UFO Conjectures

Sunday, March 11, 2007

An "exegesis" of the lost Trent/McMinnville photo


Attached are three enhancements. [of the “lost Trent photo”].

The first photo…is compensated for motion and focus. By compensating for motion on the object in question, the rest of the picture changed:


The second photo…is a crop and adjustments. After the adjustments were made, I reduced the size again (for email purposes). Notice on the left side of the object, there appears to be some type of vents or ribs in a dark outline:


The third photo is the same as the second one… [and] has brightness adjustment.

The second [object] in the picture is just there smaller, to show more contrast. The top appears to be an indentation, with a protrusion from the center. There is also one from the bottom. The object reminds me of a Roulette wheel and spindle. I'm not calling it that:


Unfortunately, there is also pixelation produced in the three pictures.

There are too many people that tend to pass photos off as being Photoshopped.

Also, unfortunately, there are too many times that people fake this type of thing.

I am not a debunker, but only my own skeptic. I am not an expert, but with working on the motion of the original picture, I would tend to believe the object in question is real because of the difference in motion between the background and the object.

Both appear to motion blur but in different perspectives.

As far as my belief, I would also have to call this inconclusive. It is too bad that you don't have a higher res pic. Hopefully, you can show that the negative came from the same roll.

Denver Page


  • From Theo:

    good post, thanks. keep up this blog!

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Sunday, March 11, 2007  

  • I hesitate to say this because I know nothing about it. However, just from an entirely ignorant point of view...

    In these enlarged pictures, the "thing" on top looks very much like a "humanoid" on its knees at an "apparatus" of some kind. Is it possable this is more of a "platform" object than something very large?

    Just my 2 cents--nice site!

    By Blogger A Bishops wife, at Sunday, March 11, 2007  

  • All info on the origins of this
    photo can be found at ufocasebook.com (page 3 best photos section). The oringial is in color and was taken in Germany according to the info provided.
    This photo has no connection to the Trent photos. Anyone who says otherwise is either a liar or very mistaken.

    Mark R.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at Monday, March 12, 2007  

  • I'm the person who posted the note about this photo being available on UFOCasebook.com... just wanted to say... while we can dismiss this "long lost Trent photo" now (sounds like the guy in Germany was not only a confirmed hoaxer but was also off his nut) what I'd like to see more discussion about is the real, original Trent photos... I've always found it interesting that the Trent UFO was a "one of a kind"... i.e., no other UFO seen or photographed bore a resemblance to it. (Except the photograph, supposedly taken in 1954 in Rouen, France, by a French pilot... which has never been further identified---many people say it's simply a cropped version of one of the Trent photos, but this has never been proven either). The uniqueness of the Trent UFO would point to its being a hoax (one might think) but then on the other hand, no one's ever made a case for what the Trent's motives would have been for this hoax; they clearly never tried to get money out of it, and didn't even seem interested in their own photographs at first. Moreover, if the photos are hoaxed, the Trents did a damn good job of it, considering the pics were taken in 1950 and here we are, almost 60 years later and even with our vaunted technology, they've still never been clearly dismissed as fakes. I've read all the lighting arguments (essentially saying the photos were taken at a different time of day from what the Trents claimed) but they've never really impressed me. It's always seemed like clutching at straws. The photos basically remain, after all this time, inconclusive. I'm frankly not a UFO believer--in the sense that UFOs are vehicles from another world. I think it far more likely that, if the Trents didn't fake the photos, that what they saw was an earthly aircraft of some kind--but one that was at the time secret and has remained so to this day. OR maybe it was just a cleverly-positioned light fixture or rear-view mirror from a truck. Hopefully one day we'll find out.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at Monday, March 12, 2007  

  • Yes, anonymous, the Trent affair is interesting, in many ways.

    There are two rebuttal sites (listed in the comments to the posting below this one) where Robert Sheaffer and the notorious debunker Phillip Klass attack the Trent photos and Dr. Bruce Maccabee (who analyzed the photos).

    But there are rebuttals to those rebuttals.

    That the Trents didn't ask for or pursue monetary compensation for their pictures can be attributed to many things: The pictures were real and the Trents were honest folks; the Trents realized they were in a situation (after military people showed up) that was iffy for them if they had committed a hoax, no matter how innocuous their intent; the matter was a curiosity that didn't impact their practical life (as is the case with many UFO observers); or the Trents were oblivious to the import of their sighting.

    Their "flying saucer" configuration doesn't show up after that, except for the French sighting you note and the "hoaxed" picture from Hamburg.

    But lots of unique UFOs have surfaced over the years, which merely adds to the enigma.

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Monday, March 12, 2007  

Post a Comment

<< Home