deirdre
Senior Member.
Article: According to the UFO Fest's website, it took another month for Paul to develop the photos and even longer to share them with anyone, because he was worried about exposing a government experiment or secret project.
CLAIM: 1950 McMinnville (OR) photo by the Trents is a 25' flying saucer
- Thread starter Charlie Wiser
- Start date
-
- Tags
- hoaxes mcminnville trents ufo
deirdre
Senior Member.
how about 2 ounces?
heres a 6inch ashtray someone actually weighed. (didnt like the depth for a pie/tart plate.. maybe quiche? is Mrs. Trent buying specialized mini quiche trays? but they'd still be somewhat heavy, although not as heavy a metal truck side mirror!)
ufo overlay on kids face assuming the photographer got him in the right spot. (left off kilter a bit so people can see the barn feature sizes match up. 6" seems way too big for the kids face..but it's hard to find item weights.
John J.
Senior Member.
Maybe the small bump on top of the "saucer" is an off-centre suspension point, which might account for the angle of the thing.
(Edited to add: Er, just to clarify, I don't think it's real for one minute.)
Yeah, I take your point. But in rushing to take the picture the Trents clearly thought (if it was real) that it was something exciting / noteworthy. I appreciate they were rural folk, but I'm surprised they didn't mention it to, I don't know, the local sheriff or equivalent within a day or two.
(Edited to add: Er, just to clarify, I don't think it's real for one minute.)
Last edited:
Ann K
Senior Member.
NorCal Dave
Senior Member.
We BOTH cross-posted with @JMartJr .
Great minds think alike! Right? Or maybe our old minds have just seen this stuff over and over again.
John J.
Senior Member.
NorCal Dave
Senior Member.
So as not to go off topic, I replied on:
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/the-metabunk-community.13387/
Ann K
Senior Member.
Incidentally, this particular "UFO" in Oregon came along when I was a kid. I don't remember reports of it at the time, but only a few years later when I was a young teen I saw a book with all sorts of "sightings", and I remember that very one which struck me as a fake. But when I saw the photo of a stack of lenticular clouds over a mountain top, that was it for me, and I became a UFO skeptic immediately.Great minds think alike! Right? Or maybe our old minds have just seen this stuff over and over again.
(It was not this image but a much more tidy stack. In the days before photoshop, it was easier to "believe one's eyes".) A few years later I was living at the foot of a mountain that sometimes had a stack of lenticular clouds on top.
Charlie Wiser
Senior Member.
This is not accurate reporting by the article linked from UFO Fest. The first article on the photos was June 8 (Telephone Register, the local paper) which reports he took the photos "nearly a month ago" - and May 11 is the official photo date. He took Mother's Day photos on May 14 to finish the roll and it's usually reported he developed them right after that.
The article itself is a 2005 newsletter McMenamin's History:
McMenamins is a hotel in McMinnville that sponsors(?) the annual UFO Fest - coming up next weekend! A listed speaker is Ryan Graves.
Source: UFOfest.com
NorCal Dave
Senior Member.
Yes, the McMenamins hotel started the festival years ago and is still the prime organizer, though the local chamber of commerce is all in now. As I've noted before, the UFO festival has outlasted the McMinnville Wine Festival, even though McMinnville is in the heart of Oregon wine country. People can't get enough UFOs.
To be fair, the McMenamin is a chain of quirky hotels in the PNW with the Hotel Oregon in McMinnville and the original festival was kind of a joke. It's still more of a silly party than a serious UFO conference it seems:
It does have a "serious" conference component, so Ryan Graves will be following the footsteps of past serious UFO speakers like: Geroge Knapp, Linda Multon Howe and one of your favorites Charlie, Travis Walton.
I was so ready to hook up the trailer (caravan) and head up there for this shindig! I'd probably skip the Graves talk and go winetasting instead though. Alas, we had already planned on heading east that weekend to visit our kids. Maybe next year.
FatPhil
Senior Member.
Simple - you have the perfect excuse - you were abducted!
SpOoKy777
Member
Just went through this thread and I think nobody mentioned the (pretty noticable) distance fog on the object yet...especially in the second picture...
Instead of a model suspended from the wire(s), maybe this is a thrown object...the angle of the object in both pictures looks to me like somebody, positioned to the right of the camera (just out of frame) threw it with a slight spin, like a frisbee...that would probably result in a long arc-like flightpath...
The lack of visible motion blur (or "absence of rotation"(?) as stated in the report) doesn't really rule out a thrown object, depending on camera settings and handling it might as well appear to be frozen in flight, without blur...
Now this part is purely speculative but a possible scenario...let's say one of the Trents kids found this disc shape object (whatever it is, a hubcap or something),while playing with it they found out it flies for quite a distance when thrown a certain way, they show Dad and he decides to take a few pictures...couple days later, after developing the film, he notices that some of the pictures look like one of these "flying saucers"...a story is crafted and there we go...
Instead of a model suspended from the wire(s), maybe this is a thrown object...the angle of the object in both pictures looks to me like somebody, positioned to the right of the camera (just out of frame) threw it with a slight spin, like a frisbee...that would probably result in a long arc-like flightpath...
The lack of visible motion blur (or "absence of rotation"(?) as stated in the report) doesn't really rule out a thrown object, depending on camera settings and handling it might as well appear to be frozen in flight, without blur...
Now this part is purely speculative but a possible scenario...let's say one of the Trents kids found this disc shape object (whatever it is, a hubcap or something),while playing with it they found out it flies for quite a distance when thrown a certain way, they show Dad and he decides to take a few pictures...couple days later, after developing the film, he notices that some of the pictures look like one of these "flying saucers"...a story is crafted and there we go...
Last edited:
Charlie Wiser
Senior Member.
The photos were part of a roll of film so if he got these shots, both in basically the same position both compared to the wires and centrally framed, I would have expected a lot of rejects - but there aren't any. I think the tilt is because the suspension point is off-center, as in some wing mirrors of the day:
1940 Ford pickup
(I have several examples but have never found an exact match to the profile of the mirror itself. It's possibly something like a pedal car mirror or a shaving mirror.)
deirdre
Senior Member.
why would he share the rejects with the newspaper?
Ann K
Senior Member.
I think that's more likely due to the exposure, either exposure of the original negative or that of a subsequent print. If you look at the metal tank on the right, it's conspicuously lighter in that second photograph. It's also possible that the sun came out more strongly in the second photo; hard to tell with black and white! The second one also has distinct fingerprints on it. Maybe the photographers can clarify: is that because the fingers left a darker mark on the negative, or because the print was handled when wet and fingers took off some of the material?
JMartJr
Senior Member.
Is it known how many shots were on the roll? Wolls of film back in my day had 12 or 24 (or sometimes even as many as 36, but that was either rare or was rarely purchased by my dad, maybe expensive?) These days, with digital cameras and a card that holds a zillion pictures, shooting a lot to get one or two good ones is no problem. Back then, you took maybe two pics of the family with grandmaw and hoped for the best. So if the roll of film was the size we used when I was a kid, I'd bet against there being a lot of shots taken. That just wsn;t how folks thought about using a camera.
SpOoKy777
Member
I thought about an exposure related effect too, but overall the pictures looks pretty "dull", as if it was overcast at the time, or even slightly foggy/hazy...you are right about the second pic, that one is a bit lighter...it is indeed hard to tell in b/w...
If you take the specular highlights on the tank and roof in the LIFE photo for comparison...(despite the fact that it's a different camera) if it was very sunny or the sky very bright (or at least bright enough to blow out the object), I'd expect to see similar highlights in the Trent pictures...but admittedly, I'm not an expert when it comes to photography in that era...so I'm probably wrong...
Charlie Wiser
Senior Member.
They had the negatives which are on a roll or strip and presumably would be numbered.
NorCal Dave
Senior Member.
As in they showed all the negatives from the roll to the newspaper guys? Or the showed the negatives of these photos? My memory from the '70s & '80s is that the roll of negatives would be cut into strips of 4-6 so they would fit in the little envelop along with the prints. A 24 exposure roll would become 4 strips of negatives with 6 exposures on each strip. So, one could produce strip 2, exposures 7-12 with the 2 UFO shots in sequence and not show anyone strip 1, exposures 1-6 that has the practice shots.
A minor point, as I think it's a prop of some kind hung from the wires.
Some other minor points. The McMenamins Newsletter is probably a dubious source, but if the basic story in it is lifted from other sources there are a few tidbits. First is the silly notion that not only did they sit on the photos for a month, but also lost the negatives. Not only did they lose the negatives, but they ended up in that cliched catch all of the American home, the couch:
Also, of note is the list of the other photos on the negatives:
https://ufofest.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/UFOHistory3.05.pdf
So, 3 Mother's Day, 2 UFOs, 1 willow tree would be 6, leaving 6 likely snow photos for a 12 shot roll.
The last bit of snow for the McMinnville area I could find was in late January:
https://weatherspark.com/h/s/428/19...-Oregon-United-States#Figures-ObservedWeather
Obviously, the photos could be from a different area, or they sat on the roll of film for a few months before the May 11 UFO encounter. Be fun to see the other photos.
Ann K
Senior Member.
Please excuse me for describing the tank on the "right", when I meant to say on the LEFT. I didn't notice until (I suppose) the 'edit deadline' was passed.
deirdre
Senior Member.
i have negatives from a great uncles wedding in 1950, some are larger and single in their envelope. they are numbered. no date.
and some are a smaller negative with no numbers and these happen to be cut in groups of two in their original envelope. also no date.
but my bigger size -numbered-not measuring the clear edges is 2 1/4x3 1/4
Roamer camera site says:
Article: 1948. 620 film, 2¼×3¼'' exposures, folding camera. f11 lens.
it's a bit odd noone, i've seen, specifically mentions the negatives were consecutive or not, maccabe does say (page 40)
https://web.archive.org/web/20161017163652/https://cufos.org/books/The_Spectrum_of_Ufo_Research.pdf
Attachments
Ann K
Senior Member.
In the days of film, the casual photographer was very likely to drag the camera out for special occasions only, and the idea of paying to develop an only partially used roll of film was painful to the frugal soul. I see nothing unusual about pics that sat in the camera for a long time before the roll was finished. (I speak from experience!)
deirdre
Senior Member.
deirdre
Senior Member.
@Ann K also this link shows good pics of the viewfinder etc. The analysis is all about whether he used the waist shot or an eye shot.
I found it interesting because i couldnt figure out what 'viewfinder" one would use with that camera. They show where it is (at end of bellow):
they determined the camera would have to be 36" and 40" off the ground for each photo (i had assumed he was just further back but now im noticing the rabbit hutch would likely be in the way.)
they basically conclude he must have been kneeling using the eye viewer.
not sure about their reasoning,
but for reference i am 5 foot. if camera is at 36" and i bend my head down to chin without bending my back my eye to view finder is approx 21". (used measuring tape to measure).
the 40" shot i could likely pull off comfortably enough with chin down and if i lean BACK thrusting hips forward. <in the article the photographer demonstrating hunches forward.
(this "analysis" was posted earlier but that link had no description and also lacked any photos in it)
https://web.archive.org/web/20020606025701/http://www.ufx.org/mcminn/photo.htm
I found it interesting because i couldnt figure out what 'viewfinder" one would use with that camera. They show where it is (at end of bellow):
they determined the camera would have to be 36" and 40" off the ground for each photo (i had assumed he was just further back but now im noticing the rabbit hutch would likely be in the way.)
they basically conclude he must have been kneeling using the eye viewer.
not sure about their reasoning,
but for reference i am 5 foot. if camera is at 36" and i bend my head down to chin without bending my back my eye to view finder is approx 21". (used measuring tape to measure).
the 40" shot i could likely pull off comfortably enough with chin down and if i lean BACK thrusting hips forward. <in the article the photographer demonstrating hunches forward.
(this "analysis" was posted earlier but that link had no description and also lacked any photos in it)
https://web.archive.org/web/20020606025701/http://www.ufx.org/mcminn/photo.htm
deirdre
Senior Member.
what clever boys they are in that link
so you dont get electrocuted (and throw off people looking for vertical suspensions) you throw a rock over the lines and haul the ufo up...nice:
https://web.archive.org/web/20021112005301/http://www.ufx.org/mcminn/suspension.htm
so you dont get electrocuted (and throw off people looking for vertical suspensions) you throw a rock over the lines and haul the ufo up...nice:
https://web.archive.org/web/20021112005301/http://www.ufx.org/mcminn/suspension.htm
Giddierone
Senior Member.
The illusion disappears if you adjust the darker frame to match the tanks on the left (as Anne mentioned). When adjusted (eyeballing it) they appear more or less on the same plane. Here I've roughly lined up the wires at the top of the frame, as best without distorting the image, it just makes the object look like it's swinging from an invisible thread between shots.
Including an image with no flying saucer and at an angle that makes the pylon on the right disappear.
Charlie Wiser
Senior Member.
If the strip was 6 negs, the UFOs would be 2 & 3 on the strip with something at #1, then 3x Mothers Day shots. At some point he produced at least some of the other strips given the description here. To my knowledge no investigator (pro or con) has questioned any missing negatives, so perhaps he produced the entire roll.
Charlie Wiser
Senior Member.
The weather not matching what is seen in the photos has been questioned before. I've been ignoring it because I don't really see how it doesn't match so I can't defend it. Bruce Maccabee wrote about it then dismissed it just because.
Source: The McMinnville PhotosExternal Quote:
Unfortunately this archive didn't preserve the footnotes.
deirdre
Senior Member.
that would be like an 19" strip.
deirdre
Senior Member.
assuming those 36"and 40" measurements are somewhat accurate:
the shortest model of this truck is 7'3" to top of cab.
It's likely 7'7" to top of cab. so he aint 5 foot
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Studebaker_US6_2½-ton_6×6_truck
the only way he could pull it off is if he was sitting and used the eye view finder, or if he was down on a knee and had the camera at chest level.. which brings his face closer enabling him to see the tiny image in the viewfinder.
i totally agree with you no[w] @Ann K he was using the "waist view finder". because even sitting i think his eye level would be higher than 36".
Last edited:
deirdre
Senior Member.
NorCal Dave
Senior Member.
Maybe. As you pointed out in another thread that I "was overthinking it", these guys might be doing that here.
But first I'll overthink it
In a modern setup if someone were to run overhead wires from the house to an outbuilding it would look something like this with 2-3 insulated wires wrapped around a cable. The cable takes the stress and acts as the neutral wire. The 2 hot wires carry ~110 volts each for a total of ~220 volts of electricity and as they're insulated, they can just wrap around the bare cable:In the McMinnville (actually kinda nearby) house there are 2 wires separated by a good 1' or so from the house to the garage:
This leads me to believe these wires are feeding ~110 volts to the garage, are not insulated and cannot touch each other. So, 1 uninsulated hot wire carrying the 110v and one uninsulated neutral wire separated so they can't short out by touching.
All that over thinking to say, if the lower wire is the neutral one can easily just tie some thread to it and hang the UFO. The neutral, equivalent to the white wire in a modern home, can usually be touched without giving one a shocking zinger.
This makes @Giddierone photo above a simple solution. The prop is just hung off the lower neutral wire and swinging in the breeze:
What I also find almost comical, is the LIFE magazine photos taken a month after the story went public, I assume? I just listened to a podcast about the Drake Plaque. English privateer (pirate) Francis Drake supposedly left a bronze plaque on the California coast in 1579. In the 1930's some members of a satirical fraternal organization planted a fake version of the plaque to mess with their fellow fraternal member and history professor who was obsessed with the plaque.
Unfortunately, the professor thought the plaque a complete genuine, despite it having a number of clues to suggest it was a hoax. As he doubled down on it being real, his fellow fraternal members and pranksters published numerous papers and books full of clues to alert him to the hoaxed nature of the plaque. It never worked and the professor died thinking the plaque authentic, which it was later shown not to be.
Here in the LIFE photos, we have a ladder, both upright and on the ground, in almost the exact spot it would need to be to tie a UFO prop onto the overhead wires. IF you knew LIFE magazine was sending a reporter to take photos in relation to your UFO photos, why the hell would you leave a ladder in that spot? Even if the photo was real, wouldn't you put the ladder away before the LIFE guy showed up? Why would there be a ladder 1/2 between the house and the garage where there is literally nothing to access from a ladder, aside from the overhead wire? I'm not saying it's a signal, but it seems very strange:
deirdre
Senior Member.
i can't remember, did the reporter say the ladder was already there when he arrived?
you certainly dont leave a wood ladder outside for a month.
Giddierone
Senior Member.
Perhaps the wires we see have nothing to do with it. If they had thin thread like fishing line, then presumably they also had a fishing rod and perhaps standing on a ladder with that rod allowed the model to be suspended at the right height. Just a guess.
Charlie Wiser
Senior Member.
Ditto for the shot of Trent standing right under his truck wing mirror. This wasn't the item used but it's likely something similar from a different model (maybe junked in his shed) was used.
NorCal Dave
Senior Member.
Again, I'm not suggesting there are "clues" in the LIFE photos, but....
I was literally re-listening to 2 different podcasts, while out mowing yesterday, about the Drake Plaque. A know hoax and prank that got out of hand. The plaque itself had clues on it and the story of where and how it was found didn't make any sense. But Professor Bolton so wanted to finish is career out authenticating the Plaque, he just ignored all the problems. His fellow fraternity members and hoaxer continued to put out clues, but eventually gave up.
I guess it put me in a bit of a conspiratorial mindset so that when I came in later and saw the ladder in the photo I just said, "Wait a minute."
If I knew one of the biggest magazines in the country, known for its photographs, was sending a photographer to my place, I might tidy up a bit. Maybe what we see IS tidy for the Trent's. Maybe the LIFE guy wanted it to look "authentic", giving his urban readers a glimpse of the scruffy country folk eking out a living in the remote west.
Scaramanga
Senior Member
Its a little curious that there is a ladder literally right under where a ladder would have had to have been used to hang any model UFO from the wires.
NorCal Dave
Senior Member.
I noted the comedic look of that in post #72 & #76 above. These photos are from LIFE magazine and appear to have been taken around a month after the story became public, so about 2 months after the photo was supposedly taken.
Still, it looks bad.
Giddierone
Senior Member.
Not sure how much use this is in answering the original question, but previous analysis seems to have the sightlines off a bit. The "house" left of centre in the UFO photo is almost directly north of the Trent's house, and is ~370m away. Maccabee seems to have them looking more to the NE. His map and diagram are inset below and overlaid on current GE maps (inside the green markers). Also, the only photo I could see of the house is from the other side taken from the highway. The winch would be on the left as seen from the Trent's house.
Trying to line up contemporary images with the original photo. This is taken from the roadside outside where the Trent house used to be. Not sure about the trees, (maybe their differnet trees?) they seem like a reasonable match, but then the house appears too near. (see ? in image).
Trying to line up contemporary images with the original photo. This is taken from the roadside outside where the Trent house used to be. Not sure about the trees, (maybe their differnet trees?) they seem like a reasonable match, but then the house appears too near. (see ? in image).
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
News Nation - Light in the Sky video
- Latest: jimmyslippin
-
-
