UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 2012 > Dec > Dec 22

Re: Trent Photos Deemed 'Hoax'

From: Don Ledger <dledger.nul>
Date: Sat, 22 Dec 2012 13:52:59 -0400
Archived: Sat, 22 Dec 2012 19:54:51 -0500
Subject: Re: Trent Photos Deemed 'Hoax'


>From: David Rudiak <drudiak.nul>
>To: post.nul
>Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2012 18:01:54 -0800
>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>

>>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

<snip>

>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.

I don't know why these guys keeping popping up with 'solves'
when they don't have the facts. But they get away with it with
very little proof; usually with some vague explanation that
ignores the work that has already gone into discovery on these
cases. But they usually get away with it. Look how easily The
Anomalist was convinced and dismissed such an important photo.

Pushing the UFO reality rock uphill seems to be our lot while
the easy non-supported position's (quickly adopted by the media)
roll back down the other side is the job of the Bragalias of
this world.

James Oberg and I had a few run-ins a few years back; one such
about photography when the Apollo Moon Hoax believers were
ranting about faked photographs. They rightly noted that some
photos could not be shot with the available light. In some cases
the graphic scribes inside the camera were actually beyond the
image which would be impossible. The conspiracy cult claimed
that this was good evidence that the Apollo mission was faked.

In fact, as far as I was concerned, NASA's publicity department
did fake some photos to add to their gallery, shots that they
had not taken but made up using composite and double exposure of
existing shots. This was to make some shots more dramatic.

Oberg claimed that the reticules etched into the backscreen of
the Hasselblads were just washed out by the light exposure which
if true (and no matter how much I played with them I could not
make this work) made these important registration marks
redundant. The curious can make the judgement call for
themselves, but knowing militarily driven  NASA, faking a few
publicity shots in order to fatten their budget for the next
year was not beyond their scope.

Thanks for getting involved David.

Bragalia flops again.


Don Ledger




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 | Previous Message | This Day's Messages ]
This Month's Index |

UFO UpDates Main Index

UFO UpDates - Toronto - Operated by Errol Bruce-Knapp


Archive programming by Glenn Campbell at Glenn-Campbell.com