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
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."
Yet someone else asserts here in Bragalia's
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
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...
edit on 18-12-2012 by TeaAndStrumpets because: typos