UFO Conjecture(s)

Thursday, June 26, 2014

Arguments and Counter-Arguments to my Trent/McMinnville Item

David Rudiak has, like others elsewhere, makes the point that hanging a mirror or anything on the wires in the LIFE photos and the original Trent photos would provide a sagging of the wires which is not evident.

It’s a valid, significant point.

But the “ladder photo” (that provoked so much antipathy when Tony Bragalia displayed it in his Trent piece here last year) seems to imply that the LIFE photographer was insinuating that he, the photographer, thought that maybe the Trents hung an object from the overhead wires to create their flying saucer).
While a few respondents went off on tangential Ford car information, no one has settled whose car that is in the photos.

That the Trents were poor seems arguable, when one sees their house – not a hovel, but a typical, middle class or lower-middle class house, that a working farmer might have.


Further, Mr. Trent was able to buy a nice camera and, although the clothes on his wife and son, are not New York chic, they are hardly burlap sacks. (Mr. Trent is dressed as a farmer might be, hardly fashionable and a little filthy but not ragged.)


No one has ever answered my point that the object shown in the photos was apparently chugging along as Mr. Trent was able to go into the house retrieve his camera, prepare it to shoot, and get two shots before the “saucer” departed or disappeared…Also, the tilt of the object; why would the object be askew in its trajectory? It's an odd aerodynamic.

Also, we have no other photos, from anyone, anywhere showing a similarly configured flying object. (The Rouen photo is argued, in some quarters. as a reworked Trent photo.)
Anthony Bragalia is attempting to locate the Trent son, pictured on the ladder (above). Let’s see what he has to say, if or when he’s found.

Meanwhile, the photos, like almost everything else involving UFOs, remain iffy to some, but a real ET craft to others.

(We received a few comments from believers attacking “debunkers” but not offering any counter arguments to the perceived “debunking.” Those comments were not added to my posting, just as the car asides were ignored. And, while I did allow Lance Moody’s templated attack on David Rudiak, let me say that Mr. Rudiak’s arguments have merit and I accept them as valid, even understanding that they are biased by Mr. Rudiak’s obsession with the ETH.)

So, we have settled little or nothing, but as French skeptic Gilles Fernandez often reminds us, “That’s ufology.”

RR

14 Comments:

  • Trent’s son atop a a ladder that was placed directly under the area where these UFO photos were taken means something. Initially reported in error as having been taken from the same film roll as the UFO photos (based on the lies and misinformation originating from space journalist James Oberg, who admitted to this) the actual photographer of the ‘ladder boy’ photo was instead found to be LIFE magazine’s Loomis Dean. Despite my mistaken attribution, the ladder boy photo that I have highlighted may yet provide valuable insight about the true nature of the famous McMinnville UFO photographs.

    One has to consider motivation. It is probable that LIFE photographer Loomis Dean took the photo to ‘pictorially hint’ his belief that the McMinnville photos were hoaxed. Was Dean trying to visually document how he believed that the prank had been pulled? The photo would seem to say that Loomis believed the boy and a ladder figured into the whole thing. It can be seen how an object could be thrown into the air from a ladder – or how a ladder could be used to suspend and sway the UFO model (perhaps a car mirror as Rich says) from the wires just above them. It makes no discernible sense for Loomis to have taken a photo of Paul Trent’s son – unless it had a meaning. The son was not a witness and the fact he is pictured atop a ladder with a grin in the UFO ‘spot’ is troubling.The very fact that there is a ladder near the area of the alleged sighting itself raises concern. Dean would have to have been able to readily find a ladder in the immediate area in order to pose the Trent child atop it. He would not have traipsed the farm in search of one. This means that a ladder was always stored near the barn where the photos were taken. headline- The particular placement and location of the ladder, which seems almost nearly where Trent took one of his shots, would suggest that Dean was perhaps thinking that a hoax had been perpetrated. If Dean was just after a ‘cute shot’ why use the ladder, with the boy on it, in that specific spot? All the other Dean photos from that shoot seem to be ‘editorial’ in nature, not irrelevant goofs.” Dean did not photograph irrelevance. This is shown in extensive review of his material. He photographed with purpose and for a reason- to tell a story pictorially. In a photo-artistic sense a ladder represents a movable framework that forms a means to rise. It is used to climb up and down to perform a task. A ladder -positioned just right- would come in mighty handy for a hoax. And so too would be a trustable, mischievous son.

    I was provided by Rich a lead to Trent’s relatives and have been able to locate one Trent’s daughters, still in OR. Trying to ‘catch’ her answering has been difficult but still trying…

    AJB

    By Blogger Anthony Bragalia, at Thursday, June 26, 2014  

  • On one side you have Paul Hill's analysis of the possible propulsion and navigation aspects developed while at NASA which would account for the skewed angle of the alleged object. On the other hand, I cannot help but wonder why anyone back in the day would expose themselves to such scrutiny and suspicion outside of the general paranoia as a concern that was floating around back then.
    As a hoax it seems pointless outside of any remuneration I am unaware of. Self satisfaction?
    One off shapes are not that uncommon. I suspect their lives went on as before after their five seconds of fame. What of their neighbors opinions?
    We will probably never know.
    These sort of images continue to the present day albeit in other forms. The problem is always a matter of post editorial speculation driven by not empirical evidence but by belief or faith or suspicion.
    As for agnostics, it will always be an unsettled affair and once an image has been placed in the public domain, it cannot be taken back other than by indirect evidence to the contrary which is not directly empirical in nature.
    In some ways it resembles a joke without a punchline.

    By Blogger Bruce Duensing, at Thursday, June 26, 2014  

  • Gasp! It must be two spacecraft from another world!

    http://tinyurl.com/ku9s7tn

    Just ignore the fact that these two "spacecraft" are in virtually the same position under a real-world telephone wire.

    Face-palm!

    By Blogger zoamchomsky, at Thursday, June 26, 2014  

  • based on the lies and misinformation originating from space journalist James Oberg, who admitted to this

    Hey Tony,

    In your own article you stated/claimed you have a contact in LIFE Magazine who confirmed the ladder picture and the flying saucers ones were from the very same roll.

    Do you have already forgotten? False memories at work? retrospective falsification?

    Regards,

    Gilles.

    By Blogger Gilles Fernandez, at Thursday, June 26, 2014  

  • BTW, dear friends,

    In the past I have, I believe pointed to you the IPACO team study. It have been updated from the time I pointed this study to you, and after one strange and ad hominem critic made by the UFO-believer (I say it because he accusated my friends to be "debunkers, but dunno nothing about what they really think about UFO...) Brad Sparks.

    and it is normal to defend a study where I'm (among others in the aknowledgments section^^).

    http://ipaco.fr/ReportMcMinnville.pdf

    I suppose it could interest Rich, Tony and others about the suspended model hypothesis.

    Best Regards,

    Gilles.

    By Blogger Gilles Fernandez, at Thursday, June 26, 2014  

  • Gilles

    My contact was a lady who was employed by LIFE. She maintained that she was privy (as were others at her office) to "film from the Trent place, including the supposed flying saucer." Most everyone, she added "thought it was a model or something."

    And this is not the first LIFE magazine person I have written about. Since you are not American you may not know that LIFE was a very military/influenced publication. That is why I examined it in relation to Roswell, found Allan Grant, and learned of his remarkable LIFE story.

    AJB

    By Blogger Anthony Bragalia, at Thursday, June 26, 2014  

  • I regret but you stated/claimed a zekret contact of your own confirmed you the pictures were form the very same roll. Period.

    Since you are not American you may not know that LIFE was a very military/influenced publication.
    Lol.
    Ah ok, LIFE MAGAZINE famous 1952 release(with the Marilyn Monroe's cover) and which given the and a biggest boost to America Public that UFOs were real and of ET origin is part of the Military Agenda!

    Pfff!

    Conspirationist's mind is a very interesting subject of study for the Human Sciences imho !

    Regards,

    Gilles.

    By Blogger Gilles Fernandez, at Thursday, June 26, 2014  

  • Occam's razor folks. I'm not saying that no one should look deeper into the matter, hopefully Tony can locate the relatives and get a more definitive answer about what was going on.

    Too many things are counting against the photo. From the time it took Trent to get his camera (which the craft conveniently hung around for), the odd angle at which the craft seems to be hovering, the coincidental telephone wires, and the suspicious photo of the boy on the latter.

    I wouldn't bet money on this being a geniune photo of an ET craft. I wish it was.

    It's possible sure, but what are the chances? Especially with so many clues stacked against it?

    By Blogger Daniel Hurd, at Thursday, June 26, 2014  

  • Yes, Tony continues to lie about this in the most idiotic way.

    Most everyone knows about your disingenuous bullshit, Tony, but just in case:

    It is very simple. Tony claimed that he had a contact from LIFE magazine who had confirmed that the shots of the boy on the ladder where taken by the Trents.

    He claimed this repeatedly after Gilles and I suggested to him that Loomis was the actual photographer and my dear, dear, friend, David Rusiak actually proved it.

    Note Tony's infantile non-answer to Gilles' challenge above.

    Tony, not many people are as dull as you are, so, while I know you think you are being clever, you are likely only fooling a few folks (this being a UFO blog, I can't rule out everyone!).

    Now in the real world, an actual investigator or searcher for the truth would repudiate this kind gross deception and certainly want to disassociate themselves from it. Here in Saucer Jesus Land, Rudiak and Tony are working together on fake research into Roswell.


    Lance

    By Blogger Lance, at Thursday, June 26, 2014  

  • Lance-

    Address my comment on why Dean took the photo and what the Ladder Boy image really means...you ignore.

    And you ignore that it was your idol Oberg that purposely deceived. In the two years since this frankly tired old story started, you have yet once to publicly chide and excoriate the instigator of the issue- James Oberg.

    I am 'guilty' of believing him, and when my LIFE contact said she saw the Ladder Boy photo at her office along with the UFO photos, I took it as corroboration of Oberg's information.

    Simple as that...

    AJB

    By Blogger Anthony Bragalia, at Thursday, June 26, 2014  

  • Ok RR -

    ...perhaps you should require all of your talented respondents here to follow your lede (heh) and state their personal unusual auto ownership mirror history so that we can establish a baseline for rear view recognition?

    ...allow me to begin with my early C.V.:

    1967 Corvair Monza

    By Blogger Kurt Peters, at Thursday, June 26, 2014  

  • On the Trent flying-saucer hoax "being a geniune photo of an ET craft. .... It's possible sure, but what are the chances?"

    It's so remotely implausible that it's not worth considering, that is, it is effectively ZERO. The same is true of every other purported flying-saucer photo because the idea of ET visiting Earth in personal interstellar transport vehicles is absurd.

    The flying-saucer form originated in science-fiction in the 1880s, the idea that starfaring ET would arrive at Earth in such vehicles is laughable scientifically. It's merely the subject of a space-age myth and the object of worship to Believers.

    And on the idea of ET visitation generally,

    Not impossible, but just so utterly implausible given the thoroughly radically contingent reality denying the proposition: Simply because we are here by one happy accident of self-consciousness to reflect on the Universe, doesn't mean that there is another sentient creature in the entire Galaxy. And given the insurmountable obstacles to interstellar travel: distance, time, life support, and innumerable, random cosmic hazards, the chance that hypothetical ET have ever visited Earth, or ever will, is so very small the idea is pure fantasy. A dozen exceptions to the Fermi paradox are more reasons we will never meet.

    That is why rational adults don't consider flying-saucer reports seriously; they never did.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fermi_paradox

    By Blogger zoamchomsky, at Friday, June 27, 2014  

  • Oh, come on, Zoam, don't be so obtuse. This is a discussion of very specific evidence for an event of (admittedly slight) cultural significance, and the ET explanation is not assumed. Your objection is silly and perhaps intolerant.

    You wouldn't tell Hebrew scholars to stop studying ancient texts just because the existence of God is implausible, would you?

    By Blogger Terry the Censor, at Tuesday, July 01, 2014  

  • Terry--who doesn't like me speaking from outside the "UFO" delusion--writes:
    Oh, come on, Zoam. This is a discussion of very specific evidence for an event of (admittedly slight) cultural significance, and the ET explanation is not assumed.

    Terry, it's very clear that here I AM addressing the probability of
    "the Trent flying-saucer hoax "being a geniune photo of an ET craft. .... It's possible sure, but what are the chances?"

    We already know it's a hoax; and if one didn't know it in 1950--since any rational adult knew it was nothing but another silly flying-saucer photo, a hoax by definition--then it has long been shown to be a hoax by Hartmann and Sheaffer. And we've discussed the details of this hoax here and elsewhere recently for anyone to see and offer their comments. No one is preventing discussion on this or any topic.

    Here, let's chew on some brute facts of this sixty-four year-old hoax a bit more:
    "Those are telephone wires, and the truck mirror is suspended by two threads that are draped over and tangled around both wires. Trent couldn't easily throw the mirror over just one wire.

    "The telephone wires are probably 0.5 inch diameter of single solid copper with a plastic coating common in the last century. I have a sample here, even a meter-long piece is like a rod. The weight of the mirror is divided by two wires and distributed along their entire lengths between attachment points, so no "pinch point" is observed.

    "The anomalous brightness of the mirrored glass is measured in relation to the metal body of the object--not what it's reflecting. And what it's reflecting is distant scattered light from an angle opposite the POV of the camera--not the ground it's facing. And as if grass could be resolved by that camera, film, a small surface at that distance....

    "Only in the make-it-up fantasies of Saucer-Jesus Land.

    "Both of DR's desperate objections to the mirror hypothesis are rejected."

    Okay, Terry?

    You wouldn't tell Hebrew scholars to stop studying ancient texts just because the existence of God is implausible, would you?"

    Good One, Terry! Falsely comparing ancient religious texts that have had meaning for millions of lives over millennia to laughably phony flying-saucer photos that took nothing but goofballs apeing a culturally supplied model just a few minutes to make.

    Tell me another one! ...And Terry, antiscientific delusions are my top priority. Okay?

    Show me where I tell anyone to stop anything. Showing how and why long-decided issues are simply that, and how and why conspiracy idiocy and saucer dumbassery is worthless even to those lost inside the "UFO" delusion--and certainly without it in the real world--are not only completely legitimate but essential contributions to these Internet discussions.

    As I said:
    It's so remotely implausible that it's not worth considering, that is, it is effectively ZERO. The same is true of every other purported flying-saucer photo because the idea of ET visiting Earth in personal interstellar transport vehicles is absurd.

    The flying-saucer form originated in science-fiction in the 1880s, the idea that starfaring ET would arrive at Earth in such vehicles is laughable scientifically. It's merely the subject of a space-age myth and the object of worship to Believers.

    Even the best--by pure accident--of these silly flying-saucer photos is worthless!

    By Blogger zoamchomsky, at Tuesday, July 01, 2014  

Post a Comment

<< Home