The Bragalia Files

Found clues point to a prank behind the most cherished UFO photographs in history. For over six decades the two images taken by Paul Trent of McMinnville, Oregon have continued to generate great debate about their authenticity. But investigation now indicates that the two Trent images were likely ones of invention. If so, how did a farmer fake so many for so long?

TRENT REDUX

Paul Trent and his wife Evelyn were farming folks who lived in a rural area of the Pacific Northwest. On May 11, 1950 Evelyn claimed that she had spotted a disk-like UFO in their backyard and she called out for her husband to retrieve the camera inside their home. Paul managed to run inside, run back out, and then snap two photos of a mysterious aerial object. Those images even today are emblazoned in the minds of those with UFO interest.

THE PHOTOS AND THE LIMITS OF PHOTO ANALYSIS

Though many UFO researchers (and even the Condon Committee) could see no obvious evidence of hoaxed images, other researchers did.

The essential fact is that the two photographs are gray and grainy. They are of low resolution and they are produced from a simple box camera. Endless techniques, technologies, enhancements and enlargements have been applied to test the veracity of the images by many individuals over many years to varying interpretations. But in real life one cannot always make lemonade out of a lemon. Simply, the information that is gleaned from a given image can only be as good as the image. And these are poor images from which to work. Conclusively determining whether the object was suspended or thrown- or whether the UFO is actually a rear view mirror, a small scale model or a Dual record changer spindle part from 1940, or whether it is indeed an actual full-sized unknown aerial cannot be accomplished solely by technical analysis.

What we can do is to investigate the photos in a far broader context. We must examine the sequence of events and other elements of the story like this:

THE BOY ON THE LADDER: DADDYS LITTLE HELPER

Trent Son on Ladder Where UFO Pictures Were Taken (Same Roll)

We must ask, for instance, things like this: What did the other photos taken on the roll containing the UFO photos depict? Well, a picture of Paul Trents son is within that roll- and it speaks proverbial volumes.

Often an accompanying image can tell a lot about images that are in question. And in this case, it surely does. On the very same roll that the UFO photos were taken we see a picture of a kid up on a ladder next to the very barn-like structure that was found in the UFO pictures.

And this young man is very interestingly positioned right where the saucer action was about to occur. He is directly under where the UFO was also captured on film.

Why is this kid on a ladder and being photographed in the UFO spot? And on the same roll?

And the Trents later contradictions on just when the photographs were taken can be accounted for when we understand that Trent and the boy probably spent a great deal of time extending throughout the day to do it just right. He couldnt remember the precise time or he was not astute enough to realize the significance of accurately correlating your story to your image.

It is just beyond curious and headed to the obvious: The boy was acting as Daddys little helper, assisting in the preparation of the hoax set up in some way, perhaps serving to frame the photos- or helping to angle and position the UFO.

It is known that the other pictures on the roll were taken at a time well preceding the photo of the kid on the ladder and the UFO photos. And Trent waited until sometime after the UFO photos were taken to develop the film as he wanted to use up the film exposures that were left remaining on the roll.

The farm boy on the ladder certainly looks appropriately dressed for a cloudy, early day in May in the Pacific Northwest, the time the UFO pictures were taken. And the cloudy gray background sky above him appears suspiciously consistent with and similar to that of the UFO photos. That is, by the looks of things, they could have been taken on the very same day.

The fact that the photo of the child on a ladder (which is taken near the barn-like structure underneath the overhead wires) where a UFO would later also be photographed appears in the same film roll give one more than simple pause. This all clearly points to a prank. It almost appears that Trent was getting a lesson in forced perspective and how to take pictures when your subject matter is elevated in the air.

THE SAUCER AND FORCED PERSPECTIVE

With the boy high atop the ladder under the wires near the barn, Paul Trent could practice his UFO shot by looking through his viewfinder, aiming and framing and composing the shot of the UFO to come. This would be a dry run. To have taken practice exposures using the actual UFO model would of course be too damning.

And Paul may have noticed something about kneeling when taking a picture- you can force the desired perspective. The essential thing missed by most is that they assume that Trent was standing upright when taking the photo. But Trent, in taking shots of his small child off the ground, realized that you could create illusions from varying perspectives.

If Trent crouched down low with the boy high on a ladder, he could make the flying saucer look farther away than it really was:

By kneeling down even a little bit, and by shooting up from that position, he could force the perspective of the resulting photo to make it appear to have greater distance, yet remain reasonably sharp in focus.

And a disc-like object could easily have been thrown from that very ladder by his boy accomplice when the ladder was placed out of view of the shot. Or the ladder could have been used to suspend the object from the overhead wires. Take your pick. But whatever the choice, a ladder, a kid atop it and forced perspective somehow most certainly figure into the prank.

THE TRENTS WERE REPEATERS

Kim Trent Spencer, the Trents granddaughter, told journalist Kelly Kennedy of the Oregonian something of missed importance- the Trents were repeaters. That is, they had multiple UFO experiences. Kennedy reports:

Kim remembers talking about the UFO pictures when she was young, but back then she didnt know the details- but that her grandmother had said she has seen UFOs before. And much ignored is that Mrs. Trent herself told the late researcher Philip Klass that she had seen UFOs both before and after the photos were taken.

As Jerry Seinfeld might say, not that theres anything wrong with that but when you combine her prior UFO interest and prior sightings, her later sightings, her family discussions about UFOs- with the fact that Mrs. Trent reported being the first to see the photographed UFO- it is Mrs. Trent who should have been given more attention when investigating the photos. Paul finally got his wife a photograph of one of her coveted UFOs. She was certainly one darn lucky repeat witness.

A STRANGE NOTE LEFT

An intriguing handwritten note has surfaced that was composed by an apparent friend of Paul Trents. Trent passed in the late 1990s. The note (in male writing) was directed to Paul and was attached to one of Pauls UFO photos. The note-writer signs off to Paul by simply using his initials, CM- indicating that they knew one another well.

CM writes,

Paul I wish I could have been there shooting with you on this day in 1950. If its real, then whoa! But if you faked it, thats even cooler. We cant really fake stuff anymore. Years later if its all fake or maybe its all real. Same difference. Thanks for this though. CM

I cant of course agree with Pauls letter-writer, CM. There is a big difference between what is fake and what is real- and it is our obligation to truth to distinguish the two. And strange that Trents own admirer CM cannot commit to certain belief that his friend is telling the truth.

THE REASON FOR THE HOAX?

The Trents have been described in the literature as having been simple farm folks. In 1950 there were only 6000 residents in McMinnville. And the Trents were actually out in the sparsely populated hinterlands of Yamhill County, running their ranch.

Fun during those times, in that kind of place, may have encompassed playing around with a new camera, wanting to outwit the city folks, involve the family in some UFO entertainment and satisfy a wifes saucer interests.

Though Paul Trent is always spoken of in neighborly terms as being salt-of-the-earth, Paul Trent was not an unassuming man without any interest in attention. He was not humble nor meek and mild. And he was not at all shy to pose for the press like an actor in these photos ops, ensuring his name in print and in history:

In fact it would be hard to fathom anyone doing today what Paul Trent did to publicize his photos: Just after the UFO photos were developed, Paul went to his local banker Frank Wortman and allowed them to be displayed in the banks window where a local passer-by and reporter would then spot them and have them published locally and wind up carried nationally. Paul never objected to the publicity.

This placement of photos in the window of a business reminds me of confessed UFO hoaxer and barber Ralph Ditter of Zanesville, OH. Ditter placed his UFO photos up in the window of his barbershop. Ditter too involved his child. His little girl wanted to see a UFO. So Ditter made one using a toy wheel and captured it on camera for her.

And some say of the Trents that no money was ever sought for the photos. But in reality, in 1970, twenty years later and realizing their accrued value, the Trents insisted on having their negatives back from the McMinnville Register, which held them. According to Register Editor Philip Bladine, the Trents were not shy to note to him that they had never been paid for the negatives and thus wanted them back.

In the end, a farmer had some fun. He wanted us to join along in the entertainment of trying to solve his puzzle. Thank you for that, Paul Trent. Because I too have enjoyed playing make believe in McMinnville. It was fun while it lasted. And it certainly lasted a very long time.

AJB

The Lockheed UFO Case Revisited

The 1953 Lockheed UFO case has become a favorite among UFO enthusiasts. The case was unknown for decades, hidden in the files of Project Blue Book, but has gained many fans since being championed by several prominent UFO researchers. Canadian filmmaker, Paul Kimball, featured it in his oft-cited documentary, Best Evidence: Top 10 UFO Sightings (it was number five). UFO researchers often refer to the case as a solid example of an unexplainable UFO experience.

A refreshing aspect of the Lockheed case is that it hasn't been tainted by dubious interviews decades after the event, like the supposed Roswell Incident, for instance. Virtually everything known about the sighting is contained in the Air Force's Project Blue Book file. The entirety of the evidence consists of only 8 pages of testimony from the actual witnesses. But as we will see, UFO believers can still manage to obscure and confuse things, even when the evidence is so easily digested.

A quick note: I painstakingly created and maintain a facsimile transcript of the sometimes hard-to-read Blue Book microfilms and I encourage interested readers to take a look at the evidence for themselves. I also welcome corrections to my transcript.

Download Johnson Case Transcript

You can see the Project Blue Book microfilm record here.

The Case

The main witness in the Lockheed case was someone intimately familiar with unusual things in the sky, having himself created some legendary and near-mythical aircraft.

As chief engineer for Lockheed, Clarence Kelly Johnson designed cutting-edge aircraft like the U-2 spy plane and SR-71 Blackbird. He was also influential in the creation of the SkunkWorks, the secret projects division of Lockheed. Johnson certainly qualifies as one of the most famous of UFO witnesses.

On the late afternoon of December 16th, 1953, Johnson, noticed a dark object in the sky to the west of his ranch near Agoura, California. The object was a long thin distinct black ellipse with no visible detail. Johnson viewed it for a couple of minutes as it seemed to stand motionless against the brilliant sunset sky. He then sensed that the object was moving directly away as it got smaller and smaller and, after about 90 seconds, disappeared.

If that was the only thing that happened, this surely would have been a rather forgettable sighting.

Johnson wrote his personal account of the event the next day and, over the next month, four of the five men in the plane also wrote their own accounts (Grugan did not file one). Despite some reluctance by Johnson, fearing how flying saucer stories might affect his reputation, these accounts were forwarded to the Air Technical Intelligence Center at Wright Patterson Air Force Base and eventually ended up in the Blue Book files.

The Blue Book Conclusion: Lenticular Cloud

We don't know what the Air Force did with the case. We don't know if a full-fledged investigation followed or if the entire thing was ignored. All we have is their terse unadorned conclusion as to what caused the sighting: a lenticular cloud.

UFO proponents hate this. For them, this conclusion besmirches the name and talents of Johnson and his team. Paul Kimball, in a recent interview, said, "If these guys, the top test pilots and aerodynamic engineers and flight designers of their time, would mistake a lenticular cloud for a structured aircraft or object of some sort, no reasonable or responsible military would continue to employ these guys...the military gave a bogus explanation." Another UFO site calls the Air Force conclusion a "rubber stamp explanation".

My knowledge of lenticular clouds was limited, I don't think I have ever seen one in the sky but I have seen many photos of lenticulars, usually in UFO books. Most UFO authorities agree that lenticular clouds do sometimes cause UFO reports. But since lenticular formations are relatively rare, these mistaken reports must also be pretty rare. And anyway, the photos I had seen of this type of cloud didn't really seem to have much in common with the Lockheed testimony. So I agreed that the cloud explanation seemed unlikely, especially after seeing the Best Evidence presentation of the case, which was faithfully parroted by other UFO web sites.

I decided to delve into the actual evidence, the testimony of the men, and found a disturbing trend. In the video, it was obvious that the evidence was being looked at from one particular perspective, a pro-UFO one, and evidence that didn't tend to lead to a UFO conclusion was often being ignored or misinterpreted.

Here's a few of the things I object to in this account:

The white shaded area defines where the object might have been according to Johnson's testimony. The green and blue lines enclose the area in which the plane may have been. The red shaded area is where the plane was when the object was first sighted. Image Created by Stray Cat at JREF Forums

1. The film uses a sort of faux-science to suggest that the location of the object can be accurately "triangulated" by using the known location of Johnson at his ranch and the location of the plane. In reality, the testimony does not allow us to know precisely where the plane was, much less its vector to the dark object. The graphic at right shows the true story of what we can determine from the evidence about the location of the object and plane. This is not really a major point but it does show how UFO researchers pretend to have some degree of precision in order to bolster their authority.

2. The film takes the words of the witnesses literally, when the meaning may have been figurative. For instance, several of the witnesses describe the object as looking like a flying wing headed straight at them, which could reasonably be interpreted as a featureless ellipse, much like Johnson described. Indeed all of the witnesses agree that they could discern no details in the black shape. Notice how the video takes this description and runs with it, clearly showing a flying wing-type aircraft. But now it isn't flying straight at us: we see it in the video from a low-angle. The object stops looking like a flying wing and actually becomes a flying wing with details that none of the witnesses ever reported.

3. One of the most obvious examples of how the video goes for maximum ooga-booga instead of truth is demonstrated in the descriptions of the "departure" of the object and how long that event lasted. Here is how the actual witnesses estimated that time:

"In 90 seconds from the time it started to move, the object had completely disappeared." -Johnson

"In the space of about one minute it grew smaller and disappeared." -Wimmer

"In probably an elapsed time of somewhere around a minute, the object had reduced in size to a mere speck and disappeared." -Thoren

"In just a minute or two it completely disappeared" -Ware

So far so good. The men all seem in agreement of the basic time it took for the object to disappear. Wimmer and Johnson both viewed the object almost continuously so their estimates are probably the most important ones. But now we come to one last estimate:

"...in a time, in the order of 10 seconds, [the object] disappeared from view." -Colman

Can you guess which estimate was used in the film and presented as absolutely precise and enabling them create to all sorts of other amazing figures like 130G acceleration? That's right. They chose the ten second figure! This is UFO science at its most impressive!

A Solution?

One thing that did strike me as I read the accounts is that these men weren't trying to fabricate anything. They seem to be honestly attempting to report what they saw without embellishment.

One of their first guesses as to the nature of the object was that it was a cloud.

"Thinking it was a lenticular cloud, I continued to study it." -Johnson

"I saw what I thought was a small cloud." -Wimmer

After viewing it for a while, they all decided that it couldn't be a cloud, mainly because its edges were too distinct. Indeed most of the images I have seen of lenticular clouds still look more or less like clouds. So I was fairly amenable to abandoning the lenticular explanation.

But then I came across this startling photo:

Photo Courtesy Mark Meyer Photography (photo-mark.com)

Johnson's own drawing of the object.

This photo, taken in Wyoming, shows a very compact lenticular cloud much more like what the men described seeing in 1953. Of course, this is still clearly a cloud. But I began to wonder what this cloud might have looked like from much further away. In the photo above, either the cloud is very large or the camera is very close to it. It fills a good portion of our visual field. This was not the case for the Lockheed witnesses. Johnson doesn't say how large the object was in the sky but he strongly implies that it was rather small, comparing it to an aircraft flying near Point Mugu, some 30 miles away. From my work in visual effects, I know that taking an object with fuzzy edges like a cloud and making it smaller causes the edges to become more distinct. So I decided to simulate what the same cloud might have looked like from much further away. This is not a real photo; it was created as a demonstration using Photoshop (click on the image for a larger view):

This photo has been manipulated in Photoshop for demonstration purposes only.

This is much more like what the men described. The edges of this cloud are now so distinct that it loses it's cloud properties and just becomes a dark object with no discernible detail. In other words, it looks exactly like what was being described by the Lockheed staff. And note that I used the entire real cloud to make this image, including the wispy tail on the left. But details like the tail disappear as you get further away (here simulated by making the cloud smaller). Another detail that vastly improves the illusion of a solid object is the silhouette effect caused by the brilliant sunset, exactly the same conditions during the Lockheed sighting

"...the sun had gone down below the horizon but the sky was red and this object was perfectly silhouetted against this red background." -Thoren

So now I began to think that there could be something to the cloud idea but there were still some issues to consider. Other than its distinctness, what else convinced the men that they weren't seeing a cloud?

Well, there isn't much. Johnson says that the fact that it didn't move was one factor. This may show that Johnson wasn't really very familiar with lenticulars, which very often hang in the sky held motionless by two opposing air masses until they dissipate.

Sequence courtesy Donald Collins

Of course, one other part of the account must be addressed: the departure. As I looked at videos of lenticular clouds dissipating, I noticed how, as the clouds got smaller, there was sometimes the impression that they were moving away. Here is an imperfect demonstration of this principle. I realize that these clouds don't look that much like saucers but hopefully you can get a feeling for the illusion of motion.

This is part of my working theory of the case: that the departure was actually the dissipation of the cloud.

The way that the witnesses described the departure certainly fits in with this theory:

"the object had reduced in size to a mere speck, and then disappeared." -Thoren

"I suddenly realized it was moving away from us heading straight west. In the space of about one minute it grew smaller and disappeared." -Wimmer

"When I got the glasses focused on the object, it was already moving behind the first layer of haze. I gathered its speed was very high, because of the rate of fore-shortening of its major axis." -Johnson

Johnson also reported that the object took a long shallow climb (this was not reported by the men in the plane, interestingly). I am suggesting that this apparent climb is also caused by the dispersing cloud as the top or bottom disappeared unevenly.

One nagging issue for me was that I honestly had no idea how long it would take for a cloud to dissapate. The theory requires it to be around a minute. I started work on writing this article without knowing the answer to this question but I knew that this one issue could invalidate the whole idea.

Some Additional Info

Earlier this year, Tim Printy, publisher of the skeptical UFO newsletter (SUNlite) pointed out a thread at the JREF forums discussing this case and I was happy to see that several folks there had independently seized upon this same scenario. The thread generated much helpful data, including some evidence from UK forecaster, Nigel Bolton, that the December 16th, 1953 weather conditions were ripe for the formation of lenticular clouds.

Just a few days ago I found some amazing lenticular cloud videos on YouTube that were shot right near the same locations of the Lockheed case. Here's one taken in Santa Clarita, looking to the west towards Santa Barbara:

I spoke with Chris, who shot these clouds (and many more, check out his site) and shared the theory with him. I was delighted with his reply:

Indeed your theory is quite likely. Lenticulars can form in a nearly limitless variety of sizes and shapes. When you add variations in lighting (sun angles, etc.) and point of view, many visual effects are possible.

A cloud which is forming or dissipating more-or-less overhead would be difficult to mistake for solid object moving towards or away from the viewer. However, when Lenticulars are at a distance, they would be much closer to the horizon and viewed on edge. A well-formed saucer-shaped cloud could look quite solid, especially with help from a setting sun. Any change in size could be interpreted as movement closer or further away from the viewer. Since Lenticulars do change size, shape and position depending upon the direction, speed, temperature and humidity of the airflow which they are forming, they may also appear to be moving left or right.

The speed at which they form and dissipate can be quite rapid... A huge cloud may take only 20 minutes to appear or completely disappear. Smaller ones only a minute or two.. I have watched (and less often filmed) areas of Lenticular activity in which smaller, saucer-shaped formations seem to pop in and out at random as the air currents shift around. Ive missed many a shot because the cloud vanished before I could get my camera set up.

Having this opinion from someone who is intimately familiar with lenticular clouds certainly strengthens the theory.

Final Thoughts

I hope the reader doesn't feel that I am suggesting that these witnesses were ignoramuses. I'm not. I think all of the witnesses did an incredible job of reporting the facts as best they could. The theory above postulates that several factors came together that did fool the witnesses:

1. Compact lenticular cloud.

2. Silhouetted against brilliant red sunset.

3. Seen from enough distance that the edges bcame totally smooth.

In short, I am suggesting that nature conspired to create a sort of illusion that fooled these observers.

It should also be noted that this theory is not presented as the final word on this case. I am delighted to hear confirming or disconfirming information.

Please feel free to share your own comments below.

I want to thank Tim Printy, Mark Meyer, Don Ecsedy, Donald Collins, Frank Stalter, Michael Allen, Chris@DCM and the gang at the JREF forums, particularly Stray Cat, 23_Tauri, Akhenaten, GeeMack, Puddle Duck, TJW, TomTomkent and ufology and also my wife for their help in preparing this article. This article was slightly revised on 3/23, hopefully slightly improving the tone.