UFO Conjectures

Thursday, March 08, 2007

The lost Trent/McMinnville photo?

On May 11th, 1950, the Trent family of McMinnville, Oregon took photos of a strange object flying above their farm.

This is one of the original photos:


Is the picture below the “lost” Trent photo, obtained by SMC in Phoenix, Arizona, showing the object (or model?) nearer to the ground, and at an angle precluding a bona fide aerodynamic craft?


More to come…


  • It's certainly possible that this photo is a fake considering modern digital manipulation, but I really think the angle of the craft is irrelevant.

    It seems clear to me, a person who has seriously studied this phenomenon, that ufos exhibit flight capabilities that can best be explained by the use of technology far beyond what is currently known to us, possibly an anti-gravity technology. A vehicle made with such technology does not necessarily need to adhere to aerodynamic principles such as Bernoulli's.

    By Blogger Brandon, at Friday, March 09, 2007  

  • Brandon,

    The angle of the craft, the proximity to the ground -- if the craft is of a flyable size -- are wrong.

    The trajectory is off.

    And why wasn't this photo provided by the Trents -- if it is, indeed, a Trent photo -- to the newspaper (and investigators, after the fact)?

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Friday, March 09, 2007  

  • First. The "trajectory" ?
    In comparison to what? This
    craft could EASILY have been flying
    in at a sharp angle and then turned
    upward following this photo.
    Also do you have credentials?
    Are you a scientist? You have
    no idea WHAT angle a craft is capable of taking. The trajectory is wrong? Glad to see you KNEW where it came from to make that conclusion. You claim not to even know where the photo was taken.
    Your arrogance is astounding.

    Second. Where is the negative for this? I've done LOTS of photoshop work and frankly this could be a scanned poloroid with a B/W filter on it. There is NOTHING shown to connect this to the Trents. The image quality, graniness, etc.. is way to clean for a 1950's amatuer camera. The trents were not Ansel Adams.

    OK. Lets start there and see if you can DIRECTLY respond or will try to brush it aside. Waiting....

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at Friday, March 09, 2007  

  • Anonymous (and we always wonder why someone is afraid to identify himself or herself; it's cowardly):

    The photo is an actual old photo, available before Photoshop or any other image-altering program was extant.

    The "saucer" is very likely concocted however.

    It's provenance is yet to be determined, but it was attributed to the Trents when we got a copy.

    As we said: More to come....

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Friday, March 09, 2007  

  • Dear RRR group,
    It is true the Trends did not no what they had as far as the photos were, a researcher found on of the pictures in a coach once. I thought they were Polaroid's but I am not sure, anyway. To use a debunkers phase- all photographs today are suspect. I respect the character of the Trents so it is going to take more than a photo on the internet for me to disbelieve them.

    Joseph Capp
    UFO Media Matters

    By Blogger UFO Media Matters, at Friday, March 09, 2007  

  • Joseph:

    We don't know where the idea that the Trents were without guile came from.

    There was no investigation of their background or anything else that could tell investigators if they were capable of a hoax (even a harmless one) or any other kind of chicanery.

    The most innocent appearing people often have skeletons in their closets. (The UFO community is rife with such persons.)

    But you are right; if one has to come down on whether the Trents were trustworthy or not, one could lean toward the conclusion that they were.

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Friday, March 09, 2007  

  • I obviously got to you with my post. I'm at work and do not belong
    nor do I want to belong to to a
    Google "Do no evil (wink)" blog.
    This is why I chose anonymous. It has nothing to do with being cowardly, and yet somehow I KNEW
    you'd go there. Personal attacks are common when someone makes good
    arguments. Also I you didn't adress
    any of my points on the craft. You didn't provide credentials. Finally, a photo sans negative = useless as proof.

    Mark Robinson
    Oxnard, CA

    Have a nice day!

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at Friday, March 09, 2007  

  • Mark ("anonymous"):

    After the Trent photos were taken, the negatives got "misplaced" (but were subsequently recovered).

    Some 8 by 10 copies were made by the local newspaper but we don't know if the paper asked for the pictures fore and aft of the two submitted.

    The picture we received was not created by a photo-altering program, but the "disk" sems to be a model (taking into account how its flight parameter looks).

    We're trying to get more information from SMC about the origin of the photo.

    The studies of the Trent photos by the Condon Committee, Bruce Maccabee, and others, while seemingly thorough, are anything but.

    The crink in the wires above the Trent object has been dismissed but shouldn't be.

    The problem is that an examination of the photos from copies, or even the originals, would present (and doess present) problems of delineation. (The film type was not higher than ASA 100.)

    And what if the object were thrown by someone?

    Moreover, how did Mr. Trent get to his camera, after his wife saw the object and called to him to come see it, in time to capture the thing?

    Was it traveling so slow as to allow him to snap a few shots?

    Again: More to come....

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Friday, March 09, 2007  

  • First thanks for responding. Interesting about the negatives from the original Trent photos.
    You do notice the overall quality
    (at least in my opinion) of this "new" photo seems better than
    the other verified Trent photos.
    So providence will prove a connection to the Trents.

    I would say however that you would need some arm to throw a model that high (above the house in some of the Trent photos). For a model to appear with the shadows etc. from that distance I would think it would need to be heavier than a pie tin. I will not post again and await further evidence of where this new photo came from. Thanks again.

    Mark R.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at Friday, March 09, 2007  

  • Dear RRR,
    You made a statement about DR. Bruce Macabee research on these Trent photos. A skeptics rule is once you attack a persons work you need to prove it to by the evidence. So what is your evidence regarding Bruce Macabees research into this photo(In one instance it took years to prove a point one of his points.)
    For those interested in what Dr. Maccabee proposed please copy the link and read.

    Thank You
    Josph Capp
    UFO Media Matters


    By Blogger UFO Media Matters, at Friday, March 09, 2007  

  • Joseph...

    We direct you to skeptical observations about Dr. Maccabee's Trent/McMinnville work:



    What Dr. Maccabee can't do (couldn't do) was determine if a string connected the object filmed to the wires above it.

    Moreover, he was limited by the film emulsion and poor quality of the snapped photos.

    The other quibbles can be found in the Sheaffer and Klass materials, linked above.

    We don't accept Phil Klass's ideas very often, but Mr. Sheaffer is another matter.

    We like his skepticism.

    Dr. Maccabee is an okay guy, diligent, but not infallible.

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Friday, March 09, 2007  

  • Trajectory?


    By Anonymous Anonymous, at Friday, March 09, 2007  

  • Anonymous:

    Don't be coy...

    Look at the object, and its angle to the ground.

    If the object (craft) is of a size that houses an occupant (pilot), it would have had to swoop down, near the ground to achieve its angular position.

    The ground would either have some perturbation or even a groove, since the object (craft) couldn't be where it is otherwise....unless it's a small thing (model).

    The trajectory is all wrong for an aircraft, especially one tipped as this one is.

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Friday, March 09, 2007  

  • why isn't there a link to a full resolution scan of this image? It doesn't look old to me. it's too crisp and has a "digital" feeling about it. post at least a 1mb or larger version for us to really look at.

    By Anonymous oregonianbeliever, at Saturday, March 10, 2007  

  • Let us assure you that the photo predates any digital manipulation programs.

    It is not computer generated.

    But we haven't gotten confirmation of the source of it, other than it was from the Trent film roll -- which is yet to be determined.

    Since we do not have the original, enlarging the image would only make it less distinct.

    We'll have more on this, as we've noted, upcoming....

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Saturday, March 10, 2007  

  • That used to be a "UFO"..It's my farther's hub cap flying off his car a 1941 ford sedan...No kidding he ran over a fence post that was laying in the road...And the hub cap flew off and I shot the photo from the back seat looking out the window on the drivers side of the car..My camera was a browning kodak...I was eleven years old...That picture was sold with a bunch of household stuff we got rid of ten years later...Look where all you people have taken this simple little picture...shame on all of you for being so silly and confused...

    By Anonymous Kim, at Saturday, March 10, 2007  

  • Kim...


    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Saturday, March 10, 2007  

  • That object is doing a perfect aerodynamic maneuver. It's called a hard right climbing turn after having just 'buzzed' the observer. Any airplane or helicopter can do that!
    Then again, it could have been one of Heflin's model train wheels. They don't fly too good.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at Saturday, March 10, 2007  

  • My first comment is that I do believe that there are craft here other than ours, since I have seen some unusual aerial phenomenon. Once you have seen something for yourself, your whole perspective changes. That out of the way, the few photos that I have taken myself, I have been very scrutinizing over them, trying to find alternative explanations. If I am going to give access to one of my pictures, I give the original digital or scan the photo at the highest usable resolution and let them make their own judgement. One of the biggest problems with a picture being posted like this is when the only access to it is the one that is posted for size on the Internet. Any time that these pictures are put up without access to a higher resolution picture they are subject to criticism. Put up access to a scanned higher res picture that people can download and make their own conclusions as to whether it is real or not. The picture should be at least 300dpi if possible. Using the photo that you have posted, I was able to use some various filters to see what appears to be some type of panels or apparatus around the outside, but the resolution is too low to make any definitive conclusions. Why not give access? I'm sure that you have a better picture since this one has been resized to 72dpi for web use.

    By Anonymous Denver, at Saturday, March 10, 2007  

  • Denver:

    Send us an e-mail address and we'll send you the image that we reduced slightly to fit the blog page.

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Saturday, March 10, 2007  

  • this is a shop, i can tell because of the pixels and having seen many shops in my time.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at Saturday, March 10, 2007  

  • Do I have to do or be something special to have my last comment posted? Let me know. Timgee

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at Saturday, March 10, 2007  

  • TimGee...

    We can't find your post in our Comment section.

    Post it to comments (again?) and we'll make sure to add it here.


    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Saturday, March 10, 2007  

  • Thank you rrrgroup. As you may be able to tell, I'm not use to blogs and such. Though, I'm learning.

    Something like this was sent - Has anyone noticed the guy standing by the pole? When Kims hub-cap flew off her dads car, this fellow probably called his wife out to take a photo before it smacked him in the head. Or, after it whacked him and he had a great dream, he called her out to take the photo as he flung it in the air; and that's how it aquired such an angle.

    Thanks again, Timgee Kentucky

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at Saturday, March 10, 2007  

  • And people can't understand why those of us who have seen UFO's in broad daylight and taken pictures, frequently say nothing and never show the pictures to anyone except family and close friends!!!!! Some of you folks would swear something black was white all the while looking at it square on. Skeptics abound and I am thankfull for that but , believe me, once you have seen one, it isn't hard to accept the fact that their maneuverings follow NO earthly rules.

    By Anonymous Marie Harvey, at Saturday, March 10, 2007  

  • I find it amazing that anyone believes that negatives can't be gaffed to create a lie. Photos without negatives are not useless, and photos with negatives are not automatically superior.

    What IS useless, are ufo blogs.

    When "they" land on the White House lawn, I am going to join the believers.

    Until then, I suspect a lot of hubcap flinging, black ops, and wishful thinking.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at Saturday, March 10, 2007  

  • I don't know why this angle is aerodynamically impossible. High performance jets fly at angles such as this all the time, if not sharper, especially in high speed turns. The US Navy Blue Angels and US Air Force Thunderbirds Demonstration teams have maneuvers flying at 90 degree to the ground with no problems at all. Even piston engine aircraft can fly at angles such as these.

    Btw, I have spent over 40 years in the aviation industry and see F/A-18s and F-15s make turns at angles greater than this almost every day. Besides that I've been an aviation nut as long as I've known what airplanes are, which is over 50 years. Yes, anybody who says this angle is wrong has never spent much time looking at airplanes in flight or even movies of airplanes.

    By Anonymous Morris Coller, at Monday, March 12, 2007  

  • Hello Anonymous,

    I never said a negative could NOT
    be gaffed. It if were however I bet
    you any real forensic photo person
    would have at least a good chance
    of catching it upon examination.

    My point was that having a negative would help lend credence
    to the idea that:

    1) The photo is as old as claimed

    2) It (the neagative) could be examined for signs of manipulation


    Mark R.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at Monday, March 12, 2007  

  • PLEASE NOTE: I posted a reply about this item on the following entry, but thought it should be repeated here. This is NOT a "long lost Trent photo", but rather this photo has been known for quite some time and appears on the UFO Casebook site, under the "best UFO photos section" (page 3). It's identified as having been taken by a gentleman in Germany many years ago. I make no claim to its authenticity (actually, it looks like a fake to me) but a "long lost Trent photo" it clearly ain't.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at Monday, March 12, 2007  

  • "Second. Where is the negative for this? I've done LOTS of photoshop work and frankly this could be a scanned poloroid with a B/W filter on it."

    Look at the above quote please. Now go to ufocasebook.com page
    3 of the best UFO evidence photos
    section. The photo there IS NO QUESTION the photo that has been shown here as a "lost trent photo"
    . It is in color on the other site.
    SOMEONE has put it through Photoshop and applied a B/W filter. The RRR group has a LOT of explaining to do. I no longer consider this place a serious discusion board. This is a hoax. This is why you should not take ANYONE in the UFO community "at their word". Enough..

    Mark R.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at Monday, March 12, 2007  

  • Mark:

    Apparently you haven't seen the latest posts here about the "lost" Trent photo.

    We received the photo and posted it with a question mark, as you can see (above).

    We stated that there was more to come, and more did come.

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Monday, March 12, 2007  

  • Where's the 'more to come'? You indicated this was the a potentially lost Trent photograph. Before that was totally shot down your indication that more to come would tend to make me believe that you thought you had more info corroborating your fantasy.

    It would be ever more entertaining to hear what other evidence you had indicating this was a lost Trent photo.

    By Anonymous CJ, at Monday, March 12, 2007  

  • CJ:

    We were ambivalent about the photo, as you can see from the original post.

    It didh owever have the patina of the Trent photos, as is noted here:


    Our "more to come" has panned out as just that....more did come.

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Monday, March 12, 2007  

  • I do believe someone (almost) pulled a fast one on you this time!
    Always do your homework first guys!


    By Anonymous Anonymous, at Monday, March 12, 2007  

  • Thanks, Hollis, but we didn't accept the photo without reservations as one can see by reading our original post (above).

    We presented the photo as it was received, and knew that UFO aficionados would get to the bottom of it.

    We tried a search via Google Images but didn't find the photo online or in our vast array of UFO books and magazines here; so we put it online, and you see the result.

    The back-and-forth proved interesting, did it not?

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Monday, March 12, 2007  

  • All concerned should take a deep breath..and read "The Trickster and The Paranormal" by George P Hansen.
    Stretching the boundarys of empirical evidence, whether it is typeface on a MJ12 document, an old photo, etc lays bare the poverty of original and critical thinking in the sense you cannot see the forest for the trees.
    What we are dealing with is a new natural phenomenon.
    Take another deep breath and re-read "Supernature" by Lyall Watson..this is not the neat stereotyped catagories we have been
    trapped into by our conceptual models of reality. Spacemen...time travelers...control systems...et al..are rather nonsensical. The conspiracy theories assume superior critical and tactical thinking.. it's more a confederacy of dunces..a conspiracy to hide that they no nothing more than you do..to assume otherwise, is a fools errand. This is a form of wave propagation of our own consensus projection of modeling, always in advance of our technology..sickles to airships to foo fighters, to saucers, to triangles..coming in and out of focus in flaps and waves...it's neither here nor there..physical and non physical...put on your thinking caps and discard the old comic book images..read some physics books...

    By Anonymous Bruce Duensing, at Monday, March 19, 2007  

  • What in this universe is sensical that is outside of your scope of experience? You probably interact with women on a daily basis have you figured them out yet? Not wise to dismiss anything just because it doesn't fit into your assumption of what is plausible. Explain to me Barbara Streisands success, it makes less sense to me than intergalactic travelers. Ultimately, pictures prove/disprove nothing, but they remain entertaining. Certainly some UFO pics + stories are fake or misidentified, but how can you say that all are bogus? Many sightings come from civilian/military pilots who have everything to lose and nothing to gain from making up stories such as this. I have entirely too much free time.
    T. Goble.

    By Blogger Thomas, at Sunday, April 22, 2007  

  • Look just above and slightly to the left of the UFO to see the alien in the cloud's right eye. This will open the gate to seeing the whole alien face in the clouds. I'm no crazy conspiracist but I can see an alien face and that's messed up.

    By Blogger Justin Cabral, at Tuesday, June 05, 2012  

Post a Comment

<< Home