posted on Dec, 21 2012 @ 04:10 AM
David Rudiak just put a final point to this story on its site HERE
Part of what appears to be this same sequence has Trent's son posed on the now-erect ladder. Recently UFO researcher Anthony Bragalia claimed
this LIFE photo really was part of the same roll of film that Trent used for his UFO photos, and the reason for putting his son up there was to give
him ideas of how to pose his fake UFOs.
Problem is, these photos are NOT from Trent's film but were taken by the LIFE photographer over a month later. You'll note the upright ladder, the
son in the same clothing, and other features appearing in other of the LIFE photoshoot sequences, e.g. the car in the driveway which didn't belong to
Trent (probably the photographer's). Also note LIFE "watermark" at
bottom of most of these photos and the square aspect ratio of the LIFE photos, quite unlike Trent's film, which had a 4:3 aspect ratio.
Thanks to David Rudiak, the full original set of the 27 LIFE photos are now available on the site.
Some of these photos are unknown from most today UFO researchers:
Back in McMinnville at the Telephone-Register, reporter Bill Powell(?) shows historic front page photos of Trent's photos. These are the only
published uncropped versions of the photos, the LIFE versions being cropped as were the negatives.
Here's the reply from Anthony Bragalia, from The UFO
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
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.
All Oberg would state when questioned by those on ATS was that LIFE 'bought the rights' to the 'ladder boy' photo.
Oberg did not attempt to clarify the image beyond saying that LIFE had to pay for it, indicating that they had 'acquired' it. He preferred to
perpetuate a mystery about the 'ladder boy photo' by failing to say anything more about it- and then deleting the image on the site.
And I am not the first or only to fall for the Oberg misinformation:
As I mentioned in an earlier comment, other posters on other site forums (including this past July on Unexplained Mysteries) understood Oberg as
meaning that the rights to the 'ladder boy' photo were acquired by LIFE (i.e. purchased) and not made by an employee of LIFE, leading one long-time
poster to also conclude and state -when he reproduced the Oberg image of the boy on the ladder on Unexplained Mysteries- that they were from the same
roll as the UFO photos.
And I will not embarrass 'researcher' and skeptic Joel Carpenter (who is Lance's associate) but to say that he privately sent to me an email earlier
today that was laced with extreme vulgarities such as "f*** Oberg" and which was peppered with even more extreme obscenities to describe the Oberg I
As Lance is aware, it was Carpenter who did the apologizing to me in another email this evening, sorrowful about the language that he had used to
describe how he feels about Oberg.
It is clear that Carpenter and Lance know that Oberg is the source of the 'controversy' over this photo.
But even after Joel Carpenter used a string of expletives to me to describe Oberg, he still felt compelled to excuse Oberg's error by saying that
Oberg 'says things in odd ways' - whatever that means.
And Lance himself, in an earlier comment on this site, said that Oberg is merely "mistaken." He asks no 'apology' of Oberg as he does of me...
And finally, it is interesting that both Lance and Carpenter are generally in agreement with people like Oberg- but in this case they are willing to
"throw him under the bus."
And apparently me too... because I trusted Oberg, a rabid skeptic like they are, who in this case, I thought was telling the truth.
To have been 'taken in' by a skeptic and then excoriated by skeptics for having believed one of their own is just incredible.
PS I will review the photos provided but the holidays and visitors are coming so it may be a bit before I can provide a more complete reply.
Many thanks to Gilles F. and Nablator from the French
for their dedication to this case.
As pointed out at the top of this page by Gortex and for further reference, the main related ATS thread can be found
edit on 21-12-2012 by elevenaugust because: (no reason given)