Mcminnville photos

From TinWiki.org

At about 7.30pm-7.45pm PST on 11 May 1950, Mrs Trent reportedly saw a metallic-looking, disk-shaped UFO. She called her husband, they located their camera, and he took photographs of the object before it disappeared in the distance from their farm, approximately 10 miles South-West of McMinnville, Oregon.

The two "McMinnville photographs" have since become two of the most controversial photographs in the history of ufology.

1 The Trent Photos
- 1.1 First Photo
- 1.2 Second Photo
2 Claims to fame
3 The Skeptics
4 References to discussions in books
5 External links
6 Relevant Discussion Threads on ATS

[edit]

The Trent Photos

Mrs Trent was feeding rabbits in the back yard when the object was first sighted.

In some accounts Mrs Trent is quoted as stating that she called to her husband, Paul Trent, and ran into the house to fetch him from the kitchen. In other accounts, Mrs Trent is quoted as stating that she and her husband were outside and saw the object at the same time.

Immediately after they both saw the object, they thought of their camera. Mr Trent ran to the car, thinking it was there, but Mrs Trent remembered it was in the house and brought it.

Both photographs were snapped within thirty seconds, Mr Trent estimated. The object was moving quite slowly, apparently almost hovering.

Mr Trent mentioned his observation and showed the pictures to a few friends. He did not seek publicity about the pictures. However, McMinnville Telephone Register reporter Bill Powell learned of the sighting from two McMinnville bankers, Ralph and Frank Wortman, and followed up the story.The Telephone Register broke the story Thursday, 8 June 1950 with a front page article containing the two pictures and an Editor's Note.

Mr Trent remarked both at the time and in 1967 that he thought it was a secret U.S. craft.

[edit]

First Photo

First Trent Photo

[edit]

Second Photo

Second Trent Photo

[edit]

Claims to fame

UFO skeptic Robert Sheaffer has written that “Many UFOlogists rate this case as the strongest photo case on record”.

During 2003-2007, Isaac Koi reviewed a sample of 963 UFO and SETI books and noted the frequency with which various UFO cases were discussed. The McMinnville incident was the most frequently discussed UFO photograph case in that study, with 90 references being noted.

This incident has been included within various lists of the best UFO cases produced by various researchers. For example, it featured as Case 4 in Paul Kimball’s documentary “Best Evidence”, based on the results of a survey of various experts in 2005/2006.

These photographs have also featured in:

a list of the “Top 10” UFO cases produced by James Carrion (in 2006),
a list of five noteworthy cases produced by Richard Dolan (in his book “UFOs and the National Security State: Volume 1”)
a list of the “Top 10” UFO cases produced by Stanton Friedman for the Fortean Times in 2007.
a list of UFO seven cases produced by Brad Sparks (in 1999)
a list of UFO twenty cases produced by Bruce Maccabee
a list of the best four photographic UFO cases produced by Ronald Story

[edit]

The Skeptics

[edit]

Condon

There are 26 pages of discussion of these photographs in the Condon Report (“Scientific Study of Unidentified Flying Objects”, Edward U Condon (Director) and Daniel S Gillmor (Editor) (1969)).

It is designated as Condon Case Number 46. The main discussion was written by William K Hartmann.

Mr Hartmann was clearly impressed by the witnesses and the photographs. Relevant comments include the following:

Page 611: “They appear to be sincere, though not highly educated or experienced observers. During the writer's interview with them, they were friendly and quite unconcerned about the sighting. Mr Trent was at work plowing his field and did not even get off his tractor. From interviews throughout this district one gained the impression that these were very industrious farm people, not given to unusual pranks.”

Page 611: “Two inferences appear to be justified: 1) It is difficult to see any prior motivation for a fabrication of such a story, although after the fact, the witnesses did profit to the extent of a trip to New York; 2) it is unexpected that in this distinctly rural atmosphere, in 1950, one would encounter a fabrication involving sophisticated trick photography (e.g. a carefully retouched print). The witnesses also appear unaffected now by the incident, receiving only occasional inquiries”.

Page 612: “it is unlikely that a sophisticated ‘optical fabrication’ was performed. The negatives had not been tampered with”.

Page 621: “A model thrown into the air by hand appears an unlikely possibility because of the evidence for absence of rotation.”

Page 625: “While it would be exaggerating to say that we have positively ruled out a fabrication, it appears significant that the simplest, most direct interpretation of the photographs confirms precisely what the witnesses said they saw. Yet, the fact that the object appears beneath the same part of the overhead wire in both photos can be used as an argument favoring a suspended model.”

Page 625: “Conclusion”:

"This is one of the few UFO reports in which all factors investigated, geometric, psychological, and physical appear to be consistent with the assertion that an extraordinary flying object, silvery, metallic, disk-shaped, tens of meters in diameter, and evidently artificial, flew within sight of two witnesses. It cannot be said that the evidence positively rules out a fabrication, although there are some physical factors such as the accuracy of certain photometric measures of the original negatives which argue against a fabrication."

While the above Conclusion is frequently referred to in UFO books, it is noteworthy that Dr Hartmann reversed his earlier favourable appraisal of the McMinnville photos as a result of the findings of an investigation by Robert Sheaffer (see below).

[edit]

Sheaffer

In his own books, Robert Sheaffer has written that “… there are strong reasons for doubting that this is an ‘authentic’ UFO”. The reasons he has given include:

Discrepancies in statements by Mrs Trent regarding whether she and her husband were both outside when the UFO was spotted, or whether Mr Trent was inside.
Sheaffer contends that the photos appear to have been taken in the morning, i.e. not at the time the witnesses claim.
Hartmann had expressed doubts about the UFO being a model hanging from the wires visible in the photos because of densitometric measurements of the underside of the UFO. Sheaffer suggests that there are various explanations for the apparently bright underside, including that the Trents had a flashbulb mounted on their camera or that the camera lens was dirty (causing light scattering).

[edit]

Klass

Philip J Klass has referred to Robert Sheaffer’s analysis. He has also suggested that credibility issues arise from the fact that Mrs Trent was a “repeater”. One newspaper article reported Mrs Trent as having claimed to have previously seen similar objects on the coast three different times. Another newspaper article reported Mrs Trent as stating that they had seen “quite a few” UFOs since the 1950 photographs were taken.

[edit]

References to discussions in books

Philip J Klass in his “UFOs Explained” (1974) at pages 144-150 (forming part of Chapter 15, “UFO Photographs”) of the Random House hardback edition, at pages 170-178 of Random House paperback edition. [7 page discussion]

Bruce Maccabee in “The Encyclopedia of Extraterrestrial Encounters” (2001) (edited by Ronald Story) at pages 333-337 (in an entry entitled “McMinnville (Oregon) photos”) of the New American Library softcover edition, at pages 326-329 of the pdf edition (with the same page numbering in the Microsoft Word edition). [5 page discussion]

Jerome Clark in his “The UFO Encyclopedia: The Phenomenon from the Beginning - 2nd edition” (1998) in Volume 2:L-Z at pages 600-602 (in an entry entitled “McMinnville Photos”) of the Omnigraphics hardback edition. [3 page discussion]