The McMinnville case revisited

[Elevenaugust]

It took almost six month for our team (Geoff Quick, Francois Louange and myself) to do the work but finally we succeed to put on-line the final report for this old (1950) case, revisited with the IPACO software.

http://imageshack.us/a/img15/4643/trnt1.jpg

http://imageshack.us/a/img703/4468/trnt2.jpg

The report can be read HERE (http://www.ipaco.fr/page62.html)

Of course, the case is still open and I would be glad to discuss it either here or on our IPACO forum.

[Dragonfire]

11A, That is excellent. I must commend you on your report.

[Garuda]

Yes, excellent report, indeed.

[Lee]

Outstanding work! Thanks to all involved for the time and effort and for sharing your report here. All things considered I think the hanging model hypothesis the most likely explanation.

Clearly IPACO is a very useful and powerful tool. I look forward to further reports and detailed analysis, not only on well known historical images but also those that might emerge in future. Thanks again!

[Marvin]

Great work A11!


Some time ago, someone doing research on the photos came to the conclusion the UFO was a late 1940s Ford Mirror (the mirror below is from 1948):


http://i240.photobucket.com/albums/ff290/instantmartians/MM48Ford.jpg


The basic shape (surfaces) and mounting post seem to match up with the "UFO" in the photo, the timing of the two photos made in 1950 make it a possibility.


M

[Elevenaugust]

Thank you everyone for the kind words!

I'm actually in touch with Bruce Maccabee about some points that need to be cleared about this case (and thanks to him for the original hi-res photos):

1- Maccabee said that "to have a nearby object would require light emanating from the bottom, which makes the simple hanging of a pie-plate or truck mirror less likely."; OK, but what about a translucent (or semi-translucent) model? He did mention the possibility in its on-line analysis, talking about some experimentation he have done about this point, but without exposing these further.
I'm not sure if he is aware of the work done by Mr Claude POHER back in 1977 about McMinnville (the report for the French CNES was unfortunately only written in French, but I can do a translation if necessary). To make it short, he agreed with the translucent model hypothesis, but its conclusion (mainly based on ground experimentations as well) was exactly the opposite of Maccabee's one, i-e that a "translucent model made of opal plastic material" could have been used.
Anyway, if a hoax, one have to prove that the model/material used could be easily be found by the Trent back in 1950; I guess that a translucent plastic model would not be that easy to find. Any ideas about this point?

2- Oddly, I haven't found anywhere the mention of a possible underneath hollow model. What about this hypothesis (that is possibly not incompatible with the hypothesis of an outside rear-view mirror)?

3- I recently saw on an Internet UFO blog the mention of a 30s separation time between the two shoots, this blog quoting as the source of this affirmation a magazine: "Official UFO" from 1977. I have found the magazine and bought it and did find that this data was given by "David A. Kennedy" in an letter to the editor-in-chief of this magazine. Any input about this data?

@Marvin: Interesting! Do you remember where this idea came from?

Do you think that it could be possible to remove the mirror so the bottom view would be hollowed underneath?

[Lee]

Great work A11!


Some time ago, someone doing research on the photos came to the conclusion the UFO was a late 1940s Ford Mirror (the mirror below is from 1948):


http://i240.photobucket.com/albums/ff290/instantmartians/MM48Ford.jpg


The basic shape (surfaces) and mounting post seem to match up with the "UFO" in the photo, the timing of the two photos made in 1950 make it a possibility.


M
Yeah, that would make sense. Size looks about right, 6 inches? It could also explain the odd angle of the central tower.

Edit: 11A, I think it would be very easy to break out the mirror leaving a hollow concave bottom. I would also expect the inside to be much darker and rougher, just as you theorized.

[epo333]

As for the translucent model material from the "50"s, how about milk glass...

968

or the top of a bowl likr this...

969

[Lee]

As for the translucent model material from the "50"s, how about milk glass...

968

or the top of a bowl likr this...

969
Could be, but I think that the odd angle of the central tower strongly suggests a 1950s Ford wing mirror.

[Doc]

Bruce Maccabee has practically written a Master's thesis on this case. One thing I find very interesting is more than one person at the time of the original investigation and since has stated that the Trents were simple people and not capable of pulling off a sophisticated hoax; one even hinting politely that he thought the Trents might be a little "slow". :confused:

http://www.brumac.8k.com/trent2.html

Someone is going to have to show me the string.

[Elevenaugust]

Bruce Maccabee has practically written a Master's thesis on this case. One thing I find very interesting is more than one person at the time of the original investigation and since has stated that the Trents were simple people and not capable of pulling off a sophisticated hoax; one even hinting politely that he thought the Trents might be a little "slow". :confused:

http://www.brumac.8k.com/trent2.html

Someone is going to have to show me the string.
Hi Doc,

Yes, Maccabee have done a tremendous work on this case and, about the thread visibility, the calculations shows that a typical thread could be visible ..... or not, mainly depending of its thickness:


Dr. Robert Nathan, at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasedena, CA (NOTE 2000: now retired), also searched for, and failed to find, indications of a suspending thread.

And...


The most distant wires were probably over 60 m away. Using a wire diameter of about 0.6 cm (1/4"), the angular width of the distant wires would have been about 0.0001 radians . Experiments with detection of small linear structures (e.g., threads) by photographic means indicate that if there is sufficient contrast between the structure and the background a linear image structure much smaller than the grain size of the film can be detected. Since the grain size of the film used by the Trents was on the order of 5-10 microns, linear structures with images as narrow as 1 micron might be detectable, corresponding to angular sizes of about 0.001 mm/100mm = 0.00001 radians (where 1 micron = 0.001 mm). This would correspond to a thickness of about 0 .05 mm at a distance of 5 meters (about 16 ft) , which would have been the distance to the object if it had been hanging under the overhead wires. A typical thread is about 0.03-0.06 mm in diameter.

Source (http://brumac.8k.com/trent2.html)

[newyorklily]

It took almost six month for our team (Geoff Quick, Francois Louange and myself) to do the work but finally we succeed to put on-line the final report for this old (1950) case, revisited with the IPACO software.

The report can be read HERE (http://www.ipaco.fr/page62.html)

Of course, the case is still open and I would be glad to discuss it either here or on our IPACO forum.

Is Francois Louange the same person as Dr. Ing. Francois Louange, who is a consultant for GEIPAN?

According to John Tomlinson on the MUFON STAR Team Facebook page, https://www.facebook.com/groups/mufon.star.team/ Dr. Ing. Francois Louange will be the Keynote Speaker at the MUFON Symposium in July. Do you know if he will be talking about this case?

[Elevenaugust]

Hello Lily,

Yes this is the same person and we haven't decided yet if any case will be exposed next July.

What I can tell you is that he will talk about the IPACO software, our work on some cases and the French GEIPAN.

[majicbar]

Point of order. On page 26 of the report, the appendix with the MMLife analysis: the MMLife image has been composited with the "MM1" and the "MM2" images. Yet, it would appear that both of the composites show only "MM2" image in the composite and mislabel the first composite as "MM1+MMLife". Was this in fact an error, or am I missing something in what you were trying to present?

[Elevenaugust]

Point of order. On page 26 of the report, the appendix with the MMLife analysis: the MMLife image has been composited with the "MM1" and the "MM2" images. Yet, it would appear that both of the composites show only "MM2" image in the composite and mislabel the first composite as "MM1+MMLife". Was this in fact an error, or am I missing something in what you were trying to present?
Hello majicbar!

Good eye!

Yes, we have reproduced by mistake twice the MM2+MMLife. Thanks for the correction!

[Marvin]

Thank you everyone for the kind words!

@Marvin: Interesting! Do you remember where this idea came from?

Do you think that it could be possible to remove the mirror so the bottom view would be hollowed underneath?


The idea has been around for at least 14 years. I went "surfing" but I could not find the original study pointing to the mirror, but here are a few sites I found with some interesting stuff:

http://debunker.com/trent.html

http://ufoupdateslist.com/2000/oct/m22-009.shtml

http://debunker.com/texts/trent1969.html

http://www.ufodigest.com/news/0308/hoaxing.html

http://www.thelivingmoon.com/49ufo_files/03files2/1950_McMinnville_UFO_Case_Oregon.html


It is possible for the mirror surface to be removed (or broken out)... it is also possible that a matte black coating could have been used to cover the mirrored surface.


If the mirror (or object) was suspended using thread, then the color of the thread would come into play. White would be more difficult to detect than black, due to the amount of light present (and the exposure setting of the camera). Of course, throwing the object would not need anything like thread… but the photographic evidence you show does suggest the possibility of a suspension element (like thread) was used.



M

[newyorklily]

Hi 11A and Marvin.

How was the alleged string attached to the object?

[Elevenaugust]

Hi 11A and Marvin.

How was the alleged string attached to the object?
Hi Lily,

I have no idea.

I could be attached to the asymmetric part that can be seen at the top of the object, but this is just a subjective guess as there's no visible thread.

[majicbar]

I have begun a review of the original research provided by Bruce Maccabee and with interest I find the notion that this is a hoaxed incident wholly false upon finishing Dr. Maccabees analysis of the photos. http://brumac.8k.com/trent2.html Maccabee also mentions that studies done by Los Alamos National Laboratory and the Brooks Institute of Photography at Santa Barbara also do not mention the possibility of hoaxed images. Maccabee in his analysis concludes that were a hoax involved then the MM2 image would have had to have had the model slid along the line by something like 3 feet to the right toward the house, in order to agree with the geometry of the scene. The proximity of the wires makes it unlikely (from similar attempts to hoax incidents) to hide any string slung below the wires. One has to read the whole Maccabee study to appreciate the problems with the model hypothesis, especially were something as mundane as a car mirror used as the model.

[Elevenaugust]

Maccabee also mentions that studies done by Los Alamos National Laboratory and the Brooks Institute of Photography at Santa Barbara also do not mention the possibility of hoaxed images.
Yes, unfortunately these studies are not visible anywhere! I really would like to see them to see what was the methodology used and exact analysis done.



Maccabee in his analysis concludes that were a hoax involved then the MM2 image would have had to have had the model slid along the line by something like 3 feet to the right toward the house, in order to agree with the geometry of the scene. Yes, but this is incomplete. Here's Maccabee's reply about this point:


The sighting line crossover was not under the wires. As I pointed out, one could explain this by assuming that the hypothetical model was slid along the wire between photos or that the model was swinging toward and away from the camera.
This last point is fully demonstrated in our analysis.



The proximity of the wires makes it unlikely (from similar attempts to hoax incidents) to hide any string slung below the wires.
Well, not exactly, as, like I explained above, it mainly depends of the thickness of the thread. (Not my demonstration, but Maccabee's own words):


The most distant wires were probably over 60 m away. Using a wire diameter of about 0.6 cm (1/4"), the angular width of the distant wires would have been about 0.0001 radians . Experiments with detection of small linear structures (e.g., threads) by photographic means indicate that if there is sufficient contrast between the structure and the background a linear image structure much smaller than the grain size of the film can be detected. Since the grain size of the film used by the Trents was on the order of 5-10 microns, linear structures with images as narrow as 1 micron might be detectable, corresponding to angular sizes of about 0.001 mm/100mm = 0.00001 radians (where 1 micron = 0.001 mm). This would correspond to a thickness of about 0 .05 mm at a distance of 5 meters (about 16 ft) , which would have been the distance to the object if it had been hanging under the overhead wires. A typical thread is about 0.03-0.06 mm in diameter.

So, for a suspended model to be located under the wire and for the distance camera/model to be as computed in our report, a thread with a thickness of 0.03/0.04mm would not be detectable on the photos.

[majicbar]

In any typical investigation the ultimate "thread" is follow the money. What were the Trent's motives in the "hoax". The Trent's were simple people. The never sought any publicity. The casual mention of the sighting lead another to have them give the negatives for study and eventual publication. The Trent's never sought, ever sought, any compensation, even to the point of never claiming the usual wire service fee for a photos publication. The Trent's never sought any publicity, and had to endure both pro and anti UFO types coming to their door. Mrs Trent almost always answered the questions about her husbands photos. Mrs. Trent was always very helpful and forthcoming in her answers to questions. So they would have had to plan and execute an elaborate "hoax" ahead of time, seeking no avenue of exploitation, and be able to use techniques which even today, knowing what we do, would be difficult to do. Really? Occam's razor cuts both ways skeptics; in this case a real UFO is a far easier and more likely explanation.

[Doc]

majicbar: That is my take as well. They gave the negatives away!

In some psych reports if there is no way to be certain a person is truthful but all available indications are that the person is telling the truth, they write, "There is no evidence of subterfuge, dissembling or guile." That fits the Trents to a T.

[majicbar]

"They gave the negatives away!" Not exactly, if you read the Maccabee site carefully you find that the originals were misplaced and eventually found. See about page 12 thru 14 in my printout of section 1 of the report, http://brumac.8k.com/trent2.html The photos wound up in the hands of Phillip Bladine the editor of the McMinnville News Register who was called by Dr. Bruce Maccabee in 1975 and who then supplied these negatives to Maccabee. It is unclear if Maccabee retained the originals, or merely made copies and enlargements of them, nor is it clear if the UPI via the McMinnville News Register is the repository of the genuine original negatives. But for the purposes of analysis, Maccabee has research quality copies from which to proceed if anyone needs them for analysis. Ideally these should be scanned in great detail with something other than JPEGs, and archived in multiple locations.

[newyorklily]

But the Trents never asked for money for them. As the photographers, the Trents own all copyrights to the photos. They never sold the negatives or the rights to the pictures or negatives.

[majicbar]

But the Trent's never asked for money for them. As the photographers, the Trent's own all copyrights to the photos. They never sold the negatives or the rights to the pictures or negatives.

Now let us get technical. Only works of art can still have copyright without filing as unique and individual pieces. Photographs can fall into gray area where they have a lifetime that is limited and when one does not assert rights, then the items can fall into the public domain. The Trent's did nothing within their legal obligation to assert copyright. As these are news items, one might argue that the public interest argues for the public domain status. UPI could assert some status, but they did not originaly have the photos as their own, but bought the former news service that had them but never paid the Trent's for their use. This thus is a lawyers Paradise, one could argue many points of view for many years. I think that the best argument for public status is that copies of the negatives and prints were sent by Maccabee to Mrs. Trent and she still did nothing to assert copyright, thus one can best argue for a case of abandonment to the public domain.

[newyorklily]

From http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-fairuse.html

"In the case of photographs, it is sometimes difficult to determine who owns the copyright and there may be little or no information about the owner on individual copies. Ownership of a “copy” of a photograph – the tangible embodiment of the “work” – is distinct from the “work” itself – the intangible intellectual property. The owner of the “work” is generally the photographer or, in certain situations, the employer of the photographer. Even if a person hires a photographer to take pictures of a wedding, for example, the photographer will own the copyright in the photographs unless the copyright in the photographs is transferred, in writing and signed by the copyright owner, to another person. The subject of the photograph generally has nothing to do with the ownership of the copyright in the photograph. If the photographer is no longer living, the rights in the photograph are determined by the photographer’s will or passed as personal property by the applicable laws of intestate succession."

[newyorklily]

Still, the Trents never asked for any money for the photographs, negatives or for the use of them. I think that says something about their character and motivation. I think that, if the Trents are going to be maligned by being labeled liars and frauds, there will have to be a lot of hard evidence to prove it. I do not see that evidence here.

[Elevenaugust]

It is unclear if Maccabee retained the originals, or merely made copies and enlargements of them, nor is it clear if the UPI via the McMinnville News Register is the repository of the genuine original negatives. But for the purposes of analysis, Maccabee has research quality copies from which to proceed if anyone needs them for analysis. Ideally these should be scanned in great detail with something other than JPEGs, and archived in multiple locations.
Here's what Maccabee explained to me about the process:


During the copying process - negative to print - the developing times were varied to bring out different aspects of the photos. When I first obtained the negatives in 1974, Sheaffer was living nearby and we jointly went to a darkroom and made many prints, most of which have suffered some damage in the years past. We varied the development times intentionally.
Other people to whom I sent the negatives, and Hartmann (who had the negatives about 6 years before I got them) made prints using different exposure times.

Maccabee gives us a copy (not jpeg) of one of these original scans of prints (labeled under "TRNT1/TRNT2) which are bigger files of those that can be seen in the front page of Maccabee's site.

As for the credibility of the Trent, I'm not qualified to judge it, so I can only rely on what the other investigators said, especially Maccabee.

[majicbar]

Thanks Elevenaugust, that helps settle any quality issues. Will your study be posting these images for others to use, or was Maccabee indicating that they would otherwise be available open source? I'd also like to see the MMLife image available as well.

[newyorklily]

As for the credibility of the Trent, I'm not qualified to judge it, so I can only rely on what the other investigators said, especially Maccabee.

From http://brumac.8k.com/trent2.html


The clarity and detail of the photos combined with the public testimony of the banker that the Trents were honest people and with the statement by Powell that he could find nothing wrong with the photos (Powell was _very_ convinced that the Trents would not have been able to carry off a hoax of this nature(35) ) made the photos instant celebrities. By the tenth of June the Trents' story was carried by the International News Service (INS) and was circulated throughout the USA and the world. Apparently the INS news story was based on a second interview carried out by a reporter for the Portland paper, Lou Gillette. Life Magazine became interested and included the pictures with a very short story of the sighting. Powell gave the negatives to Life with the understanding that the negatives would be returned to the Trents (who were never paid for the use of the negatives). The Trents also accepted an invitation to appear on a TV show, "We the People," which was produced in New York City. While on the show the Trents resisted efforts by the show staff to make statements which they, the Trents, considered unfounded. (1) They were also supposed to receive their negatives after the show, but the negatives were not returned.(1,12) The negatives were subsequently "lost" in the files of the INS in 1950, and were only found again as a result of the efforts of the Colorado University investigation (Hartmann) in 1967.(1) The negatives were in the files of the United Press International which had bought INS. After the Dr. Hartmann finished with the negatives he returned them to the UPI. However, since the Trents had never been paid for the negatives, Philip Bladine, the editor of the McMinnville News Register (he was also the editor in 1950, when the paper was called the Telephone Register) wrote to UPI on behalf of the Trents to obtain the photos. UPI sent the negatives to Bladine in 1970. When I called Bladine in 1975 to find out if he could help me located the negatives he told me they were on his desk! He had had the negatives for about 5 years, but hadn't informed the Trents! (I subsequently arranged with Mrs. Trent to borrow the negatives for research. In return I sent her excellent prints and copy negatives so she could make her own copies.)

In retrospect it probably a good thing that the negatives were "lost" between 1950 and 1967 because they were well protected during that time, and therefore the photographic information was minimally degraded. Also, in retrospect, it is interesting to contemplate the amount of money which UPI may have made off the Trent photos, which must have appeared in hundreds or thousands of UFO publications since 1950, while the Trents received nothing but trouble and harassment (crank phone calls, letters, etc.) whenever their photos appeared in widely circulated publications. (According to Mrs. Trent, over the years they received phone calls, letters, and direct visitations from people who called them liars, hoaxers, and other uncomplementary names. They have also been contacted by "true-believers" and saucer "nuts". In my opinion she maintained a remarkable degree of equanimity in the face of all this notoriety. In all the conversations I had with her she never once referred to the object as a flying saucer, nor did she try to convince me flying saucers exist, nor did she say, anything about alien contact, space brothers, or any of the saucer-related extraterrestrial mumbo jumbo which we sometimes hear from people whose sightings have become famous.)

[Elevenaugust]

Thanks Elevenaugust, that helps settle any quality issues. Will your study be posting these images for others to use, or was Maccabee indicating that they would otherwise be available open source? I'd also like to see the MMLife image available as well.
You're welcome.

These images are not confidential. I've put them on my Divshare account, you can download the set here (http://www.divshare.com/download/23904144-4a2)

About the LIFE photo, there are 47 photos that were taken by Loomis Dean, approx. 1 month later and they are all available here (http://images.google.com/hosted/life/3005e278fbf74521.html)


From http://brumac.8k.com/trent2.html
Like a friend said: "In mitigation, I'm not as quick to dismiss the accounts of alleged witnesses of UFOs, saucers and unusual objects. A few researchers spoke directly with the family and came away with the impression that they were honest. That doesn't mean I believe the photos are genuine captures of something unusual...ambiguity goes a long way. "

[Marvin]

Still, the Trents never asked for any money for the photographs, negatives or for the use of them. I think that says something about their character and motivation. I think that, if the Trents are going to be maligned by being labeled liars and frauds, there will have to be a lot of hard evidence to prove it. I do not see that evidence here.


Correct me if I am wrong... but we truly do not have first hand knowledge of the motivation or character of the Trent’s.

Not knowing how or why a hoax was created does not negate the fact that the photographic evidence does not stand up well to thoughtful scrutiny.

The fictitious character of Sherlock Holmes said it best:


“It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts.”

“There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact.”

“Eliminate all other factors, and the one which remains must be the truth.”


Each must decide for themselves, as to the reality of this case.


M

[majicbar]

"Correct me if I am wrong... but we truly do not have first hand knowledge of the motivation or character of the Trent’s.

Not knowing how or why a hoax was created does not negate the fact that the photographic evidence does not stand up well to thoughtful scrutiny."

Marvin, from what you state you do not appear to have read the extensive report that I cited by Dr. Bruce Maccabee, http://brumac.8k.com/trent2b.html where he cites 10 various case interviews with the Trent's where the conclusions were that the Trent's were not individuals thought capable, or of the character, to hoax the photographs. So I'm correcting you, you are wrong on that point.

The presentation here is not well thought out. You can put lipstick on a pig and it is still a pig to cite recent American political spin. While the presentation has nice bells and whistles that give it a ring of reality, it still has assumed from the start that the photos were a hoax when thoughtful analysists have concluded otherwise. To put a model under the wire requires that the model be moved, or high winds were blowing the model all over the place, while the wires do not look like they are under the dynamics of being blown by a strong wind. A strong wind on fallow farm fields would also kick up dust which does not appear to have degraded the atmospherics. The dimensional placement of the various elements on the site lead one to conclude if a 'hoax" the model had to be strung four feet beyond the wire and the photograph was only taken from about 11 feet away, or the model was swinging enough to look like it were 4 feet beyond the wire. It doesn't work.

In my opinion this study requires assumptions beyond what are reasonable. So Marvin hold your opinion as you will, in my opinion I side with those who have concluded that these photographs are genuine.

[Elevenaugust]

Dr. Bruce Maccabee cites 10 various case interviews with the Trent's where the conclusions were that the Trent's were not individuals thought capable, or of the character, to hoax the photographs.
Yet he never dismissed at all the hoax hypothesis. So..?



To put a model under the wire requires that the model be moved, or high winds were blowing the model all over the place, while the wires do not look like they are under the dynamics of being blown by a strong wind. A strong wind on fallow farm fields would also kick up dust which does not appear to have degraded the atmospherics. The dimensional placement of the various elements on the site lead one to conclude if a 'hoax" the model had to be strung four feet beyond the wire and the photograph was only taken from about 11 feet away, or the model was swinging enough to look like it were 4 feet beyond the wire. It doesn't work.
Some points to consider:
1- No need to involve "strong winds" (if it was really the wind that moved the object in a swinging way); it mainly depends of the weight of the suspended object. 10MPH is not really what I would call a "strong wind"
2- Between both shots, object's distance from the camera increases by only 1.6 ft, so no, the photograph wasn't taken "from about 11 feet away", but at max. 14 feet for MM1 and 15.6 feet for MM2 (14 + 1.6).
3- Maccabee's final estimation of the difference SLC/vertical projection under the wires (or the (horizontal) distance from the SLC to the wires) was revised several times, from 5.5 to 4 feet, and from 4 feet to 3/4 feet. Source (http://brumac.8k.com/trent2c.html).
So we have a difference between point 2 and 3 comprised between 2.4 and 1.4 feet (73 and 43 cm). Such a small difference could easily be explained by:
- The lack of accuracy of the reconstruction site based on aerial survey, from the map established by Maccabee. Then, changes in the configuration site can results in modifications of the SLC position, relatively to the wires.
- The thickness of the wires. Maccabee used for his reconstruction the diameter of 1/8", but recognized that if those wires were thickened (1/4") the SLC would be located precisely under the wires.


Clearly if the wires were as large as 1/4" diameter they would pass essentially (or exactly) over the SLC point Source (http://brumac.8k.com/trent2c.html)

- Better accuracy (and margin error) of angles measurements could result in small changes of these estimations.
- Small changes can occur as well if the negative size is not exactly 6x9 but smaller, resulting in smaller angles measurements and then smaller size/distance estimations (but these will be very small).

While no precise estimations have been done on these three points, I guess that a small 1.4/2.4 feet change would not be a big deal to be explained by the lack of accuracy of these data.


Maccabee's own words:


Of course, the failure to prove that the sighting lines cross under the wires and the failure to prove that the size ratio is the same as the distance ratio does not mean that the photos cannot be a hoax. If the UO were swinging toward and away from the photographer in a pendulum- like motion, or if the hypothetical suspension of the UO were moved along the wire between photos, the sighting lines would not cross under the wires and the two ratios would not be equal.

Source (http://brumac.8k.com/trent2.html)

...on which we agree, especially at the light of our geometrical calculations that are 100% consistent with the model hypothesis.


In my opinion this study requires assumptions beyond what are reasonable.
Please, list these assumptions so we can discuss them in a more precise way. I would be glad to revise the report if there's any scientific argument that could be more in favor of the big and far away unknown object.

[epo333]

Humm,

After refreshing my mind on this case, I really can't see a couple of farmers perpetrating a hoax like this with a truck mirror. Back then farmers were not the ones pulling hoaxes, IMO it was the more educated folks, going for fame and some fortune.

[majicbar]

"- The thickness of the wires. Maccabee used for his reconstruction the diameter of 1/8", but recognized that if those wires were thickened (1/4") the SLC would be located precisely under the wires."

Maccabbee uses wire diameters of 1/8th and 3/16th in his analysis, (Section 1, The McMinnville photos), from my experience on my uncles farm the use of 1/4 inch wire would be unlikely, especially in 1950 with the lower amp service that was normally used in that period. (And especially in that it was only used to light one 100W lightbulb.) Photogrammetric analysis done by Maccabee in step 9 of part 3 of his study, (at about 3/11 into the pagecount). Although maccabee did indicate that issue with 1/4 inch wire, see his additional commnent below.

Maccabee's report says:

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. (About 4/11ths of the pagecount.)


Comment....."list these assumptions so we can discuss them in a more precise way. I would be glad to revise the report if there's any scientific argument that could be more in favor of the big and far away unknown object."

I am trying to put together my thoughts to this end and will respond when I can provide you that listing. Thanks for your responses to the points I've raised.

[Elevenaugust]

Thanks for your reply, Majicbar.

Let's recapitulate the variables that account for the differences between the SLC and the geometrical computed position of the object:

1- The lack of accuracy of the reconstruction site based on aerial survey, from the map established by Maccabee. Then, changes in the configuration site can results in modifications of the SLC position, relatively to the wires.
2- The thickness of the wires. Maccabee used for his reconstruction the diameter of 1/8", but recognized that if those wires were thickened (1/4") the SLC would be located precisely under the wires.
3- Better accuracy (and margin error) of angles measurements could result in small changes of these estimations.
4- Small changes can occur as well if the negative size is not exactly 6x9 but smaller, resulting in smaller angles measurements and then smaller size/distance estimations (but these will be very small).

Point n°2 probably have to be dismissed as, like you rightly pointed out, the use of a 1/4" wire would be unlikely because of the cost.

About point n°4, I just had a precise answer from Maccabee:


The actual size of the photograph is 5.588 cm by 8.255 as measured by a traveling microscope. As you can see the actual size of the exposed area is a bit smaller than the theoretical size. You should be aware that the negatives were cropped - cut off - at some time after the newspaper publication and before I got them.

The right side of neg 1 was cut at a slight slant angle so that the distance across the top is 7.556 cm and the distance across the bottom is 8.255 (not cut at the bottom).
The left side of neg 2 was cut at a slant such that the distance across the top is 8.255 and the distance across the bottom is 8.043 cm. Neither the top nor the bottom of either neg was cropped.

So all our angles and length calculations have to be modified consequently, and that's what we have done in the last few hours (BTW the modified report is on-line here (http://www.ipaco.fr/ReportMcMinnville.pdf)).
Then, the new useful data here is that the difference between point 2 and 3 [see my previous post above] is not anymore comprised between 2.4 and 1.4 feet (73 and 43 cm) [4ft-1.6ft and 3ft-1.6ft], but rather between 2 and 1 ft (61 and 30.5 cm) [4ft-2ft and 3ft-2ft]. That's substantially decrease the difference between the calculated SLC position and the real computed position of the object under the wires.

In fact, the lower the measured length angles of the object are, the greater the object's distance from the camera increases between both shots.

Point n°3 should be at first glance negligible, but I nevertheless estimated the possible differences to be in order of 0.05° (Reminder: our estimated angles are for MM1: 1.670° and for MM2: 1.460°), especially for MM2 as the edges aren't clearly defined. However, the consequences in terms of variation differences is NOT negligible. Then, let's say that angle measurements are right for MM1 (1.670°) with the estimated size consequently being of 0.4931ft for a distance to the camera of 14ft. We have defined the angle for MM2 to be 1.460°, so for the same size of 0.4931ft, the distance to the camera would be 16ft (then an increase of 2ft).
BUT, if we subtract only 0.05° to the estimated angle for MM2 (0.05° is a very small angle), we have now an estimated distance to the camera of 16.55ft!, then a global increase between MM1 and MM2 of 2.55ft.
So the problem here is primordial as it really have to be taken account for the possible variation in the estimated increase of the distance of the object to the camera between MM1 and MM2.

Now, another interesting point to discuss would be point n°1, as any modification of one of the estimation done by Maccabee could possibly change the SLC position, either closer or farther from the position (vertical projection) right under the wires. (to be discussed later!)

[A99]

As the saying goes "Numbers don't lie" but I'm absolutely certain that if anyone were to duplicate this sighting by
--- capturing two photos using the same kind of camera
--- where they are taken at 2 different vantage points
--- in similar atmospheric conditions at the same time of the day
--- and using a 'model' based on the same criteria (the string theory) stated in this report wrt to what Trent possibly used for that model in 1950,
we are going see a "UFO" in those 2 photo's that has ZERO resemblance to what's being seen in Trent's photographs.

What's being totally ignored here is that historically there have always been numerous paranormal aspects to the UFO phenomenon; and this case is no exception. Just because the second photo was taken at a slightly different vantage point does not explain why that UFO is the same size (but obfuscated significantly by the atmospheric haze) as the one in the first photo that seems to be much closer. Yet, to the naked eye, the UFO in the second photo looks like it's almost a mile away!

But here we have a group of dedicated photographic analysts who want us to believe that we can't trust what we see with our own eyes. That even though we think we are seeing a carrot, it's really an apple. They are telling us to believe that the UFO in the second photo is the same distance away from the photographer as the UFO is in the first photo. That the atmospheric haze that the UFO in the second photo is immersed in is showing up that way only because it was taken at a slightly different vantage point from where the photographer was when he took the first photo.

And like all photographs with paranormal anomalies in them, there are lighting issues too that defy the laws of physics that everyone is scrambling around trying to explain away. And this includes color issues too because Mrs. Trent described the UFO as being silver yet it didn't exactly photograph that way, did it? No. And the reason why is because paranormal phenomena often times photographs differently in various unpredictable ways than what was seen with the naked eye when the photo was taken. I of all people out there know this with absolute certainty because of my own experiences in this area.

IMHO, photometric techniques work fine and dandy for “real” physical objects and 11A’s work in that area is exceptional. But in this case, we are dealing with something that is from the proverbial rabbit hole. To ignore that very real possibility wrt to what's being seen in these photographs is to ignore an enormous and pervasive facet of the UFO phenomenon.

[Elevenaugust]

Thanks A99! :)

Now, about point n°1, here are the data that were used by Maccabee to do its reconstruction map (http://brumac.8k.com/trent2c.html) (reproduced below), both from the aerial survey of the Trent farm in July 1948 and his best guess:

a- Distance between the house and the garage set at 19ft
b- South wall of the house level with the north wall garage (0 ft differences)
c- Garage roof width set at 18ft
d- House width set at 22ft, thus the width of the space between the corner of the house and the wires attached to insulators near the peak of the house roof (then in the middle of the house) set to 11ft.

Let's also not forget that, like Maccabee stated himself: "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." (speaking of the aerial survey photo of course)

The map:

http://imageshack.us/a/img21/940/trntcf2add84b.gif

The 1948 aerial photo:

http://imageshack.us/a/img827/8499/trntcf2add84a.gif

To be continued....

[newyorklily]

Hi !!A.

Do you know what altitude the aerial survey was taken at?

[Elevenaugust]

Hi !!A.

Do you know what altitude the aerial survey was taken at?
Hi Lily,

No, and the only information we have was given by Maccabee:


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.

[majicbar]

June 6, 1950, at Trent farm near McMinnville, Oregon, LIFE Magazine documentation of area of sighting on May 11, 1950 and photographed by Mr. Paul Trent. Mrs. Trent is seen at the farm and Mr. Trent seems to be at a worksite.

http://www.gstatic.com/hostedimg/91989c080a17318b_large

http://www.gstatic.com/hostedimg/0be7a1506d9904aa_large

http://www.gstatic.com/hostedimg/3cab19afe215bf4e_large

http://www.gstatic.com/hostedimg/93c2d09f1d1d3eac_large

Mr. Paul Trent and his camthat note taht he holds it in the landscape mode.

http://www.gstatic.com/hostedimg/eb31a4aa041e807c_large

http://www.gstatic.com/hostedimg/fd1191617c309220_large

http://www.gstatic.com/hostedimg/33eca6086a2b9ce7_large

Wires along chicken coop?


http://www.gstatic.com/hostedimg/62d89b203ca6648f_large

Another view, pump house and chicken coop.


http://www.gstatic.com/hostedimg/c94549c485dbfb12_large

http://www.gstatic.com/hostedimg/47873363a86d14f7_large

Mrs. Trent in front of house, wires seen in back.


http://www.gstatic.com/hostedimg/d8fed3aec7ca1006_large

Obviously rabbit pens


http://www.gstatic.com/hostedimg/0a689c5905b9a684_large

http://www.gstatic.com/hostedimg/2e1b0934a56868d9_large

Geometry of the rabbit pens vs garage, Mrs. Trent in photo pointing toward where UO was photographed. Note that the pens do not abut the "garage" although seeing these images leads me to wonder if this building really was used as a garage, or if it wasn't a shelter for farm equipment, at 24 x 12 it is larger than a garage of the times and with no decernable access for a car, any door must be on the West side of the building.

Much thanks to Elevenaugust for the links to these images, they are adding to the questions that I'm interested in.

[Elevenaugust]

You're welcome!

Ok, next step for point n°1 would be to try to reconstruct the scene using the aerial survey and give an estimation for "point a". (Distance between the house and the garage)
Unfortunately, as you know, the quality is rather poor, so I had at first to enhance it the best way possible.

In order to do this, I first magnified it 100x using the approximate nearest neighbor search algorithm and applied a slight contrast enhancement, to improve the visibility of the shadows. The result can be seen below:

http://img716.imageshack.us/img716/6201/mapresampl.png

Now, we can clearly see some highly contrasted area between the lightened parts and the shadowed parts that delimit both house and garage parts of interest, labeled in the sketch below as:
- red for the east walls
- green for the north walls
- blue for the top of the roof

http://img28.imageshack.us/img28/2664/mapresampl2.png

Next step is to "reconstruct" the west walls, assuming that each part of the roofs is equal:

http://img802.imageshack.us/img802/3237/mapresampl3.png

One finally have to rotate 3° counterclockwise to align east and west walls vertically to the general north direction. Now, let's assume, to estimate the value of "point a", that the 22ft measure (L1= 96 pixels) for the width of the house (as estimated by Maccabee) is correct (my "point d") , then what would be the separation measure between the garage and the house? Maccabee estimated it at 19ft.

In my map, by extending the west wall of the house down south with a parallel line to the east wall of the garage, the distance (labeled as "L3=58" in the map) can be computed to be as ca. 13.29 ft, let's say 14ft for the sake of margin error.

http://img11.imageshack.us/img11/8237/mapresampl4.png

I know that this data may appears under-evaluated, but if we report on the map the previous estimated data from various analysis (L4 for 16ft and L5 for 19ft) using the (prolongated) west wall of the house as the reference....

http://img33.imageshack.us/img33/8873/mapresampl5.png

.... we clearly see that it exceed (and far from that for the 19ft estimation) the possibilities.

So, for future calculation, I'll take 14ft as reference for the distance between the front of the garage and the back of the house, assuming that they are both aligned. (my "point b" - which is not BTW clearly defined - could possibly have 2ft difference for the south wall of the house up to north, but let's assume that they were lined up)

Another thing that is interesting is to try to estimate the size of the garage, but that will be my next post!

[Marvin]

Correct me if I am wrong... but we truly do not have first hand knowledge of the motivation or character of the Trent’s.

Not knowing how or why a hoax was created does not negate the fact that the photographic evidence does not stand up well to thoughtful scrutiny.


Marvin, from what you state you do not appear to have read the extensive report that I cited by Dr. Bruce Maccabee, http://brumac.8k.com/trent2b.html where he cites 10 various case interviews with the Trent's where the conclusions were that the Trent's were not individuals thought capable, or of the character, to hoax the photographs. So I'm correcting you, you are wrong on that point.

The presentation here is not well thought out. You can put lipstick on a pig and it is still a pig to cite recent American political spin. While the presentation has nice bells and whistles that give it a ring of reality, it still has assumed from the start that the photos were a hoax when thoughtful analysists have concluded otherwise. To put a model under the wire requires that the model be moved, or high winds were blowing the model all over the place, while the wires do not look like they are under the dynamics of being blown by a strong wind. A strong wind on fallow farm fields would also kick up dust which does not appear to have degraded the atmospherics. The dimensional placement of the various elements on the site lead one to conclude if a 'hoax" the model had to be strung four feet beyond the wire and the photograph was only taken from about 11 feet away, or the model was swinging enough to look like it were 4 feet beyond the wire. It doesn't work.

In my opinion this study requires assumptions beyond what are reasonable. So Marvin hold your opinion as you will, in my opinion I side with those who have concluded that these photographs are genuine.

Hi majicbar,

I think you may have misunderstood what I posted, so let me clarify:

I believe no one posting on this thread has directly interviewed the Trent family. Dr. Maccabee’s report comes to us second hand. Why (and is that important)? Dr. Maccabee interviewed the Trent family and raised questions base on what he wanted to know, then made conclusion bases on his perspective, knowledge and opinion. There is absolutely nothing wrong with this, I am just suggesting that if someone else interviewed the Trent family then they would have asked questions base on what they wanted to know, then made conclusion bases on their perspective, knowledge and opinion. It is likely the interviews would have “shed light” differently on specific aspects of the case. Not knowing the Trent family would put one at a disadvantage to someone with intimate knowledge with the family. Does anyone here have that intimate knowledge?

Also, thank you for your criticism... and what do you have against pretty pigs?


http://i164.photobucket.com/albums/u20/sliv812/LipstickonaPig.jpg


As you posted, it is your opinion and assumption (and you certainly are entitled to it)… I just don’t see you posting any data to back it and demonstrates the object is not a small object close to the camera. The question of genuine photographs is not being debated (the photos are legit), identification of the object in the photographs… that is what’s being questioned.

I look forward to seeing your evidence.

M

[newyorklily]

I have enlarged the 1948 aerial photograph to 500 and I still do not see any signs of the wooden polls that hold the electrical wires. Can anyone else find them in the aerial survey photo?

[Elevenaugust]

Another thing that is interesting is to try to estimate the size of the garage, but that will be my next post!

Ok, let's first quote Bruce Maccabee about this very data:


[Note from me: written in 1977 and completed in 1981] 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.

Now, let's take again the reconstructed map from Maccabee's site:

http://img20.imageshack.us/img20/3034/trntcf2add84b2.gif

Maccabee used a millimeter paper with the scale set at 1 square = 1ft. So, the garage was drawn assuming that it has a size of 18ft width x 28ft long ("1'" in red). The attached wire as drawn in the sketch is at position "1" in red.
However, as Maccabee returned in 2000 at Trent's farm, he was able to do some precise measures of the garage that was still there, altought the house "burned down some 40 years ago":


There have been rather large additions to the original garage. However, the north, east and south walls are still there.

And...


(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.)

So the "real" size of the garage was 19ft width x 26ft long, and the wires positions have to be modified, according to these data, up to north, right in the middle of points "1" and "2" in the map. This modification do not have any impact neither on the SLC nor on Mr Trent's position, as it was mainly the distance between the house and the garage that was used to calculate them.

In my next post, I will recapitulate all the points I've enumerated in my previous posts.

[Elevenaugust]

Let's recapitulate the variables that account for the differences between the SLC and the geometrical computed position of the object:

1- The lack of accuracy of the reconstruction site based on aerial survey, from the map established by Maccabee. Then, changes in the configuration site can results in modifications of the SLC position, relatively to the wires. In details:
a- Distance between the house and the garage set at 19ft
b- South wall of the house level with the north wall garage (0 ft differences)
c- Garage roof width set at 18ft (and long set at 28ft)
d- House width set at 22ft, thus the width of the space between the corner of the house and the wires attached to insulators near the peak of the house roof (then in the middle of the house) set to 11ft.
2- The thickness of the wires. Maccabee used for his reconstruction the diameter of 1/8", but recognized that if those wires were thickened (1/4") the SLC would be located precisely under the wires.
3- Better accuracy (and margin error) of angles measurements could result in small changes of these estimations.
4- Small changes can occur as well if the negative size is not exactly 6x9 but smaller, resulting in smaller angles measurements and then smaller size/distance estimations (but these will be very small).

-------------------------------------------------------

Here are the results for each point, recapitulated from my previous posts:

1a- Distance between the house and the garage set at 13ft instead of 19ft.
1b- n/a (0ft difference)
1c- Garage size set to 19ft x 26ft instead of 18ft x 28ft.
1d- n/a (22ft is ok for the house width)
2- n/a (1/8" and 3/16" are ok for the thickness of the overhead wires)
3- Possible differences, due to margin measurement errors, ca 0.05°, more or less, that results in an estimated variation camera/object increased or decreased by 0.55ft
4- Global difference between the estimated possible SLC positions (3 to 4 ft) and the estimated object position modification between MM1 and MM2 (2ft) revised from 2.4 and 1.4 feet (73 and 43 cm) [4ft-1.6ft and 3ft-1.6ft] to between 2ft and 1ft (61 and 30.5 cm) [4ft-2ft and 3ft-2ft], due to better accuracy of measurement of the negative size thus better geometric results. That probably wasn't done by Maccabee, as its SLC estimation was based on measurements done on the site and on the aerial 1948 photo.

That makes 4 points that need to be computed all together in a new reconstructed map, with only one of them that will change both the SLC position and the two estimated positions of Mr Trent (point n°1a).

To be continued!...

[majicbar]

Also, thank you for your criticism... and what do you have against pretty pigs?

The issue with pretty pigs is the same as the issue with a "Pig in a Polk" (SP). Lipstick can distract one from the closer inspection of what one is "buying" As a geographer and cartographer I was exposed to the issue of what one can do to pretty up a map, give it lots of bells and whistles to give it "creditability". When one more carefully attempts to project, or spin, ideas and concepts from such a "prettied up" presentation, the "quality" of the map, or charting, can easily and surprisingly disguise the false notions that may underlying that chart, or map's, data. The effort here to establish the characteristics of a model which might have been used in the Unidentified Object in the Trent's photographs could befall a similar issue, in that the quality of the analytics program is dependent on the "model" being suspended from the wires. The most important issue for me is the establishment of the common point of crossover, if that cannot be brought exactly under the wire then one is forced to assume too much. I'll reserve some of the other issues for the moment, you have my most important one for the moment. ( I would also point out from my USA farm experience that enameled wire, with one as ground, or return, separate from the powered wire would either be 1/8" or at most 3/16", 1/4" would be unlikely. One might refer to the wires in the Life photos, but those would appear to be multi strand, insulated types.They also provide an indication of how the garage wires end.)

In response to your latest post I would also like to point out that Maccabee also used the Trent's photos in helping to establish the photogrammetric scene. I suggest that the LIFE photos could also be used to help set that scene as well. I believe that the attempt should be made to secure copies the original photographs as they will be much clearer as to their dimensions and usability, I will investigate if the NSSDC has these copies, or if the USDA needs to be tasked, but with the sequester here the USDA might be impossibly slow, or that local office might have been closed and the data in transit to who knows where.

[Marvin]

The issue with pretty pigs is ....



I thought you would understand the "pretty pig" was in jest.


http://i92.photobucket.com/albums/l38/big-dave-69/bth_pig.jpg


As for Elevenaugust’s work, he is quite capable of supporting and answering for his own posts.


Have a great one!


M

[newyorklily]

You're welcome!

Ok, next step for point n°1 would be to try to reconstruct the scene using the aerial survey and give an estimation for "point a". (Distance between the house and the garage)
Unfortunately, as you know, the quality is rather poor, so I had at first to enhance it the best way possible.

In order to do this, I first magnified it 100x using the approximate nearest neighbor search algorithm and applied a slight contrast enhancement, to improve the visibility of the shadows. The result can be seen below:

http://img716.imageshack.us/img716/6201/mapresampl.png

Now, we can clearly see some highly contrasted area between the lightened parts and the shadowed parts that delimit both house and garage parts of interest, labeled in the sketch below as:
- red for the east walls
- green for the north walls
- blue for the top of the roof

http://img28.imageshack.us/img28/2664/mapresampl2.png

Next step is to "reconstruct" the west walls, assuming that each part of the roofs is equal:

http://img802.imageshack.us/img802/3237/mapresampl3.png

One finally have to rotate 3° counterclockwise to align east and west walls vertically to the general north direction. Now, let's assume, to estimate the value of "point a", that the 22ft measure (L1= 96 pixels) for the width of the house (as estimated by Maccabee) is correct (my "point d") , then what would be the separation measure between the garage and the house? Maccabee estimated it at 19ft.

In my map, by extending the west wall of the house down south with a parallel line to the east wall of the garage, the distance (labeled as "L3=58" in the map) can be computed to be as ca. 13.29 ft, let's say 14ft for the sake of margin error.

http://img11.imageshack.us/img11/8237/mapresampl4.png

I know that this data may appears under-evaluated, but if we report on the map the previous estimated data from various analysis (L4 for 16ft and L5 for 19ft) using the (prolongated) west wall of the house as the reference....

http://img33.imageshack.us/img33/8873/mapresampl5.png

.... we clearly see that it exceed (and far from that for the 19ft estimation) the possibilities.

So, for future calculation, I'll take 14ft as reference for the distance between the front of the garage and the back of the house, assuming that they are both aligned. (my "point b" - which is not BTW clearly defined - could possibly have 2ft difference for the south wall of the house up to north, but let's assume that they were lined up)

Another thing that is interesting is to try to estimate the size of the garage, but that will be my next post!

A couple of questions:

1) The pictures you are using are not from the original negatives and have been scanned and put through computer programs several times. I have always heard that photos that are not the originals, could not be used for analysis because each time they are put through the computer, they are changed. This is due to compression. How does compression affect your analysis of these Trent photos?

2) I still don't see any sign in the picture of the wooden polls that support the electric wires. Without any indication that the polls are there, I can only assume that the Trent farm was not wired for electricity in July 1948 and that wiring the farm happened between then and May 11, 1950. Can you point out the electric polls in the aerial photo?

[majicbar]

http://www.gstatic.com/hostedimg/ddadf1ce4f6eeef3_large

Note: link only to avoid copyright hotlink issues.

There was definitively NO POLE. In this image one sees Evelyn Trent between the house and the garage and the South end of the garage is seen with the wires coming into glass insulators just at the roofline with the wires going down to the area of the light which can be seen in the other link below.

Also note that the wires come to the roof with a different geomentry which leaves the lower wire slightly askew (further South) to the upper wire, which is not apparent in the other photographs.

http://www.gstatic.com/hostedimg/2e1b0934a56868d9_large

The wires are in very soft focus; the upper wire seems to have a curve that goes directly to the head of the light fixture, I think that I see the other wire going down to the fixture along the face of the garage along the wall. Perhaps some processing would restore some definition within that soft focus.

[newyorklily]

An interesting side story from 2008: http://www.katu.com/news/local/28222454.html

Please make sure to click on the link and watch the video which includes an interview with Dr. Maccabee. Not once did the anchors or reporter smirk or giggle.


Fight over UFO photos pits family versus newspaper
By Dan Tilkin and KATU Web Staff Published: Sep 10, 2008 at 6:21 PM PDT Last Updated: Nov 21, 2008 at 2:01 AM PDT

This famous photo taken by Paul Trent shows what appears to be a UFO flying near the family farm in McMinnville in the 1950.
MCMINNVILLE, Ore. – Two shots of a flying saucer over McMinnville are some of the most debated pieces of Oregon history.
Paul and Evelyn Trent took the pictures in 1950, and now their children are trying to get the negatives returned.
But the negatives are in the hands of the McMinnville News-Register newspaper, who believes they should be part of a permanent historic display in Yamhill County.

The story of how this fight developed begins on the Trent Farm more than 50 years ago.

Evelyn Trent was feeding rabbits, saw something strange in the sky and hollered for her husband, who grabbed his camera and started shooting. And then the saucer was gone.

The photos were printed in the local newspaper, which sold thousands of copies across the country.

Critics have long said that the Trents pulled off one of the most elaborate hoaxes in UFO history - that they took a pie plate or a hub cap and dangled it from power lines that run in front of the property.

The Trents always maintained they saw something. But the ridicule took a toll on the family.

"We were the alien family," said daughter Tammie Gochenour. "That's all that was talked about was the alien family."

When her parents died in the mid-1990s, the location of the negatives was a mystery. Daughter Linda Sayler eventually discovered they had been in the hands of navy physicist and UFO investigatorBruce Maccabee (http://brumac.8k.com/trent1.html) since 1974.

He told KATU he had called the Trents and asked to borrow the negatives so many years ago, implying that he would return them in a few weeks. But it took him longer than that – and he ended up keeping them for 25 years.

Maccabee agreed to return the negatives, and Sayler thought it would be safer if he sent them to the News-Register newspaper to pass on to her.

That was 2001, and she's been trying ever since to get the newspaper to give them back.

Phil Bladine ran the paper when the photos were first published. A letter from 1970 shows he helped get the negatives back from United Press International when they disappeared the first time.

Bladine is also the man who lent the negatives to Maccabee with the permission of the Trents three decades ago.

The fact that Bladine had the negatives to lend is the crux of why the newspaper now wants to keep them.

The newspaper argues in a letter sent to the family in 2004 that Paul Trent left the negatives in Bladine's hands "with the indication that he wanted nothing more to do with them."

The letter states the newspaper "believes that the negatives should become part of a permanent historic display in Yamhill County, with a mediated settlement as to access and other rights."

That's even after Maccabee made it clear in an e-mail that he "sent the negatives to Phil Bladine under the assumption that he would return the photos to the Trent children" and they should be returned to the family.

"The Trents' children are clearly the rightful owners since Mr. and Mrs. Trent never signed any documents giving the rights to anyone else," Maccabee told KATU.

Phil Bladine suffered a stroke several years ago and passed away this spring.

When KATU tried to talk to his son Jeb, who is the current publisher of the newspaper, he declined an interview due to the possibility of legal proceedings related to the UFO photographs.

"We maintain our belief that the negatives should become part of a permanent historic display in Yamhill County," Jeb Bladine wrote in an e-mail to KATU.

The Trent children said they don't have money to file a lawsuit and feel it is wrong to be forced to negotiate over something they feel clearly belongs to the family.
"We're not going to take them and try to make millions off them," said daughter Tammie Gochenour. "We just want to put them in like a safety deposit box, and have them locked up so we know where they're at."

"It's just something that belongs with the family," daughter Linda Sayler said.

[Elevenaugust]

1) The pictures you are using are not from the original negatives and have been scanned and put through computer programs several times. I have always heard that photos that are not the originals, could not be used for analysis because each time they are put through the computer, they are changed. This is due to compression. How does compression affect your analysis of these Trent photos?
Pictures are in .png format, which use a non-patented lossless data compression method, at the contrary of the classic destructive .jpeg format.



2) I still don't see any sign in the picture of the wooden polls that support the electric wires. Without any indication that the polls are there, I can only assume that the Trent farm was not wired for electricity in July 1948 and that wiring the farm happened between then and May 11, 1950. Can you point out the electric polls in the aerial photo?
I don't see any either but I also don't see how it could be of interest in the photos analysis.

[Elevenaugust]

Let's take again my previous points!


1a- Distance between the house and the garage set at 13ft instead of 19ft.
1c- Garage size set to 19ft x 26ft instead of 18ft x 28ft.
3- Possible differences, due to margin measurement errors, ca 0.05°, more or less, that results in an estimated variation camera/object increased or decreased by 0.55ft
4- Global difference between the estimated possible SLC positions (3 to 4 ft) and the estimated object position modification between MM1 and MM2 (2ft) revised from 2.4 and 1.4 feet (73 and 43 cm) [4ft-1.6ft and 3ft-1.6ft] to between 2ft and 1ft (61 and 30.5 cm) [4ft-2ft and 3ft-2ft], due to better accuracy of measurement of the negative size thus better geometric results. That probably wasn't done by Maccabee, as its SLC estimation was based on measurements done on the site and on the aerial 1948 photo.

Points n°1a and 1c are easy to put together on a new map to reconstruct the "overhead" wires, taking the house dimensions as a reference:

http://img41.imageshack.us/img41/2250/map2ao.png

Dotted lines are garage position/size and wires position taken from Maccabee's map.

Next step is to reconstruct the SLC line from point 1a, using the same photogrammetric method as Maccabee (see here (http://brumac.8k.com/trent2c.html)):


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.

http://img32.imageshack.us/img32/9535/trntcf2figb02.gif
FIGURE B2

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

To be continued tomorrow! ;)

[newyorklily]

Pictures are in .png format, which use a non-patented lossless data compression method, at the contrary of the classic destructive .jpeg format.


I don't see any either but I also don't see how it could be of interest in the photos analysis.

It has to do with the dips in the wire. Electrical wires are stored and transported on very large rollers. (I always wanted one of the empty ones. It would have made a great coffee table.) To get it on those wooden posts and down to the farm house, the linemen have to unroll some and attach it to the next point. The wire will hold the shape of both the roller and the handling of the wire. If the farm was wired less than two years before the photos were taken, then there is a very good chance that the dips in the wire are from handling and being on the roller, not from something hanging on it.

[newyorklily]

Hi majicbar,

I think you may have misunderstood what I posted, so let me clarify:

I believe no one posting on this thread has directly interviewed the Trent family. Dr. Maccabee’s report comes to us second hand. Why (and is that important)? Dr. Maccabee interviewed the Trent family and raised questions base on what he wanted to know, then made conclusion bases on his perspective, knowledge and opinion. There is absolutely nothing wrong with this, I am just suggesting that if someone else interviewed the Trent family then they would have asked questions base on what they wanted to know, then made conclusion bases on their perspective, knowledge and opinion. It is likely the interviews would have “shed light” differently on specific aspects of the case. Not knowing the Trent family would put one at a disadvantage to someone with intimate knowledge with the family. Does anyone here have that intimate knowledge?

M

Bruce Maccabee wasn't the only one who interviewed the Trents. From http://brumac.8k.com/trent2c.html


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."

[Elevenaugust]

It has to do with the dips in the wire. Electrical wires are stored and transported on very large rollers. (I always wanted one of the empty ones. It would have made a great coffee table.) To get it on those wooden posts and down to the farm house, the linemen have to unroll some and attach it to the next point. The wire will hold the shape of both the roller and the handling of the wire. If the farm was wired less than two years before the photos were taken, then there is a very good chance that the dips in the wire are from handling and being on the roller, not from something hanging on it.
I don't see the point since the composited pictures on the "epilogue" paragraph of our analysis was made using two photos that were made around one month apart, in May (Trent) and in June (Loomis Dean). Why should the alleged dips have to be present in May and not one month later or so, if caused by "the shape of both the roller and the handling of the wires"?

[majicbar]

http://www.gstatic.com/hostedimg/ddadf1ce4f6eeef3_large

Note: link only to avoid copyright hotlink issues.

There was definitively NO POLE. In this image one sees Evelyn Trent between the house and the garage and the South end of the garage is seen with the wires coming into glass insulators just at the roofline with the wires going down to the area of the light which can be seen in the other link below.

Also note that the wires come to the roof with a diffgeometrymentry which leaves the lower wire slightly askew (further South) to the upper wire, which is not apparent in the other photographs.

http://www.gstatic.com/hostedimg/2e1b0934a56868d9_large

The wires are in very soft focus; the upper wire seems to have a curve that goes directly to the head of the light fixture, I think that I see the other wire going down to the fixture along the face of the garage along the wall. Perhaps some processing would restore some definition within that soft focus.

The location of the wiring at the garage is such that slight variation in what has been figured to this point will have to be changed, it may be less than two feet but none the less it may figure in having to recalculate the scene.


Also.... wiring spools used on the farm for the wiring like what is seen on the garage was on smaller spools, maybe some 18" diameter with the interior drum some 9'" or so. The larger spools would have been used for the wiring along the roadway in front of the farm to the North, and perhaps to the house. I'm pretty sure that the wiring to the garage was done by Paul Trent himself, as would have most farmers.

I'm also trying to construct the scene relative to the far horizon as it could be said to be at infinity for the purposes of integrating the two Trent images, with some work it might also work to integrate the LIFE images as well. Kinks in the wires overhead can help to establish some of the scene as well, which leads me to think that the two Trent images may not be as parallel to those wires as they are in Maccabee's reconstruction of the scene, but that is for the future.

[Elevenaugust]

Hello all! :)

Since the launch of our UFO photos and videos analysis website, new functions have been implemented by my partner Francois Louange:

- Camera menu for interactive management of technical parameters associated with a photo or a video

- Transverse velocity/Distance function for an object which moved during exposure time

- Flare function for quick evidence of optical reflections in the camera

- 3 points Registration function for the quick registration of two photos

- Vertical thread function for evidence of a suspension thread

This last one was successfully used on the MnMinnville photo for trying to detect if there was any suspension thread. The full methodology can be read here (http://www.ipaco.fr/page27.html) and the final McMinnville report can be downloaded here (http://www.ipaco.fr/ReportMcMinnville.pdf).

http://img507.imageshack.us/img507/2335/8a8.png

Comments are welcome! :)

[newyorklily]

Will Dr. Louange be speaking about this at the MUFON Symposium on July 19?

[newyorklily]

My understanding of it is that you can show that there was the possibility that it was suspended but you can't prove that it actually was suspended. You still don't show actual wires or string, just angles. Am I right?

[Elevenaugust]

Will Dr. Louange be speaking about this at the MUFON Symposium on July 19?
Yes, he will probably shortly talk about it, but I'm not sure yet...

[Elevenaugust]

My understanding of it is that you can show that there was the possibility that it was suspended but you can't prove that it actually was suspended. You still don't show actual wires or string, just angles. Am I right?
Hi Lily,

The string is not visible with naked eye and the software simply put in light the ratio signal/noise in a vertical (or so) way, which can't be confused with the result obtained by a scratch or a mark in the photo.
This difference can only be due to the material presence of a string around a 11° angle in photo 1 and around a 10° angle in photo 2:

http://img5.imageshack.us/img5/5364/vh1l.jpg

Moreover, we have successfully done many tests with invisible threads previously, that I can show you if you want.

[ufoxprt]

Hello: I am new to the OutPost but became aware of this thread concerning the McMinnville case. I am heading to the MUFON conference and perhaps will have the time to discuss this more with Francois, but your study fails to include another study that I was aware of in the mid-70s. I was part of an organization called GSW Ground Saucer Watch out of Phoenix, AZ. Bill Spaulding and others worked at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory and had access to digital computer analysis tools. He had many of these and other photos analyzed using JPL equipment. Their digital edge enhancement software could look and quickly identify strings or wires and they found none. Additionally, their analysis gave a size estimate at around 75 feet in diameter. I still have some of the computerized photos from their testing, but do not have the actual written results. I believe very strongly that this study and their analysis should be included. My name is Rich Hoffman and my email is ufoxprt@gmail.com. I am the MUFON State Director for Alabama and Mississippi and have been a ufologist for almost 50 years now.

[Garuda]

Hello: I am new to the OutPost but became aware of this thread concerning the McMinnville case. I am heading to the MUFON conference and perhaps will have the time to discuss this more with Francois, but your study fails to include another study that I was aware of in the mid-70s. I was part of an organization called GSW Ground Saucer Watch out of Phoenix, AZ. Bill Spaulding and others worked at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory and had access to digital computer analysis tools. He had many of these and other photos analyzed using JPL equipment. Their digital edge enhancement software could look and quickly identify strings or wires and they found none. Additionally, their analysis gave a size estimate at around 75 feet in diameter. I still have some of the computerized photos from their testing, but do not have the actual written results. I believe very strongly that this study and their analysis should be included. My name is Rich Hoffman and my email is ufoxprt@gmail.com. I am the MUFON State Director for Alabama and Mississippi and have been a ufologist for almost 50 years now.

Welcome aboard, Rich.

Thanks for that post.

Do you think there is a way to still get a hold of that actual report by Bill Spaulding and others?

[CasperParks]

Hello: I am new to the OutPost but became aware of this thread concerning the McMinnville case. I am heading to the MUFON conference and perhaps will have the time to discuss this more with Francois, but your study fails to include another study that I was aware of in the mid-70s. I was part of an organization called GSW Ground Saucer Watch out of Phoenix, AZ. Bill Spaulding and others worked at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory and had access to digital computer analysis tools. He had many of these and other photos analyzed using JPL equipment. Their digital edge enhancement software could look and quickly identify strings or wires and they found none. Additionally, their analysis gave a size estimate at around 75 feet in diameter. I still have some of the computerized photos from their testing, but do not have the actual written results. I believe very strongly that this study and their analysis should be included. My name is Rich Hoffman and my email is ufoxprt@gmail.com. I am the MUFON State Director for Alabama and Mississippi and have been a ufologist for almost 50 years now.

Welcome to the forums...

Let us know how things go at the MUFON Conference.

[newyorklily]

Hello: I am new to the OutPost but became aware of this thread concerning the McMinnville case. I am heading to the MUFON conference and perhaps will have the time to discuss this more with Francois, but your study fails to include another study that I was aware of in the mid-70s. I was part of an organization called GSW Ground Saucer Watch out of Phoenix, AZ. Bill Spaulding and others worked at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory and had access to digital computer analysis tools. He had many of these and other photos analyzed using JPL equipment. Their digital edge enhancement software could look and quickly identify strings or wires and they found none. Additionally, their analysis gave a size estimate at around 75 feet in diameter. I still have some of the computerized photos from their testing, but do not have the actual written results. I believe very strongly that this study and their analysis should be included. My name is Rich Hoffman and my email is ufoxprt@gmail.com. I am the MUFON State Director for Alabama and Mississippi and have been a ufologist for almost 50 years now.

Welcome to the Outpost Forum, Rich!

[Elevenaugust]

Hello: I am new to the OutPost but became aware of this thread concerning the McMinnville case. I am heading to the MUFON conference and perhaps will have the time to discuss this more with Francois, but your study fails to include another study that I was aware of in the mid-70s. I was part of an organization called GSW Ground Saucer Watch out of Phoenix, AZ. Bill Spaulding and others worked at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory and had access to digital computer analysis tools. He had many of these and other photos analyzed using JPL equipment. Their digital edge enhancement software could look and quickly identify strings or wires and they found none. Additionally, their analysis gave a size estimate at around 75 feet in diameter. I still have some of the computerized photos from their testing, but do not have the actual written results. I believe very strongly that this study and their analysis should be included. My name is Rich Hoffman and my email is ufoxprt@gmail.com. I am the MUFON State Director for Alabama and Mississippi and have been a ufologist for almost 50 years now.
Hi Rich and welcome aboard.

Like Garuda said, I would be very interested to get a hold of Spaulding report.

About the detection thread tool, I think that, since the 70s, we have done some tremendous progress in the algorithms used in order to do this. Also, it should be understood that the fact that a wire wasn't detected do not means that there's none; it depends in fact of the capacities of the detection tool and the way it works.

In the McMinnville case, classic image processing tools (contrast enhancement, high-pass filtering) fail to detect any thread (see previous attempts). Our new technique works differently and may be used, in particular if, in the area where the thread could be present, the sky’s background is relatively uniform and may be compared to « noise » (i. e. noise from atmospheric diffusion and/or digitization noise). This method consists of increasing the signal-to-noise ratio by summing columns of pixels parallel to the thread, in a chosen area above the alleged UFO.

Here's how it works, in 6 steps:

1- Designate a vertical rectangle above the alleged UFO, covering the area where a thread is supposed to be present. A curve is displayed in a window, showing the mean value of pixels in each column of the rectangle.

http://img580.imageshack.us/img580/3342/bn18.jpg

2- Slide the cursor along the rectangle’s lower side in the image and monitor the vertical bar at the corresponding position of the curve. Position the cursor at the location of the supposed attachment point of the thread. If there is a thread perfectly vertical with reference to the picture, and if the obtained increase of the signal-to-noise ratio is sufficient, the curve displays a peak in front of the bar, which is positive or negative depending on compared colors of the thread and the sky’s background. The mean value of the pixels of the column corresponding to the bar’s position is permanently displayed, as well as the gap between this value and the curve’s mean, normalized by the standard deviation (number of sigma).

http://img32.imageshack.us/img32/6003/3e5x.jpg

3- In general, however, a suspension thread is typically not strictly parallel to the picture’s vertical axis, thus nothing significant appears at this stage. The tool, however, enables the reference rectangle to be tilted by an angle between -30° and +30° from the vertical. More precisely, the rectangle is changed into a parallelogram, the lower side of which remains fixed and the height constant. The pixel summing columns are also tilted by the same angle, with the curve changing as the angle is modified.

4- It is then possible to check whether an angle exists for which a significant peak appears in front of the supposed location of the attachment point. Such a peak indicates the probable existence of a thread, especially if the gap between this peak and the mean value is noticeably significant.

http://img9.imageshack.us/img9/583/ttwr.jpg


5- If such a peak is indeed present, the tool may then launch an automatic optimization which will accurately tune the tilt angle and the bar’s position, so as to obtain a maximum value between the peak and the curve’s mean value.

6- If the results tend to confirm the existence of a thread, the tool also enables an extra verification to be performed. Based on the most probable straight line for the thread’s location and also on the supposed position of the attachment point on this line, a circular scanning is performed around this point: pixels of the columns taken into account for the summation are those contained in the parallelogram. A second curve is then displayed in the window, showing the mean value of each column’s pixels during the scanning. If another peak appears, corresponding to the previously found angle, the probability of existence of a thread is doubly established, especially if the difference between the new peak and the second curve’s mean value is significant.

http://img843.imageshack.us/img843/867/7efd.jpg

Source (http://www.ipaco.fr/page27.html#Suspensionthread)

About the 75 feet diameter estimation, do you know what technique was used? Was it a radiometric or a geometric?

Anyway, I will try to find more information about this analysis.

[Elevenaugust]

I believe very strongly that this study and their analysis should be included.

Do you have a link where this analysis can be seen?

[ufoxprt]

I mentioned in another post that I have copies of the GSW use of JPLs computer analysis tools on this case. They used color contouring, edge enhancements and a variety of other tests which would readily identify strings and found none. I also agree that one needs to evaluate the case witness testimony and credibility when making a judgement. I mentioned to Jacques that I would provide these at the MUFON symposium in Las Vegas. Here they are! - Rich Hoffman (MUFON State Director Alabama and Mississippi)

10441045104610471048

[ufoxprt]

I was part of GSW and worked with Bill Spaulding who lived in Scottsdale. This was decades ago. I did see an article published in a Scientific publication around the mid 70s. I will try to locate. I did not receive their reports. I am trying to determine if Bill is still alive and to reach out to others to determine if they received a copy.

[ufoxprt]

Thanks for the walkthrough of the tool. Jacques showed many of the tool and how it is used in the lobby after his presentation. It looks quite impressive! I also am quite certain that your tool would beat any tool over decades prior. Technology has come a long way since. It would appear from the angle suggested that the object is being blown by a wind towards the right and the flat portion is tilted to help further illustrate this. Is this what is being suggested from this photo? Is there any thought about recreating this image and suspending a similar object from lines with threads to see the same results? Just curious!

[ufoxprt]

10491050

[ufoxprt]

I found an online article by Hayden Hewes that mentions some information about the process used at GSW. It may provide some insights. http://www.nicap.org/articles/TheMayherMiamiMovie.pdf and an ebook on Camera Photo Investigation mentions the McMinnville Oregon sighting analysis. http://books.google.com/books?id=MoWjYepnAJoC&pg=PA164&lpg=PA164&dq=GSW+UFO+photo+analysis&source=bl&ots=apm8dnypRU&sig=uNgZWXx3ChbZ5yvIlJak1jRBaXg&hl=en&sa=X&ei=75D2UbrlHbfi4APwxoCQBw&ved=0CFYQ6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q=GSW%20UFO%20photo%20analysis&f=false

[Elevenaugust]

Hello Rich and many thanks for the GSW photos and looking forward to hear from your contacts about the original GSW analysis.

About your questions:


It would appear from the angle suggested that the object is being blown by a wind towards the right and the flat portion is tilted to help further illustrate this. Is this what is being suggested from this photo? Is there any thought about recreating this image and suspending a similar object from lines with threads to see the same results?
Well, not sure about the wind as we do not know in fact the exact time between each photo. It was suggested that it might be 30s or so, but was just a rough estimation from Klass (or Maccabee, I don't remember exactly).
It could have been a swirling wind, between the house and the garage of the Trent.

About the recreation, yes, some plans have been made in order to try to properly do it, but we are still searching for a working Roamer camera. Some tests using various threads (white, black, invisible, kite, etc....) with various thickness have already been made (thanks to Tim Printy) but, of course it will give better results with the same camera that the Trent used.

The real good news actually are the recent release of the (very) high resolution (1200dpi .tiff) of the original scan that have been made by Sheaffer when he had the negatives in hands with Maccabee.
Some verifications have been made then with François (not Jacques! ;))and myself and the results are the same as Maccabee's scans: i-e the same angles and positions for the suspension thread.

[majicbar]

http://www.coasttocoastam.com/photo/category/photo-of-the-day#64529/WWII-UFO

The Coast to Coast website has posted a photo from WWII which seems to show the same type of UFO in the background. This photo was sent to Coast to Coast from what was a pile of WWII photos which had been trashed. This is at least the third example of this type of UFO from the 1940"s, perhaps there could yet be more found of this type from this period.

[CasperParks]

http://www.coasttocoastam.com/photo/category/photo-of-the-day#64529/WWII-UFO

The Coast to Coast website has posted a photo from WWII which seems to show the same type of UFO in the background. This photo was sent to Coast to Coast from what was a pile of WWII photos which had been trashed. This is at least the third example of this type of UFO from the 1940"s, perhaps there could yet be more found of this type from this period.

It could be a light fixture. It was not uncommon for tent encampments erected on military bases to have temporary light fixtures strung overhead. Recall seeing older overhead light fixtures from that time era shaped like that.

1071

A UFO is a strong possibility, it is stationed higher than what a light fixture would be.

[majicbar]

It could be a light fixture. It was not uncommon for tent encampments erected on military bases to have temporary light fixtures strung overhead. Recall seeing older overhead light fixtures from that time era shaped like that.

1071

A UFO is a strong possibility, it is stationed higher than what a light fixture would be.

Remember as well during WWII there were "blackout rules", lights would have been at a minimum so there would be few if any lamps. I'd still like to see other pictures of camps to see what kind of lamps they had and if they were of this kind of fixture.

[epo333]

http://www.floridastateparks.org/history/img/park/GRM-Photo003.jpg
Remember as well during WWII there were "blackout rules", lights would have been at a minimum so there would be few if any lamps. I'd still like to see other pictures of camps to see what kind of lamps they had and if they were of this kind of fixture.

Here are some camps of that time I found, some have power poles but very hard to make out any of those types of lights.

1072

1073

[epo333]

Then there is this kind, some of which I remember as a very young child.

1074

1075

[CasperParks]

Then there is this kind, some of which I remember as a very young child.

1074

Given right lighting conditions / time of day that could pass as a UFO.

[majicbar]

Then there is this kind, some of which I remember as a very young child.

1074

1075

I note that the power lines are easily noticed, where none are seen in the photograph in question.

I have found that the tent city encampment in the photo is of a temporary camp, more primitive camps are more random in tent placement and lack any poles of any kind except at a checkpoint. Those camps with more power poles tend to be at the end of streets, and those camps have actual wooden barracks or Quonset huts, but I don't see any lights with shades like those in the photograph, the lights seen are on the living quarters and rarely are lit as most photos are in the daylight.

[Marvin]

Then there is this kind, some of which I remember as a very young child.

1074


Given right lighting conditions / time of day that could pass as a UFO.


There are a number of old photos of light fixtures out there which show no detail of the cables.


http://www.ufocasebook.com/ohio32large.jpg
UFO Casebook


M