|
|
The Trent Farm Photos
Page |
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
(This paper was originally published in the proceedings of
the 1976 ufo conference of the center for ufo studies. This
version has been modified slightly in april 2000 for this
Publication. This is the first of two technical and historical papers on
The trent photo case that were presented to and published by
The center for ufo studies (cufos), which is located in Chicago,
Illinois. On the possibility that the McMinnville
photos show a distant unidentified object (UO)
During the Air Force funded investigation of UFO reports at the
University of Colorado in 1967-1968 (the "Condon Report"),
photoanalyst William Hartmann studied in detail photographic
and verbal evidence presented by two former residents of McMinnville,
Oregon, Paul and Evelyn Trent. He concluded, mainly on
the basis of a simplified photometric analysis, that "all
factors investigated, geometrical, 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." An important part of his analysis included
calculations of the expected brightness of the image of the bottom
of the Unidentified Object (UO) that appears in the first photo.
He pointed out that the elliptical image of the bottom
was brighter than expected if the object were close and therefore
a small model. The excessive image brightness led him to
conclude that the object was at a great distance (over a kilometer),
His conclusion was criticized by Philip J. Klass and Rober
Sheaffer who argued that veiling glare (caused by surface dirt
and imperfections in the lens which scatter light from bright
areas of the image into all other areas of the image) could have
increased the brightness of the image of the UO, making it appear
distant.
This investigation revisited and improved upon
Hartmann's method with the following modifications:
- the bottom of the UO in the first photo has been assumed to be
as intrinsically bright as possible without being a source of
light (i.e., assumed to be white)
- laboratory measurements
have been used to estimate the magnitudes of veiling glare added
to the various images of interest
- a film exposure curve
has been used to determine relative image illuminances, and
- a surface brightness ratio, determined by field measurements,
has been included.
The results of the new photometric analysis
suggest that the bottom of the UO is too bright for it to have
been a non-self-luminous white (paper) surface of a nearby object.
Hence it could have been distant.
Introduction
In June 1950, four weeks after they were taken, the photos illustrated
below appeared in the local newspaper in McMinnville,
Oregon.
Subsequently, they appeared in Life Magazine and in many publications,devoted
to UFO reports. Although they clearly depict an unusual
object, they were never treated as scientifically valuable because
it was always considered probable that they were photos of a
hoax object (e.g., "a garbage can lid"). Nevertheless
they did gain a large measure of scientific "stature"
when, in 1968, Hartmann(1) concluded that the object may have
been distant and, therefore, large (i.e. not a hoax). Since
the publication of Hartmann's conclusion in the "Condon
Report" (1) these photos and the verbal evidence associated
with them have been the subject of a continuing controversy.
A brief history of the analysis of the photos is given in
Figure 3 (click to view).
A Brief History of the McMinnville Photos
Publication: 8 June 1950. The Editor stated that
"expert photographers declared there has been no tampering
with the negatives. (The) original photos were developed
by a local firm. After careful consideration, there appears
to be no possibility of hoax or hallucination connected with
the pictures. Therefore, the Telephone-Register believes
them authentic." - The Telephone Register, McMinnville,
Oregon
Subsequent Immediate Publications:
- The Portland Oregonian, Portland, Oregon, 10 June 1950 (contains further verbal information)
- The Los Angeles Examiner, Los Angeles, California, 11 June 1950 (contains further verbal information)
- Life, June 1950 (contains further verbal information)
The photos were "lost" in the files of the International
News Photo Service and subsequently in the files of UPI until
they were "found" by the Condon UFO study project in
1968.
Condon UFO Report -Conclusion by Wm. Hartmann, case investigator:
Certain physical evidence, specifically relative photographic
densities of images in the photographs, suggests that the object
was distant; if the object was truly distant, a hoax could be
ruled out as beyond the capabilities of the photographer. (NOTE:
Hartmann's report contains a good summary of the verbal
evidence available up to 1967.)
Sheaffer-Klass Conclusion (1974):
- There are some possible
inconsistencies in the verbal evidence and several important
discrepancies between the verbal report and the photographic
evidence.
- Hartmann's photometric analysis was incomplete.
Specifically:
- [a] shadows on the garage wall (facing east)
suggest that the pictures were taken in the morning, not in the
evening as claimed;
- [b] the apparent shrinkage of the shadow
nearest the edge of the garage suggests that there were many
minutes between photo 1 and photo 2; and
- [c] veiling glare could
have made the image of the bottom of the UO excessively bright
thus leading Hartmann to erroneously conclude that the object
was distant.
Present Investigation : New testimony (published
in a companion paper to this) has been obtained and the original
negatives have been studied photogrammetrically as well as photometrically.
The present investigation has confirmed that there are
shadows on the garage wall (agree with (a) above), but has found
that, to within the resolution of the measurements (using a traveling
microscope), the shadows other than the one at the edge of the
garage did not move with respect to the garage wall between photos
(the shadow at the edge of the garage does appear narrower in
photo 2)(disagree with (b) above). The present investigation
has reviewed and confirmed the general validity of Hartmann's
analysis. When the effects of veiling glare and the ratio
of brightnesses of vertical and horizontal surfaces have been
accounted for the Hartmann-type analysis again indicates a large
distance (disagree with (c) above).
Top of Page
Page |
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
© copyright B. Maccabee, 2000. All rights reserved.
|
|
|
|