The Trent UFO Photos McMinnville, Oregon - May 11, 1950

I saw or read something yrs ago where this was a proven and admitted hoax, it was done with a wheel taken off a model train set and suspended.

On closer inspection, they look identical:






The comparison has been linked before CLICKY LINK!

Here's an image of a man in Germany who "replicated the shots" (no other information is given):



Notice the strange trajectory of the object, similar to the Trent photo's. I've no evidence to support this theory but my assumption is that the object was thrown like a frisby (as they were "replicated") and shots were taken at a high shutter speed... then attempted once more, hence the geographical inconsistancy with the 2 Trent shots.

Now, if a guy in Germany can "replicate" a similar shot I would have to lean towards the fact that a mass produced object was thrown by a 2nd person whilst someone is taking the photo. The object (note its very similar appearance) could have been produced and/or distributed from US to Europe or vice-versa.

Either it's the same style of Alien Spaceship... or the same brand of hub-cap/Kettle Lid?

What do you guys honestly think of my rationale here?

Sigh. Any lunatic can fabricate a picture which - on the surface - looks semi-real. Even Billy Meier has a few nice looking pictures between all the junk. That does not mean such pictures can pass rigorous scientific analysis.

The argument seems to be that a superficial copy will prove the original to be a hoax. This is fallacious. A fake of a famous Van Gogh painting does not prove that the original is not real. It shows nothing more than that a superficial copy can be created, and being a copy it will fail to resemble the original in the details. The flying saucer photos which are linked to here will not withstand detailed photogrammetric analyses nor any of the other optical analyses that were performed on the Trent negatives.

Among other things, the photometry results suggest that if it were fake, the object had to be translucent. Therefore you are either stuck with a translucent, assymmetrical pan lid and lying witnesses, or the witnesses were telling the truth and there was a real flying object in the distance. I'll opt for the latter.

Originally posted by SchoolProject
Now, if a guy in Germany can "replicate" a similar shot

The source does not say it was "duplicated" as in an admitted fake. It says "There is also this photo from a man in Germany that duplicates the Trent “saucer". Poor choice of words I think. There's no other info given on this picture and I'm not sure I would call it a match to the Trent photos.

reply to post by jclmavg

Notice the strange trajectory of the object, similar to the Trent photo's. I've no evidence to support this theory but my assumption is that the object was thrown like a frisby (as they were "replicated") and shots were taken at a high shutter speed... then attempted once more, hence the geographical inconsistancy with the 2 Trent shots.

The research articles mentioned the camera's F-stop was most likely >11F and shutter speed of 1/50. Using such setting to shoot a nearby dangling object should create blurring effects.

IMHO, with any UFO evidence, one cannot arrive at a clear cut 100% fake nor 100% real conclusion. One can only distribute all trivial facts and arguments on both sides of pendulum and see which way it tilts. Even with an apparently fake CGI, you can only say it's 99.999% fake. What tips the scale slightly towards real for me is the fact that since these photos, there have been hoaxers with better skills and better equipments and yet, cannot create more convincing images.

originally posted by: JimOberg
Right, the photos of that event NOT shown by the promoters include the Trent kid grinning mischievously under the wire with a ladder lying on the ground next to him. I hope everybody's seen THOSE, and made reasonable inductions from them.

Photo was from a month later - but then I'm sure you didn't know that.

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 error made.

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.

And I am not the first or only to fall for the Oberg misinformation..


www.abovetopsecret.com...

a reply to: karl 12

I get the impression Mr. Oberg is a disinfo agent. I can't prove this concretely obviously, but his behavior with constant denial, not being able to admit when points are made, no matter how logical they are plus open ignorance...

It's more debunking than healthy skepticism imho. I've watched his patterns over these forums, and some of it reflects tactics in the counter intelligence field.

Something that also makes me pursue that theory, is the fact the Trents originally did not receive the negatives back from Life Magazine when they were promised them, as when they pursued to get the photos returned, they were told the pictures were "lost", back around in 1950. (I wonder how many times the UFO community heard about evidence being "lost"?)

So then all of sudden the negatives reappeared in 1967 in one of the files in the office of United Press International, which in 1968 Dr William K Hartmann of the then condon committee received the photographs, who then had them eventually sent back to UPI, times passes as the trents ask wheres the photos, to which they end up at the news register paper (keep in mind, this is the same paper that originally published the story, although it was called the telephone register at that time),so time passed again, to which by 1975 Dr Bruce Macabee eventually gains possession of the photos, after going through the news registers archives, and gives the negatives back to the trents himself.


Some small, but EXTREMELY important things to think about here:


1.How did the photos end up at UPI, after Life "lost them"? Did someone working at Life magazine get fired or quit, and take them to their new job at UPI? Did someone at the military get to the writers and failed at attempting to destroy the evidence?

2.How did Dr. Hartmann discover the photos were found after them disappearing for nearly 20 years? Did he know someone who planted them there for safety years ago? Did he have an insider at UPI?

3.Why were the Trents not immediately informed that the negatives were found?!

Surely those would be the first people you'd contact, since the Trents went public explaining the negatives were missing at some point if i recall correctly? It sounds like censorship that failed!

When the trents finally realized the photos were at UPI, they contacted a man by the name of Philip Bladine at the news register, who was the editor at the time, to get in touch with UPI and retrieve the negatives.

They sent the photos back to the news-register, but interestingly enough Mr Bladine never informed the Trents he had got them back, nor ever said why he neglected to mention the return of the negatives. It wasn't until 1975 Dr Maccabee had gave the trents the negatives, no one at the paper thought to do that.

This to me is puzzling, was Mr Bladine hiding the photographs because of military confrontations, waiting to have someone find them years later so he wasn't at blame or risk?

Or was he part of a coverup?

I feel if one was to research Mr Bladine's life, they might find something. He seems to be a key player in the coverup, whether thats a instigator or victim i cannot say, there was no reason for him to get the photos back and never return them. You can't even use the "i forgot" excuse on a news story like this, you'd have to be mentally impaired to accidentally not give the pictures back. It was done on purpose, question is why?

I’m resuscitating this thread for a conundrum I having about the Trent photographs. Forget for the moment, whether they are real to you, or fake to you, or undecided....

Against everything ever to be said of the Trents photo’s from all disciplines and the scrutiny, and still controversial .... I have notice not two, but three photos of the object... so why am I seeing a third?

First in my opinion, once Trent let go of his original negatives from his hands, everything became fair game from then on.

It’s my understanding that the negatives changed many hands...which would also mean that tampering with the negatives or the photographs made from those negatives can’t be ruled out in my opinion. The chain of custody of the negatives has many twists and turns. If correct, the first hands to receive the only original negatives was McMinnville Telephone Register for publication, and then The Oregonian. Then after a lengthy route including missing and reappearing, the original negatives was acquired by Maccabee.

Below are the infamous 2 photographs made for Oregon Mufon by Maccabee, presumably from the original negatives he acquired.

oregonmufon.com...




(red markings on #2 photograph are my doing to be explained)




My conundrum? The third photograph below is found in the Oregonian’s own Archive presumably made from the original negatives. See captions under pictures in the link here....

www.oregonlive.com...

In my opinion, the negatives were either directly from Trent himself or Trent had the Telephone Register deliver the negatives, or photograph copies, made by the Telephone Register, to The Oregonian for expediency at The Oregonian request so as to publish.

The red markings are to show differences to be reconciled or explained between Maccabee’s #2 photograph and the Oregonian second #2 of two photographs (the first from the Oregonian archive is not shown because it is consistent with the Maccabee #1)

Even though both #2’s shown are from two independent sources, The Oregonian photographs and MaccaBee photographs and presumably from the same original negatives, yet they are indeed different. Movement of elements .....where they are or were and distances are changed.

Most striking is that both #2’s have what appears to me as fingerprints residue. Zoom in on the largest red oval circles on both photographs. Upon further inspection of both photographs, the are other fingerprints type markings in both #2’s photographs, in my opinion. The white spot in the smaller red ovals of both #2’s photographs are the same shape.




At what point did a third photograph enter? Why would The Oregonian keep the #2 photograph as shown and in their archives, which is not consistent with the #2 photograph with more worldwide notoriety. Could there have been a frame on the negatives missed by so many hands that have handled and scrutinized the original negatives all the years? Could there have been negative tampering while the negatives were in the custody of the Telephone Register or The Oregonian?

So now, for me, as far as the quantity of photographs taken of the Trent object, I see three at the moment ....not two.

Also, Trent had original photographs made from his original negatives. I read that he only handed his original negatives to the newspapers, not his original hardcopy photographs. Which would make sense to have only negatives for publication processes. If they wanted hard copy prints they could have made them from the negatives and most likely did for dissemination.

What this also means to me, is that while original negatives and reproduced hard copy photographs were making the worldwide media and scrutinizing rounds....Trent maintained and retained his original photographs all the time. Who has custody of Trents original hard copy photographs?

It is said he didn’t want fame or money...and somewhat regretted it, as well as his wife.......

Here’s a nice story and summary of events

ufofest.com...


My Hypothetical flight path of the object and Trent shooting 3 pictures as quickly as possible (30+ sec total just a wag) standing left and then moving right. I believe it was heading west then northwest. I’m also referencing the positions of the shrubs starting at the corner of the garage to help show direction of Trents movements as the shrubs come into full view.

Below ... the object coming into view from the east, heading west showing a side profile....... then a slight roll to its right, revealing it’s underside.......then back to the side profile to while heading northwest. The object looks slightly smaller as it’s moving further away even though the it appears Trent is standing a little further back in the 3rd frame to the right (Photo 2) below.

a reply to: Ophiuchus1

That's a very interesting discovery!
So he may have had the chance to shoot three pictures instead of two. According to the Condon report, the Trents did not make a big deal out of the whole situation, so I wouldn't rule that out.

I haven't seen any convincing debunking of these photographs (though numerous attempts were made) and still think the analysis in the Condon report is the best one so far.

Also interesting is that the Trents reported no noise but just wind. The women in the 1994 Plauen case (Germany) reported exactly the same.

You can find high quality versions of the Trent photos here (1) and here (2).
The second photo seems to be full of fingerprints, not just in the area that you indicated.

originally posted by: Guest101
a reply to: Ophiuchus1

That's a very interesting discovery!
So he may have had the chance to shoot three pictures instead of two. According to the Condon report, the Trents did not make a big deal out of the whole situation, so I wouldn't rule that out.

I haven't seen any convincing debunking of these photographs (though numerous attempts were made) and still think the analysis in the Condon report is the best one so far.

Also interesting is that the Trents reported no noise but just wind. The women in the 1994 Plauen case (Germany) reported exactly the same.

You can find high quality versions of the Trent photos here (1) and here (2).
The second photo seems to be full of fingerprints, not just in the area that you indicated.

Thanks for the links to the Higher Resolution. Yes ... more fingerprint's was what I was trying to say in this sentence ..."Upon further inspection of both photographs, the are other fingerprints type markings in both #2’s photographs, in my opinion."... should have read there are.

Certainly a mystery to me.

IMO ... As far as whether I personally believe the object itself is real, or not real, or undecided.... I will join the It's Real Camp.

I'm not buying into the object suspended from the wire cables above notion, or the 1940's truck sideview mirror notion, I just don't.

Something is amiss in my view..... it's a Columbo scenario


If anyone has yet to see....
Full Condon report with picture plates. documents2.theblackvault.com...

originally posted by: mtnshredder
I saw or read something yrs ago where this was a proven and admitted hoax, it was done with a wheel taken off a model train set and suspended.

You're thinking of the Rex Heflin UFO taken in Santa Ana, California. Dead ringer for train wheel, and he was a model train enthusiast. Not that a model train guy can't see a UFO that looks like a model train wheel, of course.

I jinked around with these photos a lot a few years back, even creating some 3-D images. The most telling thing is that if you line up both objects in the 3-D image, they 1) appear to be very close to the same size, which would suggest that they were at the same distance instead of one apparently being farther away, and 2) they both line up with a curious "bend" in the wires at the top of the image that cross and line up in the 3-D image when you also line up the saucers.

Both of these things suggest that the object was relatively small, close and hung from the wire, possibly by some fishing line that doesn't show up in the photos.

But I still like the report from the UFO investigators at the time who implied that the Trents were basically too unsophisticated (stupid) to pull something like that off.

originally posted by: karl 12

Photo was from a month later - but then I'm sure you didn't know that.

I learned it from these pages, a great benefit of engaging in discussions here.

(EDIT: Just read Blue Shift's post after composing this one - we seem to be on the same 'page', so to speak, in terms of suspicion.)

originally posted by: Ophiuchus1

Fascinating post, Ophiuchus1.

The first photo above from the Oregonian archive seems to indicate that Trent was standing up, whilst the second ("#1"), taken from the same spot, indicates he was crouching.

Did crouching lead to the underside being shown rather than the object actually banking? If so, could this indicate the object was much closer to Trent than many are led to believe?

The third pic ("#2") indicates that Trent was positioned much further backwards, and he moved some distance to the left... but does that mean it was necessarily the last pic taken? Was it the first? Why would he bother to move such a distance anyway when faced with something so 'astounding'?

In fact, could this mean that the object had not in fact moved away AT ALL and only seems to have done so due to the latter perspective (ie Trent was simply further away rather than the object actually 'departing'?)

Apologies - I'm in a rush and probably need more time to digest these pics, but am I onto something?

My likely scenario to rationalize, not 2, but 3 negatives of the Trent object and the 3 photographs mentioned and shown in my previous initial post.

Some preface to keep in mind, ......." The Trents, for their part, never really tried to get the negatives back. In fact, the thought that they could be valuable items never seems to have interested them. The images were reproduced countless times in publications and on television, and then via the internet, all without obtaining permission or a release from the Trents. They never benefited financially from the photos, and in his last interview in 1998, Paul spoke about this. “I took the pictures, but I don’t want them. First thing I know is we’d have too much trouble.” Evelyn agreed, “Like I said, I would never take another picture. Just too much publicity.” ..... "It would be another month before Paul Trent developed the roll of film containing some snow scenes, the weeping willow in his front yard, two images of a UFO, and three family picnic shots from Mother’s Day."

Statements found here... ufofest.com...

Could Trent have been mistaken in the count of 2 photographs of the object? .... 2 of 3 being somewhat similar with the same side profile of the object.

I suspect he only looked at the hardcopy photographs... like most people when pictures are developed...they tend to look only at the hardcopies...and not look at the negatives, only possibly when getting re-prints.

"...The paper quickly dispatched a reporter out to interview the Trents and acquire the photos, but when the reporter asked to borrow the negatives, the Trents couldn’t find them. After some looking, they were discovered under the couch, where the kids had shoved them while playing." ..."the day after the reporter fished the negatives out from under the davenport, the Telephone Register ran the photos on its front page"...
Statements found here.... ufofest.com...

The kids playing with the negatives hiding them in the couch!...could the kids have also played with the hardcopy photographs and lost the 2nd side profile hardcopy photograph at some point or time, even days before the reporter got to the house? Trent could have mearly said lost one...oh well at least I have two I can shoe the reporter..... It's something as simple as that for some Farm folks, something is better than nothing attitude.

It may have been competition among the newspapers of the Telephone Register versus The Oregonian. The Telephone Register could have had the 3 negatives in question as well as other negatives not yet cut into singles and still in groups of, presumably, 4 frame negative film strip cuts as one would receive from having film processing done in addition to the printed copies for Trent.

So, here the Telephone Register, is choosing what pictures to use for its front page spread. Three pictures may be too much for the front page layout, and seeing how 2 of the photographs are just about the same, as far as what I call is the side profile view of the object. The choice is made by the Telephone Register to use only 2 photographs of the 3 negatives and then published ... beating The Oregonian to the punch. The Oregonian gets the negatives a finds out some way which pictures the Telephone Register is using. Well, The Oregonian, chooses not to be the same as the Telephone Register and uses the other side profile picture also adding it to their archives.

The question is, if The Oregonian published that other side profile of the object and put it on the front page of their publication...or buried it in deeper pages of the their publication. If that second profile of the object was printed in The Oregonian ... then there has to be a 3rd negative of the object that produced the picture....or... some damn good photo altering or fabrication by The Oregonian's own in-house photo lab.......and now for whatever reason the 2nd side profile negative (making it the 3rd negative of the object in total), and which may have been cut from the negative film strip for publication processes of the Trent object, .....got lost, misplaced, ruined, etc. and possibly Trent didn't care, hence the preface above.

We could use some research on The Oregonian publication from back then. Perhaps a request (which may cost $$) from The Oregonian / OregonLive.com from their archives, or access to the Yamhill County library system (also they may have the old microfiche system to roll through the spools of microfiche tape, if your there in person). It could be that IF the 2nd side profile was published by The Oregonian...it may have not been on the same day as the Telephone Register's publication..it could have been any day after that.

Or contact the author from the OregonLive website who authored "Local UFO photos fascinated Air Force; farmer wanted to forget them: Throwback Thursday"
Updated May 17, 2019; Posted Oct 12, 2017
By Douglas Perry | The Oregonian/OregonLive

Found here.... www.oregonlive.com...


Anybody care to help settle this particular question about a possible 3rd negative of the Trent object........ be my guest.

From Blue Shift
1) appear to be very close to the same size, which would suggest that they were at the same distance instead of one apparently being farther away

originally posted by: ConfusedBrit
..
In fact, could this mean that the object had not in fact moved away AT ALL and only seems to have done so due to the latter perspective (ie Trent was simply further away rather than the object actually 'departing'?)

I agree with Trent being further away in the Maccabee Photo #2. My contention that the object appears to me as moved further away as well stems from what the weather conditions were at the time.

It is said that it was an overcast misty early evening, if I have that correct. When I see the side view of the object in either of the two pictures, Maccabee #2 and The Oregonian, although black and white pictures, the light color of the object (grayish) blends well with those weather conditions for the background and sky in the pictures.

If the object was held in ones hands, you would expect a nice solid color like, for example, all black or all gray, etc. ... that means to me that it should be as solid of a dark color as the darkness (blackness) of the cables it's being suspended from, or as solid of a dark color as the roof of the garage appears to be, the same for the darkness of the pole below it....should the object be that close to the camera and not in the distance.

How is it that this supposedly hoax object is not the same in darkness of those elements? The object blends with the elements and shades of grays of the surrounding weather and in the distance is how I see it.

Cropped Maccabee TRENT #2



Perhaps part or all of the answer for photographing the object and the resulting 3 photographs in my initial post (which is what I believe in my opinion) lies in the camera and the camera settings, if used at all, by Trent while he was in a hurry to shoot pictures. It is mentioned he used a Kodak Roamer I or II.... I have not found it by the name brand Kodak but by the name brand Universal. Below is the instruction manual if it was an equivalent model. There are numerous settings and Trent is in a hurry, perhaps because of the quickness of having to shoot pictures, settings for optimal picture taking suffered.

Roamer I and II www.butkus.org...

You can scroll down the webpage for all the instructions or click the PDF link to download to your device or PC



I am not a camera person to know the in's and out's of vintage cameras.... it does have the novel feature of using 2 sizes of film 120 and 620

Here's the 120 for example, and the way the Negative film strip looks like after processing and shown as a 4 frame strip...

originally posted by: ConfusedBrit
(EDIT: Just read Blue Shift's post after composing this one - we seem to be on the same 'page', so to speak, in terms of suspicion.)
[...]
In fact, could this mean that the object had not in fact moved away AT ALL and only seems to have done so due to the latter perspective (ie Trent was simply further away rather than the object actually 'departing'?)

Apologies - I'm in a rush and probably need more time to digest these pics, but am I onto something?

Note that the ‘bends’ in the cables can also be seen in the LIFE magazine photographs.
They seem to be part of the cables:



In the LIFE magazine photographs you can also see that the camera's viewfinder can be looked into from the top (holding it low) and from the back (holding it high) of the camera, which may be an explanation for the height differences you see, CB.

I really recommend to read the Condon report investigation of this case.
Note: They investigated the negatives, not a reproduction made with the negatives. This obviously gives a far more accurate result.

Summary:

The UFO in the second picture is slightly smaller than in the first.
First picture: 1°.4
Second picture: 1°.3
This means it is 8% further away in the second photo.
Size vs distance based on the angular size of the object can be found in this picture from the report:



The investigation reaches two possible hypotheses:
> First hypothesis: Nearby object hanging from the wires.
> Second hypothesis: Far away object (‘real UFO’).
Optical fabrications and a `frisbee’-type model in flight are ruled out based on the arguments that the negatives have not been tampered with and the position of the off-center "pole" on top of the UFO remains constant.

To differentiate between the first and second hypothesis, the object’s distance was estimated based on the contrast loss with distance due to scattering and atmospheric extinction:

First, the original negatives were subjected to densitometric analysis to determine the scattering coefficient. It was 0.289 per km.

Next, the distance of known objects in the pictures was estimated using this scattering coefficient and their measured brightness, using a physical formula that relates brightness to distance.
> Roof of the distant barn: Estimated distance 0,073 km; true distance 0,32 km.
> Distant hill 1: Estimated distance 1,5 km; true distance 1,3-1,9 km.
> Distant house: Estimated distance 0,32 km; true distance 0,37 km.

Now the UFO was examined, with the hope that a distinction could be made between the two hypothesis (a close object hanging from a wire or a distant object), based on the brightness of the UFO.

First conclusion: The shadowed surface of the UFO in particular looks pale and hence suggests large distance.

Second conclusion: The UFO in any interpretation is known to have a brighter surface than the foreground tank. This confirms the witnesses' report that the UFO was shiny, like a fresh, aluminum-painted surface, but not a specular surface. The rather bright, aluminum-like, but not specular, reflecting surface reported by the witnesses appears to be confirmed by analysis of the photos.

Third conclusion: If the top and bottom surfaces of the UFO are made out of essentially the same material, the photometry indicates that the UFO is distant, at roughly 0,9-1,7 km. However, the witnesses referred to a slightly different hue of the bottom side of the UFO: they said it was more bronze than the silvery top side. If so the UFO would be still more distant.

Fourth conclusion: 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. It requires a surface on the shaded bottom of the model that is of intrinsic shaded brightness 0.68, considerably brighter than the shaded part of the white house. In other words, the photometry appears to indicate that a very white surface on the bottom of a small model would be required to match the appearance of the photographs.

Summary: To the extent that the photometric analysis is reliable, (and the measurements appear to be consistent), the photographs indicate an object with a bright shiny surface at considerable distance and on the order of tens of meters in diameter. 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.

originally posted by: Guest101

Note: They investigated the negatives, not a reproduction made with the negatives. This obviously gives a far more accurate result.

Summary:

The UFO in the second picture is slightly smaller than in the first.
First picture: 1°.4
Second picture: 1°.3
This means it is 8% further away in the second photo.
Size vs distance based on the angular size of the object can be found in this picture from the report:

The investigation reaches two possible hypotheses:
> First hypothesis: Nearby object hanging from the wires.
> Second hypothesis: Far away object (‘real UFO’).
Optical fabrications and a `frisbee’-type model in flight are ruled out based on the arguments that the negatives have not been tampered with and the position of the off-center "pole" on top of the UFO remains constant.

To differentiate between the first and second hypothesis, the object’s distance was estimated based on the contrast loss with distance due to scattering and atmospheric extinction:

First, the original negatives were subjected to densitometric analysis to determine the scattering coefficient. It was 0.289 per km.

Next, the distance of known objects in the pictures was estimated using this scattering coefficient and their measured brightness, using a physical formula that relates brightness to distance.
> Roof of the distant barn: Estimated distance 0,073 km; true distance 0,32 km.
> Distant hill 1: Estimated distance 1,5 km; true distance 1,3-1,9 km.
> Distant house: Estimated distance 0,32 km; true distance 0,37 km.

Now the UFO was examined, with the hope that a distinction could be made between the two hypothesis (a close object hanging from a wire or a distant object), based on the brightness of the UFO.

First conclusion: The shadowed surface of the UFO in particular looks pale and hence suggests large distance.

Summary: To the extent that the photometric analysis is reliable, (and the measurements appear to be consistent), the photographs indicate an object with a bright shiny surface at considerable distance and on the order of tens of meters in diameter. 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.

Good research and writeup explaining some of the technical aspects of the Condon report.... 👍🏼

I have cherry picked above, the parts that for me, at least solidifies that the object was at a distance and not hanging from the wires above.

Below is a closeup of the elements from Maccabee Photo #2, that drive home colors differences and atmospheric considerations, to conclude to myself, the object was real. I would also submit that The Oregonian’s “3rd” photograph (shown in full, in my initial post above also here www.oregonlive.com...) exhibits similar aspects. Note: The Oregonian “3rd” photograph is as of yet unproven to exist thereby no analysis and scrutiny has yet to be found addressed about it anywhere that I’m aware of.... yet the 3rd photograph does exist in The Oregonian archives.

The object hanging from wires just doesn’t fly with me....(pardon the pun)



The Oregonian’s “3rd“ photograph

Many thanks to Ophi and Guest for some excellent, thought-provoking analyses. No other bastards seem to be reading, so allow me to hand out the deserved Stars!


The 'third' photograph remains a peculiar anomaly until it is fully confirmed as authentic, despite its existence in the Oregonian archives.

My own conclusion, after a healthy exercise of sceptical analyses (plus Blue Shift's 3D efforts), is that the object is real and distant, the whole still standing the test of time as the best UFO photograph in 70 years, IMO.

What it actually *IS*... well, that's a different matter altogether!

originally posted by: ConfusedBrit

What it actually *IS*... well, that's a different matter altogether!

Absolutely correct!

Even IF a 3rd photograph and or 3rd negative exists, it does not answer what it “IS”.

IMO, A good case has been made here for the object to be photographically and negatives Real and not a Hoax, in concurrence with the Condon report.

The object, has the all to familiar shape of a classic saucer and nothing more in details of significance about the object itself and it’s origin.

The object remains unidentified.