CLAIM: 1950 McMinnville (OR) photo by the Trents is a 25' flying saucer

[Charlie Wiser]

this would be lightweight enough for wires or fishing line.

Article:

or a Dual record changer spindle part from 1940,

Source: https://www.ufoexplorations.com/make-believe-in-mcminville

From the ufoexplorations website, the author suggests the LIFE photographer realized how the hoax was done and set up the boy on the ladder to hint at it (though the photo was not printed) and I agree it seems likely:

One has to consider Dean's motivation. It is probable that he took the photo to 'pictorially hint' his belief that Paul Trent's
photos were hoaxed. Was Dean trying to visually document one way in which he thought that the prank might have been pulled?

Content from External Source

[Source]

I don't know what order the LIFE pix were taken but this is presumably a set-up shot, since in the other photo the ladder is tipped over.

The article also points out that forced perspective works better from a low angle:

If Trent crouched down low, he could make the flying saucer look farther away than it really was:
By kneeling down even a little bit, and by shooting up from that position, he could force the perspective of the resulting photo to make it appear to have greater distance, yet remain reasonably sharp in focus.

Content from External Source

re. Dual record changer spindle part from 1940
Interesting. The profile matches the UFO pretty well (I've never found a wing mirror or shaving mirror profile that matches), but the hole for the spindle is centered. I haven't found a photo of the underside of this object to see if it's hollow or has a flat base.



(That part from the 1940s became this arm in the 1970s to hold the waiting record horizontal while waiting to drop)

 

[deirdre]

see if it's hollow or has a flat base.

its hollow. the spindle you see on it is not attached to it, that is the phonograph spindle. so they added something different to it and if they didnt screw it tight (nut and bolt) it would be loose and could lean.



https://www.dual-board.de/index.php?thread/1369-1001/

and I agree it seems likely:

totally. i think the photographer also asked to get a photo of him next to his truck.

i dont think hubby was home during the ladder shots, thats why i asked if Loomis Dean (Life photographer)ever said the ladder when there when they arrived. Evelyn alleged at one point she let two men rifle through her entire house (the drawers and all) at one point, so if the photographer asked if she had a ladder i doubt she would say "no", but would let him go get it.

 

[deirdre]

just rough idea. took pic from about 10 feet away, then zoomed in once uploaded to computer. round tupperware type lid.




the lids have a little bump in the middle which i assume is dead center. so made hole there

 

[Giddierone]

1955 aerial shot of the area from https://earthexplorer.usgs.gov

 

[Avalon]

One query about the model hanging from the wire theory is that the wires are quite dark, whereas the ‘flying saucers’ are faded, exhibiting the ‘aerial perspective’ you’d associate with an object further away.

 

[Todd Feinman]

One query about the model hanging from the wire theory is that the wires are quite dark, whereas the ‘flying saucers’ are faded, exhibiting the ‘aerial perspective’ you’d associate with an object further away.

Also known as atmospheric perspective in art. And yes it does.

 

[Ann K]

One query about the model hanging from the wire theory is that the wires are quite dark, whereas the ‘flying saucers’ are faded, exhibiting the ‘aerial perspective’ you’d associate with an object further away.

But we don't know what material the object is made from. If the wires themselves are insulated with a black coating, and the object is made of some light-colored material like aluminum, the comparative values may have nothing to do with aerial perspective. Remember, one of the pictures taken shows an entirely different exposure, or perhaps an entirely different lighting condition if the sun is shining through the cloud cover more brightly.

 

[JMartJr]

One query about the model hanging from the wire theory is that the wires are quite dark, whereas the ‘flying saucers’ are faded, exhibiting the ‘aerial perspective’ you’d associate with an object further away.

I think I gotta disagree. The UFO is not as dark, but it may in fact not have been as dark as the wires. Comparing how sharp the edges of the UFO and the wire are, by moving a bit of the wire in close to the UFO then zooming in on both, I'm not sure I see much difference.

 

[NorCal Dave]

I think I gotta disagree. The UFO is not as dark, but it may in fact not have been as dark as the wires. Comparing how sharp the edges of the UFO and the wire are, by moving a bit of the wire in close to the UFO then zooming in on both, I'm not sure I see much difference.

What difference there might be, could have been enhanced a little if the model were moving a bit, while the wires are stationary.

 

[FatPhil]

What difference there might be, could have been enhanced a little if the model were moving a bit, while the wires are stationary.

But then there'd be more blur in the direction of motion than perpendicular to it, and that's not evident.

 

[Scaramanga]

Here are the photos, supposedly taken 30 seconds apart. Note that Paul says after taking the first photo, the object began accelerating off to the left so he moved right to take the second photo, then it shot away. Robert Sheaffer reproduced a stereoscopic exercise on his blog that supposedly shows the object is small and close and also did not move between frames, as well as reporting on two studies that possibly detected a wire, but I wanted to try something else...

Except....he doesn't move to the right to take the second photo. He cannot have done, because that pole that is exactly to the right of the fuel tank in photo 1 is now further to the right of the fuel tank....which would only occur if he had moved left. Also, judging the small bush thats more or less in line with that pole to be behind it, that is all the more evidence that actually he moves to the left after taking the first photo.

BUT...we then have the bizarre anomally that the background horizon is more extensive to the left in photo 2 ( see for example the extent of it compared to where that notch in the hill is ) as if he had moved to the right.

This does not make sense. Some aspects of the photo indicate he moved one way...and other aspects indicate he moved the other way.

 

[deirdre]

because that pole that is exactly to the right of the fuel tank in photo 1 is now further to the right of the fuel tank

That is a telephone pole across the street. he physically moved to the right but turned his camera more to the left.

 

[JMartJr]

What difference there might be, could have been enhanced a little if the model were moving a bit, while the wires are stationary.

I suspect the edge of the saucer being more curved might also be a factor, as the compression jaggedness is more pronounced -- for that reason, I used the most curved bit of the wire in the image, but the degree of curve there is still much less...

 

[MonkeeSage]

Except....he doesn't move to the right to take the second photo. He cannot have done, because that pole that is exactly to the right of the fuel tank in photo 1 is now further to the right of the fuel tank....which would only occur if he had moved left. Also, judging the small bush thats more or less in line with that pole to be behind it, that is all the more evidence that actually he moves to the left after taking the first photo.

This does not make sense. Some aspects of the photo indicate he moved one way...and other aspects indicate he moved the other way.

I think I see what you mean. In the darker photo the scraggly bush by the left pole is on the right side of the pole, and in the lighter photo it's more on the left side. But in the lighter photo the mountains and building in the further distance appear shifted more to the right. In the darker photo the slope of the edge of the shed roof is a shallower angle, and in the lighter photo it's steeper, which I think would also indicate the lighter one is taken from further to the right. Trying to figure out the parallax with the bush and the more distant objects is making my head hurt.

 

[deirdre]

Trying to figure out the parallax with the bush and the more distant objects is making my head hurt.

try setting up small objects on your livingroom floor or wherever you can move a bit. if they are small enough you can even use a long diningroom table.

this pic helps you "see" the darker pic a bit better...this photographer isnt in the exact position but everything is clearer (note: the barn door is open so the telephone pole is only visible through the little opening above the barn door.)

 

[MonkeeSage]

this pic helps you "see" the darker pic a bit better...this photographer isnt in the exact position but everything is clearer (note: the barn door is open so the telephone pole is only visible through the little opening above the barn door.)

Ah excellent, thank you. I didn't realize the bush was much closer and in front of the pole, I was wrongly thinking it was some ways behind the pole. Brain no longer hurts.

 

[Giddierone]

Just correcting what I wrote in #80. The yellow pin labled "house" can't be the house in the photos. There was another building [labled "Barn A" below], possibly idential, that is now no longer there, which has to be building we see in the two photos. "Barn B" I think is out of the frame.
Corrected using this aerial photo from 1954. https://earthexplorer.usgs.gov/download/options/aerial_combin/AR1VFLHC0010051/

 

[deirdre]

"Barn B" I think is out of the frame.

yea i think the far hills profile match that angle pretty good (despite the fact the google car is closer and at the wrong height. the building in modern pic is approx location of your barn A.

 

[deirdre]

Except....he doesn't move to the right to take the second photo. He cannot have done, because that pole that is exactly to the right of the fuel tank in photo 1 is now further to the right of the fuel tank

noticed this second photo from Life magazine and realized the angle of the ladder legs might help people visualize the situation better.

 

[Giddierone]

the google car

The Bing car is a little better (I brightened the image) and the trees align quite well, as do the hills in the two original photos. I wonder if that's the same utility pole too.

 

[Scaramanga]

I think I see what you mean. In the darker photo the scraggly bush by the left pole is on the right side of the pole, and in the lighter photo it's more on the left side. But in the lighter photo the mountains and building in the further distance appear shifted more to the right. In the darker photo the slope of the edge of the shed roof is a shallower angle, and in the lighter photo it's steeper, which I think would also indicate the lighter one is taken from further to the right. Trying to figure out the parallax with the bush and the more distant objects is making my head hurt.

Yes, its actually a good example of how deceptive photography can be, because to me the pole and the bush 'look like' they are adjacent to the end of the garage. In reality they are twice as far away as shown in post #99... https://www.metabunk.org/threads/cl...rents-is-a-25-flying-saucer.13460/post-316174

But that also highlights just how easily a 2 foot wide model could appear to be a mile away.

 

[Scaramanga]

noticed this second photo from Life magazine and realized the angle of the ladder legs might help people visualize the situation better.

Yes, it does. But it also highlights just how lacking in forward dimensional extent the original two photos are. That is, the photo already contains stuff where a viewer might confuse the distance, even without the UFO being thrown in. The Calvine UFO in Scotland is a similar case, where there's confusing visual cues aside from the UFO.

 

[JMartJr]

Yes, it does. But it also highlights just how lacking in forward dimensional extent the original two photos are. That is, the photo already contains stuff where a viewer might confuse the distance, even without the UFO being thrown in. The Calvine UFO in Scotland is a similar case, where there's confusing visual cues aside from the UFO.

Interesting, now I want to go look at more classic UFO pics, and see if that is a common feature. One could speculate that this might help with the illusion passing off a small model UFO for a larger distant one -- meaning that UFO images with such such visual cues would enjoy an advantage in competing with other pictures to BECOME classic UFO pics!

 

[John J.]

Interesting, now I want to go look at more classic UFO pics, and see if that is a common feature. One could speculate that this might help with the illusion passing off a small model UFO for a larger distant one -- meaning that UFO images with such such visual cues would enjoy an advantage in competing with other pictures to BECOME classic UFO pics!

I think @Scaramanga and @JMartJr are onto something here. I'm not aware of unsolved UFO photos with clear depth cues,
e.g. a craft hovering in front of/ partly occluding the Hollywood sign, pylons/ tall buildings or identifiable trees.

It's like a kind of natural selection, the more visual information in the photo the easier it is to debunk; it's harder to explain an object apparently in clear sky.