From: David Rudiak <drudiak.nul> Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2012 18:01:54 -0800 Archived: Sat, 22 Dec 2012 06:16:25 -0500 Subject: Re: Trent Photos Deemed 'Hoax' >From: David Rudiak <drudiak.nul> >To: post.nul >Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2012 15:39:28 -0800 >Subject: Re: Trent Photos Deemed 'Hoax' >>From: Don Ledger <dledger.nul> >>To: <post.nul> >>Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2012 15:50:35 -0400 >>Subject: Trent Photos Deemed 'Hoax' >>Tony Bragalia has 'determined' that Trent hoaxed his photos >>because more photos on the same roll of film* show his 9 year- >>old son standing on a ladder in the same yard with the same >>cloud cover. <snip> >>*Note that one commenter to Bragalia's Blog stated that the >>shot of Trent's son was taken by Life magazine not Trent. >More than one commentator on Bragalia's blog and >ufocon.blogspot.com has noted that the shot of Trent's son was >in fact taken by the LIFE photographer. I likewise noted that >FACT over on Kevin Randle's blog today. >The LIFE Trent photoshoot used to be on Google images, but has >been removed for some reason. The Trent son on the ladder was >clearly part of the photoshoot, complete with the LIFE >"watermark" at the bottom of the photo. >So far Tony Bragalia has not acknowledged he is dead wrong about >this. Tony retracted this today, blaming it on misinformation provided by James Oberg. That wouldn't surprise me from my past run-ins with Oberg, some here on UFO Updates. Oberg is a fountain of UFO misinformation. I know that Bruce Maccabee, Joel Carpenter and I, maybe Brad Sparks (all of us having looked into the Trent photos in detail in various ways) were all aware of the LIFE Trent photoshoot when Google first started putting archived LIFE photos up on Google Images back in 2008. So it was clear immediately that Tony had his facts wrong. The LIFE photo of Trent's son on the short stepladder had nothing to do with the roll of film that Trent shot his two UFO photos on, which were instead surrounded by other family photos. Thus it's not really evidence of anything other than the LIFE photographer decided to shoot a "cute kid on ladder" human interest photo in the course of taking nearly four dozen other photos. It certainly doesn't demonstrate Tony's original claim that Trent used his son on the ladder to set up his two UFO shots on the same roll of film. That latest lame and totally erroneous argument against the Trent photos goes down in flames. I was wrong about the photos having been removed from Google images. It was easy to find the LIFE Trent photos when originally posted back in 2008. E.g., search words "1950s flying saucer source: Life" would turn them up. Now it is very hard to find them, even with Google's own search engine. However, the photos are still there, just deeply buried. The stepladder photo is here: http://images.google.com/hosted/life/3005e278fbf74521.html This appears to be part of a series of photos trying to replicate the vantage points of Trent when he took his two UFO photos: http://images.google.com/hosted/life/dacafd5c58536f8e.html http://images.google.com/hosted/life/bc358b77a138ded6.html There are a multitude of other photos you can get to by poking around "related images" to the right, including many of Evelyn Trent, Paul Trent with his camera, and reporter Bill Powell of the McMinnville Telephone-Register, who learned of the photos, interviewed the Trents, and had the photos first published in the newspaper on the front page. It would not have been easy to hang a model from that short stepladder in the picture, which is probably only 6 feet high. You can see another vantage point of the ladder in another photo taken of Mrs. Trent and son in front of their house, with the ladder visible to the far right in the distant background. The ladder is only about half the distance to the power lines overhead. http://images.google.com/hosted/life/c94549c485dbfb12.html Even precariously standing on the very top rung, Paul Trent would have had a difficult time tying a model with thread to those power lines with that ladder. No doubt he would have had to use a taller ladder, then remove it from the scene while shooting his pictures. That's certainly not impossible, but various details in the photo about sizable differences in object size and elevation mean Trent might have had to use two different models to account for them. If that were the case, he had at most only minutes to change the model, because the rafter shadows over on the garage/shed wall in the two UFO photos limit the possible time difference between photos. Either that or you need to invoke improbable swinging of one model (instead of simple posing with the model just hanging there), then come up with the perfect story of the motion of the UFO that exactly matches the details in a natural way. And remember, Paul Trent had to do this in only two shots. There are not a bunch of practice shots with Trent selecting only the two perfect ones. Any simple, straight-forward hoax scenario cannot explain the nitty gritty photo details. So as Bruce Maccabee has said, it is not impossible to fake the photos, but for all the things that had to go right to fool the experts, Trent had to be extremely lucky or a hoaxing genius. And nobody ever accused Trent of being a genius. David Rudiak Listen to 'Strange Days... Indeed' - The PodCast At: http://www.virtuallystrange.net/ufo/sdi/program/ These contents above are copyright of the author and UFO UpDates - Toronto. They may not be reproduced without the express permission of both parties and are intended for educational use only.
[ Next Message | This Day's Messages ]
This Month's Index |
UFO UpDates - Toronto - Operated by Errol Bruce-Knapp