fallen from the branches at the same times of the year as other deciduous species.

So, saying that the trees are "consistent" with that part of the country is an extremely weak argument. It is consistent with most forests on the entire planet, though the scene as a whole points towards a temperate biome rather than a tropic one (not that it matters, since the photo is a fake, either a diorama or composite). There is simply not enough information in the picture to make any conclusion regarding the trees other than ruling out the most obvious places (deserts, Iceland, urban areas, anywhere above the tree line) and species (Olea, Malus, Pyrus, birches, willows...). Using that claim in an attempt to legitimize the photo is dishonest, incompetent or both.

 

[JMartJr]

[Timestamp 45:47] Some thumbnails with curious names.

Didn't pay any attention to that before, but what's happening here is a picture is being released, we and others debunk it, and another is released, with "Well, can you debunk THIS one?" And there's a whole folder of others waiting in line!

It's potentially the rough equivalent of a Gish Gallop, with a bunch of pics that can be dribbled out until one comes along that does not use identifiable bits form a plastic model kit, or be otherwise definitively debunked. And THAT one is suddenly the "proof that UFOs are real!!!!!"

 

[FatPhil]

Didn't pay any attention to that before, but what's happening here is a picture is being released, we and others debunk it, and another is released, with "Well, can you debunk THIS one?" And there's a whole folder of others waiting in line!

It's potentially the rough equivalent of a Gish Gallop, with a bunch of pics that can be dribbled out until one comes along that does not use identifiable bits form a plastic model kit, or be otherwise definitively debunked. And THAT one is suddenly the "proof that UFOs are real!!!!!"

Our protection from this line of attack is to request the best evidence first, the evidence that they are most convinced is real. That way, they can never claim that they've come up with a better one, they're always scraping lower and lower down the barrel. Of course, they are under no obligation to play by our rules, and the release of processed photos with no original metadata in recent times, shows that they have little interest in finding the shortest quickest route to the actual truth.

 

[NorCal Dave]

Presumably, the MUFON manual would say more. Instead, have some data:

Source: https://de.slideshare.net/slideshow/2001-2009-report-summary-of-the-mufon-cms-historical-year-end-closed-case-statistics-by-geography-26435238/26435238

This report analyzes closed case data from the Mutual UFO Network's (MUFON) Case Management System (CMS) from 2001-2009. It shows that the number of closed cases grew substantially from 2001 to 2009, with unknown cases making up nearly 45% of the total. The data was reviewed prior to preparing the report to ensure format accuracy. The report contains global and state-by-state breakdowns of closed case classifications such as blank, hoax, identified flying object, insufficient data, and unknown.

A bit off topic, but interesting that the numbers really shoot up right around the time BAASS using $350K from AAWSAP (taxpayers) got a hold of MUFON's database and tuned it up for them:

As a result of substantial funding from AAWSAP BAASS to MUFON, MUFON's Case Management System (CMS) database was upgraded to support project operations and a considerable effort was made at the MUFON archives to catalog archive holdings.

Ultimately MUFON elected to continue the contract under their existing structure, justifying the income as financing their core mission. The MUFON Federal tax filing from 2008 and 2009 reflects the money from Bigelow shows a total of $344,667 as "contributions" from BAASS rather than contracted work, services rendered, or goods purchased.

pg. 110-111, Skinwalkers at the Pentagon by Dr. James Lacatski, Colum Kelleher and George Knapp.

https://www.blueblurrylines.com/2020/04/the-pentagon-ufo-money-trail.html

 

[John J.]

A bit off topic, but interesting that the numbers really shoot up right around the time BAASS using $350K from AAWSAP (taxpayers) got a hold of MUFON's database and tuned it up for them

Wow. Could BAASS write that $334,667 off against tax?

All that (originally) taxpayer's money given to a "UFO research" organisation whose senior figures wonder if a scene containing 1/35-scale WW2 German soldier models is evidence of a saucer crash in 1950's Oregon.

Not that AAWSAP/ BAASS had much to show for the remaining $21,665,333.

 

[Mendel]

Now, this had long been proved to be a hoax before I got here, but his explanation of the "gigantic tree trunks" being "consistent with trees in that part of the country" is a horrible, horrible argument.

It just means, "if I say they're from Oregon, nobody can prove me wrong". They're not doing science, they're doing belief confirmation.

 

[NorCal Dave]

First of all, the tree trunks are not gigantic. Large, yes, but nothing out of the ordinary for most temperate or tropic biomes. It's only deserts, really high mountainous areas and tundra that I would say are excluded, size-wise.

I was up in Oregon last week, and yes, I can confirm there are pine trees there. And Jame's photo does appear to have what look like pine trees, so maybe the better question is "Was this model scene made in Oregon?"

 

[Mendel]

A bit off topic, but interesting that the numbers really shoot up right around the time BAASS using $350K from AAWSAP (taxpayers) got a hold of MUFON's database and tuned it up for them

since there was government money involved, can we call it a government database?
and since it's not public, can we demand disclosure?
(turns out there's a secret government UFO database after all (and MUFON runs it))

 

[Z.W. Wolf]

Possible ID of what this diorama was originally intended to represent. After the defeat of France, idle German soldiers sit on the remains of a Maginot Line retractable gun turret.

Fully retracted turret in foreground

Fully extended turret

Small, dismounted turret

There's considerable variation in size and design. Sometimes the concrete apron is dome shaped.

Here the surrounding dish shaped concrete apron has been partially covered in eroded soil.

Scratch built diorama of such...

Best match would be one of the Maginot Line forts in the Alps.

Mont Agaisen

 

[Z.W. Wolf]

Why is it catawampus, though?

Because it's been repurposed. I'm guessing that this isn't the original diorama itself. I think this is a composite photo that uses elements of the diorama. It's a literal cut and paste project. It seems to have multiple layers with inorganic edges.

 

[John J.]

@Z.W. Wolf :

Because it's been repurposed. I'm guessing that this isn't the original diorama itself. I think this is a composite photo that uses elements of the diorama. It's a literal cut and paste project. It seems to have multiple layers with inorganic edges

(The "Reply" function is playing up, see Bugs and Suggestions for Metabunk).

I think that's an interesting idea, but if the original diorama was a "German troops at the Maginot Line" vignette, I think the modeller would take greater care to make the turret roof/ pillbox a bit more realistic, e.g. level, and less like a pot lid or whatever, and applied some matt paint.

Because of the muted tones of the saucer/ model figures against what I perceived to be a slightly-coloured background (blue-ish sky, green foliage at right) I also wondered if the saucer/ figures might be a physical cut-out of a (blown-up) photo of a diorama, approx. edges like this:

(@MonkeeSage's suggestion that the apparent colours are a result of reflections is something to be considered. I think the upper edge of green foliage at right, which the rightmost soldier seems to be perched on, conforms with shapes in the b&w picture, so I'm not currently convinced).

However, this would require a separate cut-out of the rightmost soldier, or having the original model conveniently to hand.
(And if you had that model, why not use the other originals?)
Even with this poor picture quality, I think it would be very difficult to cut the edges of a printed-out picture without leaving some visible clues, unless the compositor had better skills and resources- or motivation- than the manufacturer of this picture might have had (indicated by the rather naff saucer and use of out-of-the-box models).

At the moment, I think the wispy trees to the left of the picture, and probably the other trees (including the two large trunks) are real, i.e. trees in the background when the photo was taken.

The right edge of the picture screams domesticity to me- particularly, for some reason, the strand of (what appears to me to be) houseplant dangling down, indicated by arrow below:

The sill or whatever this greenery is stood on is roughly parallel to the lower edge of the picture, as are some linear features beneath it.
Given the angle at which the picture is being displayed, and the angle at which the McMinnville photographer took this photo, I think the greenery/ sill/ other linear features are more likely to be features of the original photo than chance reflections.

At the moment, I suspect the saucer and model soldiers image (however made) wasn't meant to be a hoax-
-it was a diorama made to show WW2 German soldiers (not US troops) with a flying saucer.
If I'm sort-of right about the right side of the picture, the modeller's just taken advantage of a view through the window, and a bushy houseplant, to compose a nice photo of their work- not to pass it off as real.

The picture has been co-opted by UFO enthusiasts, and the b&w copy sent to MUFON had the details at the lower right blacked out to remove inconvenient details; the sender either didn't notice the figures were unlikely to be 1950s US troops or gambled on Ron James/ MUFON not checking.
And Ron James/ MUFON didn't check.

 

[Z.W. Wolf]

...if the original diorama was a "German troops at the Maginot Line" vignette, I think the modeller would take greater care to make the turret roof/ pillbox a bit more realistic, e.g. level, and less like a pot lid or whatever, and applied some matt paint.

Do you mean "level" as in level with the ground/level with gravity?

Or do you mean a symmetrical structure?

It's certainly not level with the ground, or gravity. How ever you'd put it. It's been noted that the standing figurine is not in a realistic pose. You'd think that this figurine was originally placed on a more level surface. If this section is a cutout image, I would suppose that it's tilted, to give it more of a crashed saucer look. But it leaves that poor guy standing unnaturally catawampus to the world.

As for lack of detail on the model turret (or whatever it really is)... What about lack of detail on the figurines?

Let's remember that we're looking at photograph. There's no way to know exactly what the "saucer" really is... but we can analyze the photographic print.

An analysis is complicated by the fact that the photo we are seeing is full of digital artifacts also, and has gone through god knows how many generations. Nevertheless I think I can say something about the original photo. I'm pretty confident that this was originally a film photo and print, not digital.

It's very grainy. There are no details in the dark areas, nor in the highlights. Notice that the figurines also have no detail. They are just abstract grainy splotches. So why would we expect to see detail in the diorama model turret? ...If that's what it is.

That's what I can say about this photo.

But how did it get this way? If this is a photographic print.... this is most likely caused by a problem with the negative, not with the print. I can't be certain of anything about this image, but it looks like an overexposed and overdeveloped negative. This was classically described as a "sooty" print. As if you somehow could make an image out of grains of soot.

It's less easy to say anything about the paper it was printed on. There were different grades of paper. From less contrasty to more contrasty. Or later there was multigrade paper and you used filters when you made the prints to get more or less contrast. (The enlarger had a filter holder.) I would think it would be a less contrasty paper, but not certain about that at all.

If it is a problem with the negative we have to ask, which negative? If this is a composite, there were at least two generations of negatives and two generations of prints. I would think that whoever perpetrated this hoax made a crappy negative on purpose to make the image ambiguous.

I can't rule out that this was a print made from more than one negative. The hoaxer may have used masks and done some dodging, and all that. It may even be a multiplane diorama.

It's really hard to tell, but that other version may show some signs of hand tinting with water colors.

 

[NorCal Dave]

@Z.W. Wolf, I'm having trouble with the reply button, however, is it possible this is a photo of a photo? Some guy makes a not-so-great diorama and snaps some photos of it. Someone later sees it and snaps a photo of the photo. And maybe none of these photos are very good to begin with. Then somewhere along the line someone thinks "Hey, this look like a UFO recovery scene".

@John J. , again trouble with the reply function, I'm leaning towards @MonkeeSage reflection on the glass for the photo for sale. IF someone was passing off something this hooky as a legit USAF retrieval team at work, I don't see them going through the trouble of reworking it to hide some plants in the lower corner. IF it was for sale on an outside table/booth of some sort, there is plenty of greenery to make a reflection I would think. Some photos of the festival:

Even if the photo was for sale inside, the meeting rooms and lobby of the Hotel Oregon, the host of the UFO festival, has plenty of greenery inside:

https://www.mcmenamins.com/private-events/meetings/hotel-oregon

The idea that Ron James took anything about this photo as evidence is baffling. I think it's just the MUFON/UFOlogy same old song and dance. Throw stuff at the wall and see what sticks. The previous MUFON national director pushed hard for MUFON member Paola Harris's BS story about the Trinity UFO crash. Once something slides down the wall, they just throw something new or worse rethrow something from the floor.

 

[John J.]

Do you mean "level" as in level with the ground/level with gravity?

Yes, the central dome at least- essentially horizontal if it's meant to be a built fortification, roughly perpendicular to the two large tree trunks and approximately in line with the seat of the chair (if that's horizontal!) so, looking at the b&w picture, tilted a little more to the right and away from us.

I don't know about the surrounding rim of the saucer. It seems to curve downwards towards the central dome on the right side which seems an odd design choice for a hardpoint, but don't know enough about the Maginot Line to rule this out.
-And it could be part of any editing done to make it look more like a flying saucer (whatever they look like!)

I'll have to defer to you about photographic details, as I've no useful knowledge of the subject.

The figures do have some detail; the standing figure's tunics have the single vent that the most common WW2 German tunics had (early and mid-war), and which we'd expect of these figures

Screengrab from YouTube poster "Non-Prolific 1/35 Scale Model Builder", AKA Jens, in post Inbox Review - Tamiya Kit #35129, German Soldiers At Rest,
Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BWTv7VcCaaI

(Warning of possible taste lapse: Contains period martial music whose meaning I don't know).

By far the most common US Army combat jacket of the mid-50s was the M-1951 field jacket, rather longer than WW2 German tunics and with no vent. (The earlier M-1943 jacket was similar in appearance except buttons instead of zip and snap fasteners).

(They did have full-length sleeves!)


The models in the photo are painted, so the jackboots on the rightmost figure can be seen.

Though it is hard to tell, the helmets (centre and let figure) appear to have a flared rear (but it's hard to tease out how much of this is because we know what they look like).

The leftmost figure's personal load items (pouch, canteen, gasmask case) seem to be painted but have been attached too high up the model's torso.

I'm leaning towards @MonkeeSage reflection on the glass for the photo for sale.

Yeah, it could be. I might be drifting towards that...
Incidentally, don't know if it's relevant but there's a tree at the rightmost edge of the b&w (MUFON) picture that doesn't seem to be in the McMinnville picture.

As Z.W. Wolf has pointed out, there might be a number of generations of the picture, with variations.

 

[NorCal Dave]

Incidentally, don't know if it's relevant but there's a tree at the rightmost edge of the b&w (MUFON) picture that doesn't seem to be in the McMinnville picture.

Ya think? I kinda think it's there, just hidden in the reflection on the glass:

Would have been fun to buy that photo!

 

[John J.]

I kinda think it's there, just hidden in the reflection on the glass

Maybe, yeah. It was hiding from me in plain sight (the devious swine!)

Would have been fun to buy that photo!

Would've been even funnier if it had Lou Elizondo's shopping list on the back