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...