posted on Sep, 30 2009 @ 05:24 PM
These photos were left unresolved by the Condon report.
Robert Sheaffer wrote a report about these photos in 1969 which he says:
The Trent UFO Photos
caused the Condon report's chief investigator of that case to reconsider his conclusion.
He did a lot of analysis of everything from weather to geometry of the objects and shadows.
His conclusion? Apparently, could be real, could be fake. Can't 100% prove conclusively one way or the other. But he comes up with some information
on how they could have been faked if they were:
An Investigation of the McMinnville UFO Photographs
In light of the above, it is clear that the witnesses’ story of supposedly photographing a UFO cannot be accepted at face value. It is difficult to
see what advantage would be gained in altering the alleged circumstances of the photographs, but the scientific investigator must guard against
becoming an apologist. No serious researcher would contend that a photograph is of any value whatsoever in establishing the existence of an
extraordinary object unless it is solidly corroborated by the testimony of one or more witnesses.
There exists no factual basis for rejecting the following hypothesis: at approximately 8:20 in the morning of May 11, 1950, a small asymmetrical model
was suspended from overhead telephone wires by two very thin threads. It was photographed once, then reoriented either by hand or by its assumption of
a pendulum-type motion, and photographed again.
Of course, this does not "prove" that the photographs do not show an extraordinary flying object, but it has shown that there is no reason to
believe that they do. The non-existence of such objects, as well as that of werewolves, witches, and unicorns, can never be "proven." No amount of
negative evidence will seem conclusive so long as there exists a strong will to believe. In this writer’s opinion, the fact that this and so many
other "classic" UFO cases have eventually been exposed should instill in us a healthy skepticism that should not be lost in investigating future
reports of highly-improbable phenomena.
Interesting case, S+F for reminding me about it.
[edit on 30-9-2009 by Arbitrageur]