The photogrammetric reconstruction proceeds as follows:

1.)  Choose a spacing for the eave rafters. I chose 2 feet. The actual spacing may have been less, but probably it  wasn't greater.   The ends of the roof rafters, assumed to be standard "2 x 4" rafters, are 1.5" wide. (NOTE:  probably the actual rafters were "2 x 6" but probably not as large as "2 by 8."  The vertical dimension of the rafter plays no role in this analysis.)  The ratio 24/1.5 = 16 is the same to within experimental error as the ratio of the widths of the images of the ends of the rafters to the spacing between the images of the ends of the rafters, indicating that the-photographic evidence is consistent with the assumption of a 24" spacing.

2)   Assume the garage wall runs due north-south.  Actually the direction might be several degrees off, but           the Trent house was built next to a road which runs due east-west according to the U.S. Geological Survey Maps (7.5 minute series) .  Thus the walls of the house and garage which would have been nearly parallel or perpendicular to the road, probably are close to running due north south or due east-west, depending upon the location of the wall.  (NOTE: aerial photos obtained several years after this was written show that the walls of the garage are rotated about 2 degrees counterclockwise (north end toward the west).)  The east wall of the garage appears in the photos, according to Hartmann.

3)   Draw the eave rafters two feet apart along a north south line on a scaled map. (See Figure B2; see the scale at the bottom indicating 4 ft. ) Let the eave rafter extend 1 ft beyond the wall.  (NOTE: this may be excessive.  The distance could be as low as 6 inches.) (NOTE in 2000: during a site visit in May 11, 2000, I found that the east garage wall was covered by a sort of corrugate metal siding which had been placed on top of the 3/4" thick horizontal board siding - shown in Hartmann's site photos of 1967 - which, in turn, was on top of the original boards.  The end of the eave rafter was about 5" from the metal siding and therefore about 6" from the original board siding.)

4)   Draw lines from the rafter ends in directions opposite to the directions listed in the above table. For example, for Rafter A in photo I draw a line at azimuth -26.6+ 180 = 153.40; for Rafter A in photo 2 draw a line at azimuth -39.3 + 180 = 140.7   (measured clockwise from due north on the map, with the line starting at the rafter end). The Intersections of the lines locate (approximately) the camera positions from photos 1 and 2. (See Figure B2.)

5)   The filling pipe on the tank appears in both photos. Its image size is directly related to the distance to the camera. Standard filling pipes have outer dimensions of 2.375". Oil tanks are typically 27" wide.  Allowing 3" for a spacing between the side of the tank and the garage wall places the filling pipe about (27 + 3)/2 = 15 " from the wall, or about 3" beyond the eave rafters (NOTE: or 9" beyond, if the eave rafters stuck out only 6" from the wall.). To locate the filling pipe in its proper north-south location, proceed as follows: note that the image of the pipe appears just below the image of the shadow of Rc in photo 1. Assuming that the light source is due east of the garage, the shadow would be due west of the end of the rafter. This locates the shadow of Rc on the garage wall. Draw a line from the garage wall just west of Rc (where the shadow is) toward the general location of the camera in photo I , as determined in step 4 above. Now mark a location along this line which is 15" = 1.25'  from the garage wall. This locates the (estimated) position of the filling pipe.

6)   The distance from the filling pipe to the camera is given by

                                  D  =   {[F/COS(a)]/i} { w/12 }  in feet                                  (B-1)

where F = 103 mm, e is the angle from the axis of the lens to the image of the pipe, and W is the actual pipe width in inches. The COS(e) factor is needed to account for the fact that the effective focal length is not constant over the whole film plane because the film plane is flat (not a constant distance from  the center of the camera lens). Using the appropriate values of the quantities i and e from the table, with F = 103 mm  yields D = 26.1 ft for photo 1 and D = 27.1 ft. for photo 2. In each case the possible error is  +/- 1.5 ft. (NOTE 2000: use of 100 mm as the focal length for a Roamer camera yields distances only 3% smaller:  25.3 ft and 26.3 ft.  This is within the likely error in measurements which is approximately 100 x (+/- 1.5 ft/26 ft) = (+/-) 5.7%, or about 6%.)

7) Draw the distance ranges just calculated from the pipe in the appropriate areas on the map where the sighting lines from the rafter ends cross, thereby further locating the positions of the camera.

8) As a further check , using data not listed in the table, mark off distances from the corner of the garage according to the fact that the ratio of distances to the corner should be the same as the ratio of the spacings between the images of the cracks between the boards on the garage wall at the corner of the garage. This ratio is about 1.1 after correction for the fact that the corner of the garage wall is somewhat to the left of the center of the lens in each photo (cosine correction mentioned above). Pick one camera position to be "exact" and set the other position 1.1 times farther from the corner of the garage wall. I chose position 1 to be 30 ft from the corner of the wall (26.5 ft from the filling pipe on the tank), and this "forces" position 2 to be 33 ft from the corner and also about 30 ft from the filling pipe. Since this is too far from the filling pipe I have compromised on a distance of 32 ft from the corner, which is 29 ft from the filling pipe, a distance only 1/2 ft greater than the maximum value calculated in step 6.

9) Place the lower of the two overhead wires on the map by assuming a wire diameter such as 3/16" or 1/8" . Do this by using the image Brightness Halfwidths in the formula given in step 6 to locate the left end, middle, and right end of the wire from the camera positions for photos one and two. The angular "Distances from the Lens Axis" given in the table should be substituted for the angle e in the formula. The formula then gives radial distances from the camera ("slant distances"). To convert to horizontal distances appropriate for plotting on the map, use the angles listed as Elevation above Horizontal in place of b in the following formula

                                             H = D COS(b).                                                        (B-2)

When the distances have been calculated place marks an the diagram corresponding to the left end, middle, and right end positions for both 3/16 and 1/8 " diameter wires. Note that each photo provides an estimated position. I have drawn average lines through the locations provided by photos 1 and 2 for both 3/16 and 1/8 " diameter wire.

10) Locate the corner of the Trent house by drawing lines from the camera positions according to the angles given in the table. The above steps yield a diagram similar to that in Figure B2. The final step  is to draw in       sighting lines from the camera positions according to the data in the  table.

The above steps yield a diagram similar to that in Figure B2. The final step  is to draw in sighting lines from the camera positions according to the data in the  table.
First notice that the sighting lines do not cross under the wire if the wire was not larger than 3/16" diameter. Second, note that the ratio of the distances from the Sighting Line Crossing (SLC) to the camera positions is

                                     16.25 ft for photo  1              
                                      ----------------------------                      =0.956             (B - 3)
                                     17.0 ft for photo 2

This is to be compared with the ratio of images sizes of the UO:

                           UO diameter in photo 2            0.255 mm
                        --------------------------------- =       ---------------- =    0.873    (B - 4)
                          UO diameter in photo 1             0.292 mm

      Note that the size ratio, photo 2/photo 1, should be compared to the inverse of the distance ratio, photo 1/photo 2, because image size is inversely proportional to distance, that is,  the image size shrinks as the distance increases.    These ratios, although comparable, are not equal. They differ by about 10%.  I have tried other map reconstructions starting from other assumed rafter spacings, but the general result has been the same: the sighting lines do not cross under the wires and the ratios are not equal. Since the location of the wires is of critical importance in the reconstruction, it is worth mentioning that Hartmann did take a picture in 1967 which indicated that at that time the north ends of the wires were attached to insulators which were near the peak of the roof of the house.  Unfortunately, the distance from the corner of' the house to the peak (measured horizontally) was not recorded. As for the other ends of the wires we only have Mrs. Trent's statement that they went to the "center of the garage."  It seems to me unlikely that they attached at the front-back center, i.e., in the middle of the roof, where an attachment could create holes in the roof making it less than watertight.  Hence I interpret this as meaning that they went to a post that was sticking up from the center of the garage, but at the rear end.  Assuming that the horizontal distance from the corner of the house to the north ends of the wires was about 12 ft  and assuming that the wires ran to a post at the peak of the roof at the back of the garage, one can estimate the location of the wires.  However, this estimate must be considered highly tentative, especially since there are no data on the exact location of the southern ends of the wires.  Nevertheless, it does seem consistent with the estimated wire location if  the wires were 3/16 inch thick.

      One further comment about the wires is in order. Clearly  if the wires were as large as 1/4" diameter they would pass essentially (or exactly) over the SLC point. However, it  is highly unlikely that wires as large as 1/4" diameter would have been used because of the cost . The purpose of the wires  was only to power a light bulb of a 100 watts or so. Useable wires would have been as small as 1/8" diameter, which is standard for house wiring. Such wire is also stiff enough to hold kinks ( kinks in the wires when the photos were taken were still in the wires when Hartmann visited the former Trent farm 17 years later.)

CONCLUSION

The lack of data  makes it necessary to reconstruct the scene of the photos using photogrammetric techniques combined  with estimated sizes of objects shown in the photos.  This method introduces considerable uncertainty into the reconstruction. The uncertainty is sufficiently great that a rather wide range of answers to the two questions posed at the beginning of this appendix can be obtained. However, reasonable reconstructions without any "forcing" of the available photographic data and size estimates indicates that the sighting lines did not cross under the wires and that the ratios are not equal.  As pointed out in the text, these results, even if perfectly accurate, would not prove the sighting was not a hoax.  On the other hand, these results, if  reasonably accurate, do not prove that the sighting was a hoax.

ADDENDUM, 1984

Since this paper was completed in the fall of 1981 for presentation at the Second UFO Conference of the Center for UFO Studies, some new and valuable information about the layout of the Trent farm has been obtained from the Agriculture Survey Department.  The Aerial Photography Field Office (Box 30010 , Salt Lake City, Utah 84130) located two photos that had been taken in the time frame of interest.  The first picture is dated 7/2/48 (DFQ Roll 4ED,exposure 93) and the second is dated 5/15/56 (DFQ Roll 1P, exposure 88).  These were taken from aircraft that flew over the area but not directly over the Trent farm.  The scale of both photos was 1:22222 (1" = 1851' ; see Fig. ADD84A).  

Both photos show the same buildings at the Trent farm but the 1948 photo is clearer (better focused?) so I have concentrated my measurement effort on the first photo.  The Aerial Photography Office sent me a print of the original aerial photo and a five power blowup. (Actually it is a 5.045 power blowup with a scale 1" = 367', as determined by comparing the spacings of identifiable objects with the spacings given on the geological survey map ).  I used photographic magnification to create prints at a scale as large as 1" = 107'.   I scaled the print of the original using a U.S. Geological Survey map.  I then measured the separations of the images of the buildings on the blowups.  The estimated accuracy of measurement is about one foot (plus or minus).  The accuracy is limited by the slight fuzziness of the edges of the magnified images.

(NOTE 2000: on May 11, 2000 I visited the site of the Trent farm.  The house burned down some 40 years ago and was replaced by a single-wide trailer.   Then about 20 years ago the present owners replaced that with a double wide trailer.  The original base for the Trent house partially used under the trailer which does not align with the original house.  However, the lady resident was able to indicate an approximate location of the southwest corner of the original house.   There is a pump house, which is no longer used as a pump house (used as a laundry), which lies on a cement slab and is made of cement blocks.  It might be the original pump house.  There have been rather large additions to the original garage.  However, the north, east and south walls are still there, albeit with nice wood siding on the original wood walls.    As a check on the scaling of the magnified aerial photo I measured the distance from the garage to the center of the present road.  Starting at the north edge of the original garage wall the distance along the driveway to the center of the east-west road is about 109 ft.   The edge of the roof extends about 1 foot beyond the wall.  Therefore from the edge of the roof to the center of the road is about 108 ft.   On the blowup photo, with the estimated scale of 1" = 107 ft, the distance from the image of the edge of the garage roof to the center of the road is  1"  Hence to within a foot or so the scaling I did years ago was accurate.)

These data allowed me to create a diagram or "map" of the back yard as shown in the illustration (Fig. ADD84B).  I was pleased to find that the scaling which I had done several years before, using only the original UFO photos plus some educated guesses, was very close to correct.  For example, in the prevous reconstruction I had estimated the distance between the house and garage was about 18 ft.  The aerial photo indicates a distance of 17-19 ft between the edge of the garage roof and the edge of the house roof.  The distance in the above reconsruction is set at 19 ft.

(NOTE 2000:  based on the present occupant's best guess, the southwest corner of the original house was about 18 ft east of the northeast corner of the garage.  The north wall of the present "pump house" is about 2 ft north of the north end of the garage.   The aerial photo seems to show the roof of the original pump house "penetrating" the roof of the house. This suggests that the original pumphouse was very close to or touching the south wall of the main house. That could mean that the south wall of the main house was about 2 ft north of the north wall of the garage. Unfortunately it is beyond the resolution of the aerial photo to determine whether the south wall of the house was "level" with the north wall of the garage or as much as 2 ft north or it. The map in the above figure is based on the assumption that the south wall of the house was "level" with the north wall of the garage. )

The identifications of the various buildings other than the house and garage were provided by Mrs. Trent in a number of conversations, including the most recent (Dec. 9, 1982) after I sent her copes of the blowups (and copy negatives and prints of her original photos).

The diagram shows the locations at which Mr. Trent was standing are illustrated along with the location of the overhead wires as determined by a photo taken by Hartmann in 1967 and by descriptions provided by Mrs. Trent.  Hartmann's photo shows the wires attached to insulators near the peak of the house roof.  The other end of the wires, according to Mrs. Trent, went to the "middle" of the garage which, I assume, means the middle of the rear end of the garage.   Hartmann's photo confirms that the wires ran toward the back of the garage, but it does not show here they were attached.  According to Mrs. Trent her (and, through her, according to Paul) the wires provided power for a light bulb in the garage.  Since the wires were not heavy and were not carrying much power it may be that they were attached to a board (2 x 4 or 2 x 6) which stuck up from the back of the garage at the peak of the roof.  I have seen an arrangement of that type myself in rural settings.  It is assumed in this reconstruction that the wires did actually attach to a point at the center of the back of the garage.

(NOTE 2000:  I examined the rear end of the garage carefully for evidence of a structure that could have supported the wires.  There is no such structure at present, but then, the wires are not present either, having been removed some 30 years ago when the house burned down.   I was too far from the peak of the rear wall of the garage to determine whether or not there were nail holes in the eave rafters or wall siding indicating that at some time there had been something attached to the wall.  There still is an outdoor light fixture attached to the front end of the original garage which looks exactly like the light fixture that was attached to the rear of the house, as shown in Hartmann's photo.  This may be the light to which Mrs. Trent referred.  There may have also been a light inside the garage, but "modern" panelling in the garage has covered up any evidence there might be of the original electrical wiring. )

One of the important "successes" of my original photogrammetric reconstruction was a "prediction" that the garage was unexpectedly long, perhaps more than 25 ft long from front (north) to back (south).  This prediction was confirmed by the aerial photos which indicate the garage was a least 25 ft and perhaps about 28 ft long.

(NOTE 2000:  measurements of the garage show that the walls form a rectangle 18 ft wide by 24 ft long.  The roof overhang adds about a foot at each end and 1/2 ft at each side, making the roof dimensions, as seen from above, about 19 ft by 26 ft.)

The major reason for undertaking the original reconstruction of the back yard was to determine whether or not the overhead wires passed over the sighting line crossover point (SLCP)  (as described in Appendix B).  The new reconstruction of the back yard combined with the previously determined sighting directions shows that the SLCP was about 4 ft northwest of the overhead wires, which is reasonably close to the original reconstruction which indicated 5.5 ft if the wires were 3/16" in diameter.  The decrease from 5.5 ft to 4 ft resulted from better scaling and from a decrease in the distance from the corner of the house to the point where the wires were fastened to the house.  I had initially estimated that the distance was 12 ft, corresponding to a house width of 24 ft using a photo supplied by Hartmann.   However, the aeral photos suggest that the house width was only 22 ft as seen from above so I have adjusted the scaled map accordingly. Other reconstructions can be attempted by moving the relative locations of the house and the garage. However, it must be remembered that the most accurate positioning of the camera locations 1 and 2 are based on the assumed separation of the house and garage, so one cannot simply "slide" the house or garage to create another map without also moving positions 1 and 2.

The aerial photos confirm that the farmhouse of Mr. Trent's father was 440 ft west of Mr. Trent's house.  Furthermore, they confirm that there were no obstructions between the houses so that it would have been possible for Mr. and Mrs. Trent to see Trent's father on the back porch and yell to him before the object disappeared in the west.  (I thank Brad Sparks for initially suggesting aerial survey photos and Philip J. Klass for suggesting that I write for Agriculture department aerial photos.)

PERSONAL ASPECTS RELATED TO THE TESTIMONY

As I pointed out in the discussion at the end of the main text of this paper, the photos tend to be equivocal on the hoax hypothesis because one could imagine a way in which they could have been hoaxed and perhaps the Trents could have hoaxed them with some effort and a lot of "luck."   (Luck:   they hung a small model which just happened to diffuse light coming from the sky above in such a way that the bottom became a nearly uniform source of light; this "luck" requires that the model be constructed from translucent materal rather than a simple "hang a pie pan" approach;  more luck - they suspended the model with a thread that was very thin or else the thread happened to match the color of the sky background.)  If they were lucky in making a model, then their good luck was partly offset by bad luck:  they allowed the photos to show the overhead wire from which the model was hung.

Because the photos are not completely definitive the argument over the truth of their story must be based in large part upon their own testimony given to reporters, investigators and friends over the years.  In evaluating the testimony skeptics have emphasized the differences between the reported versions of the sighting.  In particular, they have pointed to differences between initial newpaper accounts as well as differences between initial and later accounts.  These differences are cited as evidence that the Trents really did not witness the event they have described and are therefore reporting a hoax story which they made up but forgot to "coordinate" with each other.  On the other hand, if the Trents' reports had been 100% identical these these same skeptics would point to the complete correlation as evidence of a hoax because witnesses generally don't see the same event in the same way and no one remembers everything exactly as it happened.

It is my opinion that the slight differences in the reports of the original sighting can be attributed to the fact that the Trents were interviewed after about a month had passed and that the more detailed interviews (reported after the original Telephone Register article) were done separately, for example, with Mrs. Trent at home and Mr. Trent where he worked.  Two people never give completely identical reports of the same event.  Therefore it is not surprising that the reports would differ.  A further source of  difference in the published reports lies in the fact that reporters usually do not report exactly what they were told by a witness.  (Even quoted statements are not always correct.)  A reporter generally publishes his or her interpretation of what the witness had said.  The interpretation which might not accurately portray what the witness was trying to describe.  Finally, a newspaper story is usually edited to make it read smoothly and to fit within a certain space.  This editing may further change the report by leaving out or modifying the statements by the witness.  Thus, given the fact that the Trents' memory of the exact event would be "faded" during the month before they were interviewed, given the tendency or reporters to write their interpretations of what the witness has said and given the tendency of newspapers to edit stories, it is remarkable that there is a considerable consistency between published versions of their report.

Besides the consistency in the versions of the sighting itself, there is a further factor which must be taken into account if one is to decide whether or not the photos are a hoax.  That factor relates to the Trents themselves: would they be capable of or likely to create such a hoax?  In the text of this paper I have already listed a number of people who have interviewed the Trents and concluded that it was unlikely that they hoaxed the pictures.  The reason generally given that they did not hoax the pictures is that they were basically honest people.  This opinion was stated by the newspaper people who were first involved with the story and by the banker (Wortmann) at the time that the photos were published and again many years later.   Other people who had talked to the Trents gained the same impression (including William Hartmann).  As I conversed by phone or by letter with these people who had actually met the Trents I detected an undercurrent of opinion which went beyond simply saying they were honest people.  However I did not mention that undercurrent in the main text of this paper because its importance did not become clear to me until very recently (May, 1984) when I had the good fortune to be in touch with a farm family that had been neighbors of the Trents since they moved to Dayton, Oregon, in the 1950's.  These people stated that they could not remember either Mr. or Mrs. Trent ever mentioning the photos.  The opinion which I received from talking with them reinforced what I had suspected from my earlier information:  Paul and Evelyn are not mentally capable of thinking of producing a hoax for any reason, and even if the thought did cross their minds they would not be likely to carry it out since it would require extra work that would not relate to any of their familiar daily activities.   When I talked on the phone with Mrs. Trent I found that a large portion of the time was taken up in discussions of recent daily events and family matters (i.e., things that had happened in the days or weeks before my phone calls), even though I repeatedly tried to direct the conversation to the subject of my interest.  I concluded that the UFO pictures were definitely not the most important event in their lives.  Instead, they were more of an annoyance to be ignored as much as possible.  My opinion was supported very strongly by the neighbors.

As I discussed the Trents with their neighbors I was reminded of a statement by Bill Powell, the reporter who first interviewed them,  I asked if he thought the Trents could have hoaxed the photos and his blunt answer was essentially that they were not mentally capable of producing a hoax.  In a similar vein, Arthur Fryer, the retired science teacher who visited the Trents at my request, when asked about the possibility of a hoax, said, "I can't believe that these people would have the mental capacity to figure ways of fooling anybody.  I really think a photo of Paul would be quite convincing."

The "discovery" that the Trents really didn't have the intelligence necessary to conceive and carry out  hoax of any kind provides further evidence that they were telling the truth.  I would suggest that any skeptic who is serious about disproving the Trents' report must do more than search for small discrepancies between newspaper stories.  The skeptic must obtain opinions from people preferably professionals, who knew the Trents well as to whether or not a hoax is consistent with the life history of the Trents.  If the photos were hoaxed these opinions should show conclusively that the Trents have the mental capacity and the will to produce a hoax if they so desired.  Without such opinions it is useless to continue the discussion of how the hoax was carried off and how the Trents managed to convince so many people.

CLOSING COMMENT (written in 1984)

In closing I would like to point out that further research could be done on this case, although I don't intend to continue. One could search through local newspapers to locate all of the news stories that were written in the weeks after the publication of the photos.  According to an article in the McMinnville newspaper, on June 15, 1950, the Trents were "beseiged with reporters and cameramen."  The stories written by all these reporters must reside somewhere in newspaper archives.

Besides doing historical research, it would also be valuable to interview a number of people who have known the Trents for years in order to compile their life history.  Because of the results of my own considerable efforts I would be greatly surprised if further historical research or further studies of the Trents produced any information that is noticeably different from what I already have.  However,  if someone should undertake such a study I would be interested in knowning the results.

ADDENDUM: 2000

Since the preceeding text, appendices and Addendum were written the Trents' life history was completed. They died in 1997 (Evelyn) and 1998 (Paul) (see obituary notices below).   There was no other large investigation of their sighting and I did no work on the case following 1984, until 1999. At that time a re-investigation was initiated by Brad Sparks and David Rudiak.

As part of the reinvestigation that started in 1999 I wrote a computer program to make a mathematical model of the Trents' back yard.  I did this in order to speed up the process of determining, for various assumed values of the "parameters" (see below) of the sighting, whether or not the wires passed over the sighting line crossover point (SLCP) and whether or not the ratio of the UO image sizes equaled the inverse ratio of the distances of the camera locations from the SLCP.  (Until I developed this program it was necessary to draw a new, carefully dimensioned diagram each time parameter values were changed.)  One assumption in this program is that the wires ran from the center of the house near the peak of the roof to a post at the center of the rear of the garage.  The calculation is based on the following "parameter values:"  the sighting directions to the UO relative to true north, the directions to the corner of the house and the corner of the garage, the measured widths of the UO images, the width of the house, the length and width of the garage, the spacing between the garage and the house and the north-south offset (if any) of the front of the garage relative to the rear of the house.  The program then calculates the locations of the camera, the location of the SLCP, the (horizontal) distance from the SLCP to the overhead wires and the ratios mentioned above.  This program is contained in Appendix C.

As the re-investigation continued it was determined through  the joint efforts of Brad Sparks, Terry Halstead, David Silver (President of the International Photographic Historical Society) and Joel Carpenter that the camera was not a Kodak, as originally supposed, but rather a Roamer 1 built by the Universal Camera Corporation.  The focal length for this type of camera was about 100 mm.   (The minimum f-stop was 11 and the shutter was fixed at about 1/50 second.)   Hence all of the angles which I had calculated based on the 103 mm focal length for a Kodak camera had to be recomputed.   However, it was found that the computer program gives essentially the same results, namely that the inverse distance ratio mentioned above is about 1.01 to 1.02, while the UFO image ratio is 1.145, and the (horizontal) distance from the SLC to the wires is  3 to 4 ft if the wires attached to a post at the center of the rear of the garage.

THE ROUEN PHOTO

In 1957 two magazines, the Flying Saucer Review and the Royal Air Force Flying Review both published a photograph that was said to have been taken by a French military pilot.

The text of neither publication discussed the photo and the only information is contained within the photo caption.  At my request Claude Poher, formerly of the French National Space Agency (CNES), tried to locate the presumably French military source for the photo.  At the same time I contacted the publishers of both the magazines.  This was done in the 1976-1977 time frame, 20 years after the photo was published.   In both cases the search ended in failure to locate the original source.

About all that can be said about the image in the photo is that it is clearly the same sort of object as appears in the Trent photo #2 but it is not simply a "rephotograph" of the Trent photo because the orientation in 3-D space is different, i.e., the object in the Rouen photo is rotated somewhat from the orientation in Trent #2.   If the story behind the photo is correct, that it was taken by a French miliary pilot, then if provides strong corroboration for the Trent photos.  Unfortunately we will probably never know whether or not the Rouen photo is actually what it purports to be.

EPILOGUE

In 1995 I was contacted by Terry Halstead who wanted to make a video documentary of theTrent sighting to use as part of a large UO documentary.   I provided him with copies of my work and suggested lines of investigation for him to use.  We are fortunate that he managed to obtain a videotaped interview with the Trents.  This was probably the first extensive interview in 30 years (the previous being by Veikko Itkonen in 1969, which was never shown in the USA, so far as I know).   During this interview Evelyn, who did most of the talking because Paul was having difficulty talking, repeated what I had heard her say numerous times 20 year before about the events of the sighting, the description of the object (she never called it a flying saucer) and so on.   Paul contributed a few comments during the interview to support what Evelyn said.

Two years later Evelyn died. The obituary in the McMinnville News-Register of Aug. 7, 1997 reads as follows:

EVELYN MAE TRENT
1926-1997
Services for Evelyn Mae Trent of McMinnville will be held at 11 a.m. Friday in the chapel of Macy & Son Funeral Directors, with the Rev. Kyle French of Dayton Christian Church officiating. Interment will be in Evergreen Memorial Park, McMinnville. The funeral home will be open for viewing until 7 p.m. today and from 8 to 11 a.m. Friday. Mrs.Trent died Aug. 4, 1997, in Columbia Willamette Valley Medical Center, McMinnville.  She was 71. She was born Jan. 1, 1926, in Wheeler, the daughter of Jessie Clifford and Mabel A. Page Eades.  She moved to Buell at an early age. She and Paul Trent were married on March 6, 1943.  After marrying, the couple moved to Cloverdale, where they owned and operated a dairy farm. They moved in 1958 to their farm in Dayton, where they raised corn, berries and grain. Mrs. Trent had lived in McMinnville since 1987. She enjoyed canning and crocheting and loved spending time with her family. Survivors include her husband; four sons, Larry Trent of Dayton, Arthur Trent of Dundee, Thomas Trent of Newberg and Jerry Trent of Roseburg; two daughters, Linda Sayler and Tammy Gochenour, both of Dayton; three brothers, Thomas Eades of Salem, Buster Eades of Portland and John Eades of Seleth, Wash.; a sister Betty, of Dallas; 17 grandchildren and six great grandchildren. She was preceded in death by two brothers, Virgil Eades and Vernon Eades and a sister, Mary Orr. Memorial contributions may be made to the American Diabetes Association or the American Heart Association, in care of Macy & Son Funeral Directors, 135 N. Evans St., McMinnville, Ore. 97128.

About six months later Paul died. His obituary in the News-Register of February 17, 1998 reads:

PAUL A. TRENT
1917-1998
Services for Paul Arthur Trent of McMinnville will be held at 11 a.m. Wednesday in the chapel of Macy & Son Funeral Directors. The Rev. Kyle French of Dayton Christian Church will officiate. Interment will be in Evergreen Memorial Park, McMinnville. The funeral home will be open for viewing from 3 to 7 p.m. today. Mr. Trent died Feb. 13, 1998, in Life Care Center, McMinnville. He was 80. He was born Feb. 28, 1917, in McMinnville, the son of John and Alice Bowers Trent. He was raised and schooled in McMinnville and Buell. He and Evelyn Eades were married on March 6, 1943. He moved in 1958 to a farm in Dayton area and raised corn, berries and grain. He had lived in McMinnville since 1987. He enjoyed country music and the Oregon Coast. Survivors include two daughters, Linda Sayler and Tammy Gochenour, both of Dayton; four sons, Larry Trent of Dayton, Arthur Trent of Dundee, Tommy Lee Trent of Newberg and Jerry Trent of Roseburg; a brother, Clayton Trent of Dayton; 17 grandchildren; and six great-grandchildren. He was preceded in death by his wife in 1997; and by a brother, Everett Trent and a sister Mae Shelburn. Memorial contributions may be made to the Paul Trent Memorial Fund in care of Macy and Son Funeral Directors, 135 N. Evans St. McMinnville, Ore. 97128.

Several years before the death of Evelyn I was told that a rumor going around at that time was that Paul Trent had confessed to the hoax just before he died. I checked up on this rumor by calling the Trents. Evelyn answered the phone. I asked if I could speak to Paul and she said what she had told me some 20 years before, "he doesn't like to talk on the phone because he has a hearing aid." One rumor quashed! The skeptics have claimed that the UFO sighting was the most important thing to have happened in their lives. Skeptics wanted to believe that because It would explain (to the skeptics) why the Trents would continue to maintain the supposed hoax in the face of all the criticism they received. From this point of view, then, it must be considered ironic that the "most important event in their lives," the event which made the Trents internationally famous, was not even mentioned in either obituary. The lives of the witnesses are over, but the saga of their photos lives on.

APPENDIX C