Wednesday, November 29, 2006

Among the Best of the UFO Photographs


Let’s take care of a little business here. In the past I have been asked some questions and I think it’s time to deal with, at the very least, one of them. Paul Kimball, among others, wanted to know if there were any UFO photographs that I accepted as authentic. The answer should have been clear because I had posted an article that dealt with the pictures taken in Lubbock, Texas, in 1951 by Carl Hart, Jr. I thought I had made it clear that I believed the pictures showed something anomalous. There are but two answers for the Hart photographs. They are either genuine or they are faked. I don’t believe them to be faked.

Before I go further, I will say one thing. In today’s world it is so easy to fake photographs and video. There are so many programs available that allow for the manipulation of photographs and video tape and so few that allow us to spot th fakes, that nearly anyone can create a realistic picture. And that means that the pictures I’m going to point to were taken before the coming of computers, photoshop, digital cameras and digital recorders.

I believe that the best of the pictures (and this is my own opinion and not meant to be taken as the gospel) are the ones taken in McMinnville, Oregon in 1950. Paul Trent and his wife spotted an object in the evening, ran inside to get their camera and took two pictures of the UFO. Skeptics will tell you that the pictures were not taken in the evening as the Trents claimed, but in the morning and if they lied about that, what else have they lied about?

But the truth is that the Trents were not overly sophisticated people, they were using a rather basic camera, and no real evidence of a hoax has been found. The argument about the time of day is based on shadows under the eves on the garage which suggests a sun angle consistent with a morning picture. Bruce Maccabbe, a Navy physicist, said that the shadow is the result of "random light scattering" and is not consistent with a sun produce shadow. He believes the Trents on this and I confess I find no real reason to fault their story or Maccabee’s analysis.

If the object on the pictures is what it looks like, there really is no explanation for the pictures. A large circular object hovering over the ground suggests a foreign technology superior to ours, or, in other words, something extraterrestrial. It looks like nothing in the aviation inventory in the 1950s and you’d be hard pressed to find anything like it today. Those who had performed computer analysis on the pictures have failed to find evidence of a hoax, such as string holding up the craft.

The only place that th photographs are called a hoax is in the debunker camp and they do that because they have no other explanation. While the pictures do not prove the extraterrestrial case, they certainly can lead in that direction.

3 comments:

John Gillies said...

Yep, some of the best got some at
http://lsufos.com/SKYWATCH.html
For you to view

Paul Kimball said...

Kevin:

The nice thing about the Trent photos is, as you say, that they are one thing or another - real, and representative of a craft of some kind (whether it's ET is another question), or fake, the result of a hoax. While some "younger" UFO types don't seem to get it, Dick Hall pegged it absolutely right in an interview with him - for something like this, when there are no obvious signs of fakery in the photos (that's the Colorado Project talking, not some ufologist), then credibility if extremely important. I never met them, but everything I read about the Trents indicates that they were well respected in the community, never profited to any real extent from the photos, did not seek publicity, and were basically as honest as the day is long. That doesn't mean that they wouldn't have faked photos - it just means that it's unlikely. Given that, the burden of proof is on those asserting that they did to show how, and why, which, as far as I can tell, they have singularly failed to do.

Best regards,
Paul

Bob Koford said...

I'm no expert, right off the bat,
but the scattered light information is confirmed, I believe, by the sky in the background of the photos themselves, as it is apparently quite overcast.