UFO Conjectures

Sunday, February 14, 2016

A clue to fraud -- the Trent/McMinnville flying saucer photo(s)?

Farmer Paul Trent took his "famous" photos of an alleged flying disk in the sky, over his farm in 1950 and while some feel his photographs are legitimate (authentic), there are these aftermath photos (by a LIFE magazine photographer) of Mr. Trent indicating a desire to capitalize (become notable) on the basis of his photographs:
Now one can assume that anyone capturing by camera a photo of a  flying saucer in 1950 would revel in some kind of notoriety or fame; flying saucers were exotic and remarkably strange in 1950 and getting a picture of one would be a stand-out accomplishment.

But the stance and demeanor of Mr. Trent in these photos (and others) seems to show a man more interested in that notoriety than what his camera had captured.

For me, this puts a dent in his sincerity and credibility.

An article in the March 2016 issue of Harper's magazine about staged photography [Undeceiving the World: Can a staged photograph tell the truth by Stuart Franklin, Page 63 ff.] may address the motives of the LIFE photographer but it also allows us to consider Mr. Trent's purposes for attending the LIFE photographer's goals (which were to hint at a duplicity by the Trents as covered in a few pieces here, at this blog, and elsewhere about the matter).

Mr. Trent seems heftily interested in his new found "fame" which also indicates, psychoanalytically, an unconscious desire to gain that fame by creating a unique and sensational photograph,

Mr. Trent may have been a farmer but he was not typical of the stereotype often laid upon farmers: rubes with little education or sophisticated manners (despite dirty, farm-afflicted clothing in his case).

We have tried to find his son, pictured here in a contrived photo by LIFE (hinting at the idea that the thing photographed may have been tied to an overhead wire), but have been unsuccessful thus far.
At any rate, the LIFE effort along with Mr. Trent's (and family's) acquiescence in the shoot and posing raises some questions, for me (attendant upon the Harper's article), about the authenticity of the McMinnville photos (which have been addressed by believers and skeptics many times over.)