Make-believe in Mcminnville: Famous 1950 UFO photos faked?

"It looks like the mystery of the infamous McMinnville UFO photos has finally been solved. The photos have been proven and dis-proven many times for well over a century now, but a recent discovery on the same roll of film shows the photographer's son posing on a ladder in the middle of the yard right below the spot where the UFO later appears. In other words, the photographer had a test run" quote from _The Anomalist"

This one was always said to be "the real deal" well maybe not! check out the new information on this classic UFO photo. bragalia.blogspot.com...

Makes sense to me. Another one bites the dust?

reply to post by RUFFREADY


It does cast some suspicion on the photograph, but "bites the dust"? I don't think so.

reply to post by RUFFREADY


Interesting find. All speculation of course, but you have to wonder - why is that ladder placed where there is nothing within reach...except maybe the wires overhead? Might be good to include some of the relevant analyses in this thread to see what has been said regarding the supposed distance of the object from the camera.

This really isn't new news, but it is good that the information is getting out to more people. The pictures that were on the same roll don't prove a hoax, but they certainly do support the possibility. The picture of Trent by that truck, just under the mirror gives a possible source for the "object" as well.

Also not new news is this video of Michael Shermer's fake UFO experiments with kids, photographic experts, and the public:



Creating fake UFO pictures is very easy to do, and a lot of people are easily convinced.

Cheers.

"Another one bites the dust?"

Is thread a joke? Least if this thread had Queen playing their famous hit, it would be entertaining

Originally posted by RUFFREADY
"It looks like the mystery of the infamous McMinnville UFO photos has finally been solved. The photos have been proven and dis-proven many times for well over a century now, but a recent discovery on the same roll of film shows the photographer's son posing on a ladder in the middle of the yard right below the spot where the UFO later appears. In other words, the photographer had a test run" quote from _The Anomalist"

This one was always said to be "the real deal" well maybe not! check out the new information on this classic UFO photo. bragalia.blogspot.com...

Makes sense to me. Another one bites the dust?

edit on 18/12/12 by JAK because: All Caps title edit. The use of All Caps

Well, I wouldn't be so quick to drawn any conclusion from this yet.

Bragalia have done a good job, there's no doubts about it, however, he should explain why the format difference between the two original Trent photos....





...taken with a "Roamer 1", 620 film that takes 13x17mm photos...

....and this one:



which, apparently, have the same format (6x6) as those taken for LIFE magazine:

same roll of film

Hhmmm...

Originally posted by RUFFREADY
"It looks like the mystery of the infamous McMinnville UFO photos has finally been solved. The photos have been proven and dis-proven many times for well over a century now, but a recent discovery on the same roll of film shows the photographer's son posing on a ladder in the middle of the yard....
Makes sense to me. Another one bites the dust?

I'm not so sure about Bragalia's claims, though I'm certainly open to the possibility. (I don't put much stock in any single UFO photo.) And hasn't this issue been brought up before?

Should it not have been known by now, given the analysis in the Condon Report?

A few very important points:

1) Bragalia won't even reveal his sources: "I simply cannot comment further than I have in a public forum on my sources on this for several reasons. But no, this was not done by a LIFE photographer, it was done by Paul."
See here.

Yet someone else asserts here in Bragalia's comments section that the ladder photo simply was not part of Trent's original roll: "It was part of a series of photos of the Trents in their back yard taken by a LIFE magazine staff photographer a few days after the photos got national attention. While it certainly is suggestive as to how easy it would have been to suspend a hoax object, it's just not true that it's part of Trent's photo roll."

And note that there are other pictures done later by LIFE which show that the Trents did discuss or "reenact" the UFO scene, on-site, solely for the magazine...

2) Even the Condon Report casts much doubt upon the hoax theory. Dr. Hartmann writes (on p.624 of the online NCAS version) that "Fig. 3 graphically illustrates the problem. For example, if the object is a model suspended from the wire only a few meters away, its surface is some 37% brighter than that of the tank, and the shaded side is probably more than 40% brighter than the shadow on the tank. But this is nearly impossible to maintain in the face of the photometry.... "

Didn't the Condon scientists have access to and consider the entire roll of the Trents' film? It's always seemed so, though I can't at this moment dig up things I'm certain I've read that suggest this. And unfortunately the notes Hartmann placed within the text regarding the roll of film don't seem to be in the report itself. (I can't even find it in the old hardback book.) But it's undeniable that in other photo cases in the Colorado Report, the investigating scientists are sure to offer their analysis only within the context of entire rolls of film. I find it difficult to believe that Hartmann would overlook such an obvious source of information.

But who knows?

This can all be put to rest if Bragalia simply reveals his source and authenticates the ladder photograph as being from the Trents' original role, instead of part of the LIFE project.

It'll be interesting to see how it all plays out...

Most UFO investigators who met with the Trents were convinced that they were too stupid to have faked the photos so well, although there are plenty of tales out there about dumb farm folk pulling the wool over the eyes of the city slickers. Either way, the additional photos, including the kid on the ladder, were obviously taken at another time, given the change in the weather and the foliage in the background.

Unfortunately, it doesn't matter if the Trent photos are "authentic" or not. Like all UFO photos that have no other evidence to support them, even assuming the thing in the photo is real, they're no help in proving what the thing actually was. Military experiment? Odd balloon? Aliens from space? Time machine? Glimpse of alternate reality? *shrug*

I call it a fake UFO picture...here is my proof: Original vs Enhanced Quality vs Zoom in on Object



You can tell by the pixels around the UFO it was added in after the fact.

Originally posted by RUFFREADY
"a recent discovery on the same roll of film shows the photographer's son posing on a ladder in the middle of the yard right below the spot where the UFO later appears. In other words, the photographer had a test run" quote from _The Anomalist"

Bragalia claims to have an unnamed source to support his claim that the "kid on the ladder" photo was on the same roll as the Trent photos. (Does anyone within ufology need to be warned about the dangers involved in relying on evidence from unnamed sources??)

Another cropped version of the "kid on the ladder" photo was posted by "Arbitrageur" in a discussion on the ATS discussion forum in 2009 at the link below, following Jim Oberg giving a relevant link in that discussion:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

A few posts later in that discussion in 2009, one member of ATS ("ArMaP") appears to have visited the link given in that discussion for those photos in the archive of Life photos and then posted :
"Just a question about these photos without the UFO: were they taken by Trent or by a different photographer (apparently called Loomis Dean, according to what the LIFE pages say) at a different time (June 6)?"
www.abovetopsecret.com...

(If you click on other photos that remain in the online archive of Life photos, you are taken to a page showing details of the photographer and the date of the photographs).

Unfortunately, the relevant photos do not appear to be in the Life photo archive any more (or at least I've been unable to find them by doing various searches, including using the search term that previously worked, "flying saucer") - but it appears from ArMaP's post quoted above that those pages expressly indicated the photographer and the date the photos were taken.

Bragalia does not refer to that later post in the discussion on ATS nor to any information which was available in association with the relevant "kid on the ladder" photo when it was online in the Life photo archive.

Originally posted by Skywatcher2011
I call it a fake UFO picture...here is my proof: Original vs Enhanced Quality vs Zoom in on Object

You can tell by the pixels around the UFO it was added in after the fact.

I'm going to go out on a limb here and suggest that just maybe you have no idea what you're talking about...

These photos have been through all kinds of analyses by many people. The photos are genuine in the sense that there was an object there and it was captured on film. It's on the negatives too. You do realize that Photoshop wasn't around back in the day, right?

What the object is has been the subject of debate for a very long time. Personally, I'd put my money on it being a mirror hanging on fishing line.

Cheers.

reply to post by Skywatcher2011


You're having a laugh, are you aware that these photos were analyzed and verified as authentic by Bruce Maccabe? Just so you know who he is en.wikipedia.org... He's a bit more qualified than you mate

reply to post by booNyzarC


"What the object is has been the subject of debate for a very long time. Personally, I'd put my money on it being a mirror hanging on fishing line."

Pretty sure that was discounted also.

Originally posted by Zcustosmorum

reply to post by booNyzarC

 

"What the object is has been the subject of debate for a very long time. Personally, I'd put my money on it being a mirror hanging on fishing line."

Pretty sure that was discounted also.

It has been a while since I read any of the analyses and I don't recall all of the details. Would you care to share the specifics behind how and why this was discounted? The only arguments I can think of against it would be the positioning of the object in relation to the wires between the images, but that can easily be explained by the hanging mirror being moved between shots.

Thanks.

reply to post by booNyzarC


Sure mate, here's a link and in short:

oregonmufon.com...

Debunking Efforts
• In 1974, debunkers Philip Klass and Robert
Sheaffer published simplistic analyses of the
Trent photos.
• Both assumed the Trents hoaxed the photos
with a small model.
• Maccabee’s later analysis showed that only
one of the debunkers’ three objections was
possibly partly true.
• All UFO brightnesses were consistent with
distances in 100s, not 10s or fewer feet; that
is, not a hoaxed model.

Additionally of note:

• Trents were not hoaxers. At a recent
McMinnville UFO Fest, a niece of the Trents
told me that the Trents were above reproach.

• The FBI and AF sought to examine and then
suppress the evidence by intimidating the
Trents and the News Register editor.

They were not paid for the story and never changed their account of events and additionally, why would the FBI and AF investigate and take the approach they did if they thought the photos were fake? If anything, it leaves 2 possibilities:

A. The Feds and AF were aware of the top secret military test and wanted it to be discreet.

B. It was something else unidentified.

Originally posted by IsaacKoi
A few posts later in that discussion in 2009, one member of ATS ("ArMaP") appears to have visited the link given in that discussion for those photos in the archive of Life photos and then posted :
"Just a question about these photos without the UFO: were they taken by Trent or by a different photographer (apparently called Loomis Dean, according to what the LIFE pages say) at a different time (June 6)?"

Thanks for the infos Isaac!

It's impossible that the "ladder photo" was taken On the very same roll that the UFO photos were taken (and at the same time) as Bragalia stated, and for many reasons.

There are lots of differences between the two original UFO photos taken with the "Universal Roamer I" on May 11, 1950 those taken by Loomis Dean for LIFE Magazine almost one month later.
Besides the format difference, the aspect difference, there are also differences in the scene, especially in the small bush close to the garage at the left, which foliage appears to have grown like it should one month apart:

Wow, I am thinking many of our well known photos are faked, but, the fact that so many people started faking UFO photos after the 40s could support that real sightings were taking place as reported. From what I have heard the biggest flap ever in 1952 was more glowing balls than light than metalic craft.

Originally posted by RUFFREADY
"It looks like the mystery of the infamous McMinnville UFO photos has finally been solved. The photos have been proven and dis-proven many times for well over a century now, but a recent discovery on the same roll of film shows the photographer's son posing on a ladder in the middle of the yard right below the spot where the UFO later appears. In other words, the photographer had a test run" quote from _The Anomalist"

This one was always said to be "the real deal" well maybe not! check out the new information on this classic UFO photo. bragalia.blogspot.com...

Makes sense to me. Another one bites the dust?

edit on 18/12/12 by JAK because: All Caps title edit. The use of All Caps

wrong...in the article they are comparing the oringinal photo with the one below, showing a boy on the ladder...however the building on the left with the "tank" seems to have a new roof, added or fixed side boards, and if you notice the tree to the right of this building is different...it seems that these could have been taken years apart.

I don't think that this proves anything. Those photos have been subjected to computer edge enhancement techniques in the past, without revealing any evidence whatsoever of supporting wires for models. In addition, the light reflected from the underside suggests a large object at a considerable distance from the camera.

Dont forget that Bragalia fell for that insane "student project" idea for the Soccorro case also...

Not buying this one either...

I have trouble telling the '49 and '50 Fords apart, but either way I suspect the car in the ladder photo didn't belong to the Trents, at least in 1950, since it was basically a new car at the time the famous photos were taken, possibly rented by someone from LIFE Magazine.

And it was the Trent photos that made hoaxes with small objects so obvious to a lot of people, because of the appearance of atmospheric haze in the Trent photos so lacking in the "tossed hubcap" photos, etc.