It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


The Trent UFO Photos McMinnville, Oregon - May 11, 1950

page: 2
<< 1   >>

log in


posted on Jan, 24 2011 @ 06:00 PM
I saw or read something yrs ago where this was a proven and admitted hoax, it was done with a wheel taken off a model train set and suspended.

posted on Jan, 24 2011 @ 06:47 PM
On closer inspection, they look identical:

The comparison has been linked before CLICKY LINK!

Here's an image of a man in Germany who "replicated the shots" (no other information is given):

Notice the strange trajectory of the object, similar to the Trent photo's. I've no evidence to support this theory but my assumption is that the object was thrown like a frisby (as they were "replicated") and shots were taken at a high shutter speed... then attempted once more, hence the geographical inconsistancy with the 2 Trent shots.

Now, if a guy in Germany can "replicate" a similar shot I would have to lean towards the fact that a mass produced object was thrown by a 2nd person whilst someone is taking the photo. The object (note its very similar appearance) could have been produced and/or distributed from US to Europe or vice-versa.

Either it's the same style of Alien Spaceship... or the same brand of hub-cap/Kettle Lid?

What do you guys honestly think of my rationale here?
edit on 24-1-2011 by SchoolProject because: terrible typo's cleaned up

posted on Jan, 25 2011 @ 10:18 AM
Sigh. Any lunatic can fabricate a picture which - on the surface - looks semi-real. Even Billy Meier has a few nice looking pictures between all the junk. That does not mean such pictures can pass rigorous scientific analysis.

The argument seems to be that a superficial copy will prove the original to be a hoax. This is fallacious. A fake of a famous Van Gogh painting does not prove that the original is not real. It shows nothing more than that a superficial copy can be created, and being a copy it will fail to resemble the original in the details. The flying saucer photos which are linked to here will not withstand detailed photogrammetric analyses nor any of the other optical analyses that were performed on the Trent negatives.

Among other things, the photometry results suggest that if it were fake, the object had to be translucent. Therefore you are either stuck with a translucent, assymmetrical pan lid and lying witnesses, or the witnesses were telling the truth and there was a real flying object in the distance. I'll opt for the latter.

posted on Jan, 25 2011 @ 10:26 AM

Originally posted by SchoolProject
Now, if a guy in Germany can "replicate" a similar shot
The source does not say it was "duplicated" as in an admitted fake. It says "There is also this photo from a man in Germany that duplicates the Trent “saucer". Poor choice of words I think. There's no other info given on this picture and I'm not sure I would call it a match to the Trent photos.

posted on Jan, 25 2011 @ 11:39 AM
reply to post by jclmavg

Notice the strange trajectory of the object, similar to the Trent photo's. I've no evidence to support this theory but my assumption is that the object was thrown like a frisby (as they were "replicated") and shots were taken at a high shutter speed... then attempted once more, hence the geographical inconsistancy with the 2 Trent shots.

The research articles mentioned the camera's F-stop was most likely >11F and shutter speed of 1/50. Using such setting to shoot a nearby dangling object should create blurring effects.

IMHO, with any UFO evidence, one cannot arrive at a clear cut 100% fake nor 100% real conclusion. One can only distribute all trivial facts and arguments on both sides of pendulum and see which way it tilts. Even with an apparently fake CGI, you can only say it's 99.999% fake. What tips the scale slightly towards real for me is the fact that since these photos, there have been hoaxers with better skills and better equipments and yet, cannot create more convincing images.

posted on Nov, 10 2016 @ 01:54 PM

originally posted by: JimOberg
Right, the photos of that event NOT shown by the promoters include the Trent kid grinning mischievously under the wire with a ladder lying on the ground next to him. I hope everybody's seen THOSE, and made reasonable inductions from them.

Photo was from a month later - but then I'm sure you didn't know that.

As I read through the various comments I see that Lance has asked for an 'apology'...which (if there is one) must come from the source of any error made.

That source is, as he knows, James Oberg. Oberg is a well-known space 'journalist' with professional ties to NASA who has been admired by Lance-like skeptics (such as Tim Printy) for a very long time.

It is Oberg who is the origin of the problem.

The inescapable fact is that it is Oberg who made the first public display on the net of the 'ladder boy' image- not me.
He did this three years ago on the ATS (Above Top Secret) forum. He deliberately dropped the "bombshell" photo of the boy on the ladder on a an ATS forum apparently in a misguided effort to further the belief that Trent had hoaxed the UFO photos.

And I am not the first or only to fall for the Oberg misinformation..

posted on Nov, 13 2016 @ 08:17 PM
a reply to: karl 12

I get the impression Mr. Oberg is a disinfo agent. I can't prove this concretely obviously, but his behavior with constant denial, not being able to admit when points are made, no matter how logical they are plus open ignorance...

It's more debunking than healthy skepticism imho. I've watched his patterns over these forums, and some of it reflects tactics in the counter intelligence field.

Something that also makes me pursue that theory, is the fact the Trents originally did not receive the negatives back from Life Magazine when they were promised them, as when they pursued to get the photos returned, they were told the pictures were "lost", back around in 1950. (I wonder how many times the UFO community heard about evidence being "lost"?)

So then all of sudden the negatives reappeared in 1967 in one of the files in the office of United Press International, which in 1968 Dr William K Hartmann of the then condon committee received the photographs, who then had them eventually sent back to UPI, times passes as the trents ask wheres the photos, to which they end up at the news register paper (keep in mind, this is the same paper that originally published the story, although it was called the telephone register at that time),so time passed again, to which by 1975 Dr Bruce Macabee eventually gains possession of the photos, after going through the news registers archives, and gives the negatives back to the trents himself.

Some small, but EXTREMELY important things to think about here:

1.How did the photos end up at UPI, after Life "lost them"? Did someone working at Life magazine get fired or quit, and take them to their new job at UPI? Did someone at the military get to the writers and failed at attempting to destroy the evidence?

2.How did Dr. Hartmann discover the photos were found after them disappearing for nearly 20 years? Did he know someone who planted them there for safety years ago? Did he have an insider at UPI?

3.Why were the Trents not immediately informed that the negatives were found?!

Surely those would be the first people you'd contact, since the Trents went public explaining the negatives were missing at some point if i recall correctly? It sounds like censorship that failed!

When the trents finally realized the photos were at UPI, they contacted a man by the name of Philip Bladine at the news register, who was the editor at the time, to get in touch with UPI and retrieve the negatives.

They sent the photos back to the news-register, but interestingly enough Mr Bladine never informed the Trents he had got them back, nor ever said why he neglected to mention the return of the negatives. It wasn't until 1975 Dr Maccabee had gave the trents the negatives, no one at the paper thought to do that.

This to me is puzzling, was Mr Bladine hiding the photographs because of military confrontations, waiting to have someone find them years later so he wasn't at blame or risk?

Or was he part of a coverup?

I feel if one was to research Mr Bladine's life, they might find something. He seems to be a key player in the coverup, whether thats a instigator or victim i cannot say, there was no reason for him to get the photos back and never return them. You can't even use the "i forgot" excuse on a news story like this, you'd have to be mentally impaired to accidentally not give the pictures back. It was done on purpose, question is why?

new topics

top topics

<< 1   >>

log in