The Trent/McMinnville UFO Photos: A Down-to-Earth Perspective

These two photographs have been characterized as "the best" among those ever taken of an unidentified flying object (UFO).  They were taken on May 11, 1950, by a Mr. Paul Trent from his farm near McMinnville, Oregon. His wife was the one other witness to the alleged sighting. 

The Trent/McMinnville photographs remain among the most publicized, discussed, and debated in UFO history. 

Fantasy Time magazine cover commemorating the 60th anniversary of the Trent photographs.

Even the ever-so-skeptical Scientific Study of Unidentified Flying Objects, conducted between 1966 and 1968 by the University of Colorado (UC) under contract to the US Air Force, declared the McMinnville case:

"[O]ne of the few UFO reports in which all factors investigated, geometric, psychological, and physical, appear to be consistent with the assertion that an extraordinary flying object, silvery, metallic, disk-shaped, tens of meters in diameter, and evidently artificial, flew within sight of two witnesses." (Gillmor, 1968, pg. 407).

This conclusion notwithstanding, the UC analysis also indicated that photogrammetric tests:

"[D]o not rule out the possibility that the object was a small model suspended from the nearby wire by an unresolved thread." (Gillmor, 1968, pg. 402).

     

Despite a growing disillusionment with the world of "uforia," I had never been quite able to shed my childhood fascination with the possibility of otherworldly visitations to our planet.  In this, the Trent photos became for me the equivalent of a ufological "Shroud of Turin"--a tangible reason for clinging to the hope that at least a minute portion of UFO sightings might be of truly extraordinary (alien?) objects.

The debate about the legitimacy of the photos has long centered on dueling, abstruse interpretations of this or that photogrammetric aspect of the UFO images that leave the non-expert bewildered and unable to decide.   Yet, as sometimes happens in life, a fresh perspective suddenly emerges that lets one finally see what had not been previously apparent. 

For me this fresh perspective came in the form of a picture (below) that began to circulate on the web.  It was one of many unused photos taken by Life photographer Loomis Dean in connection with the story that the magazine ran about the incident on June 26, 1950.  

The boy on the ladder, ostensibly Paul Trent's son, is posed near the spot where a small object could have been suspended from overhead wires.  The wires, which ran between the house (off camera to the right) and the garage (left of frame), can be seen in the UFO photos and (along with the toppled ladder in the foreground) the other Life photographs shown below. These photos allow an appreciation of the open area at the front of the property, just beyond the overhead wires, which the camera angles of the Trent photos do not.

    

Although uncommented and never published, the Life photos speak volumes. The "boy on the ladder" picture attests to an unspoken suspicion on the part of the Life  photographer about a possible staging of the UFO pictures.  It strikes one that this photographer on the scene would perhaps have been made suspicious by the incongruousness of the locations from which Trent took his two UFO photos. The locations of Trent's UFO photo #1 and photo #2 are indicated on the map below.  The object reportedly moved in a westerly direction.

From these two backyard locations, the view of an object in the sky relatively close to the horizon would have been restricted by the garage on the left (west) and the nearby house on the right.  For the photographs to have been taken from the backyard rather than from the unobstructed open space in front of the property is utterly illogical.  This is highlighted by the fact that, according to the testimony of the witnesses (Gillmor 1968, pg. 397), Mr. Trent, upon sighting the object (apparently from the backyard, in the company of Mrs. Trent), ran to the car to get the camera thinking it was there.  Presumably the car must have been inside the garage or in the driveway (abutting Christensen Rd., misidentified as "Ballston Road" on the map) near the location of the car seen in the Life photos.   Mrs. Trent, meanwhile, remembered that the camera was in the house, went there to get it and brought it to Mr. Trent.  These actions further reinforce the question of why the Trents would choose to photograph and continue to observe the "flying saucer" from the backyard rather than the unobstructed front of the property. 

The photograph below, also from the Life photo essay, shows Mrs. Trent and the young boy standing at the front of the house.  The ladder in the backyard (underneath the overhead wires) seen in the other photos can also be seen on the right in this picture.

The layout of the Trent farm and the locations and significance of the Life photos can be better ascertained by reference to a 1948 aerial image of the property and its surroundings.  It is shown below georeferenced onto Google Earth.

Using Google Earth, the georeferenced image can be easily enlarged and distances measured with the Ruler tool.  As the following annotated closeup reveals, the distance from the approximate backyard location of the ladder (B) to that of the subjects in front of the house (A) in the Life photograph is barely 50 ft. The north-south length of the house itself is approximately 32 ft.

So if (per their accounts) Mr. Trent ran to the car from the backyard to get the camera and Mrs. Trent, remembering that it was in the house, went there to get it, one would expect them to intuitively cross the short distance to the open front of the property--toward the object--in order to photograph it and further observe it.  That they evidently chose to return to the backyard to do so, if they are to be believed, does not make sense.

These same thoughts--which argue in favor of the UFO being nothing more than a small object suspended from the backyard overhead wires*--may have crossed the Life photographer's mind as he snapped his telltale photographs on the scene. He may well have shared the opinion of a certain Judge Judith Sheindlin that: "If it doesn't make sense, it probably isn't true." I know I do. 

More than 60 years since the Trent photographs were taken, we live in an era of ubiquitous digital camera equipment where even celestial events, such as the meteor that streaked across Russian skies in 2013, are independently recorded by scores of devices.  The lack of such simultaneous multiple recordings of unidentified structured objects in the sky provides a damning verdict on their lack of physical reality. 

______________________________

* A 2013 analysis of the radiometric/geometric features of the Trent photos using a new software tool concluded that "the hypothesis of a small object hanging below a power wire is the most convincing." In addition, comparison of the lower overhead wire in the Life vs. Trent photos revealed  that it "sags" lower in the UFO photos over an area centered above the UFO, plausibly due to the weight of a suspended object.  A subsequent analysis to detect evidence of a suspension thread concluded that: "The clear result of this study was that the McMinnville UFO was a model hanging from a thread."  

REFERENCE CITED

Gillmor, D.S. (ed). 1968. Scientific Study of Unidentified Flying Objects. Bantam Books, NY. (The report pages on the McMinnville case can be found online at  http://files.ncas.org/condon/text/case46.htm)

Probing the "What-Ifs" of the Bay of Pigs Invasion of Cuba

Shortly after midnight on April 17, 1961, began the infamously ill-fated "Bay of Pigs invasion" of Cuba with the goal of ending the Sovietized Communist regime of Fidel Castro.  The U.S.-backed invasion (codenamed “Operation Zapata”) called for an air-supported force of some 1,400 air and sea borne Cuban exiles forming Assault Brigade 2506 to hold the access routes to a beachhead in the coastal Zapata Swamp region of southern Cuba. The beachhead encompassed several square miles east and north of the Bay of Pigs separated from the rest of the island by an impenetrable swamp and accessed via routes that consisted of three narrow causeways through the swamp and one coastal pathway on the east. After consolidating the beachhead, the exile Cuban Revolutionary Council (CRC), presided by former Cuban Prime Minister José Miró Cardona,  would arrive from the U.S. and be recognized as provisional government-in-arms of Cuba by the American government.  The establishment of a functioning rival government on Cuban soil that would challenge Castro's supremacy over the island was, in fact, the military goal of the operation--as Castro himself professedly realized from the outset. Claims made by some detractors of the operation that the invasion plan stupidly called for a 1,400-man force to fight its way across the island to reach Havana are patently false.

The operation as planned called for the complete elimination, through air raids, of Castro’s air force before the D-day landings so as to allow the B-26 aircraft of the invasion force (devoid of tail guns) total air superiority over the battlefield. As it developed, political considerations by the U.S. government curtailed this aspect of the plan and Castro’s air force (the Fuerza Aerea Revolucionaria or FAR) played a decisive factor in the battle. Two of the Brigade’s main supply ships were sunk by the FAR in the dawn hours of April 17 (resulting in severe ammunition shortages for the land forces by the end of D+1) while others were forced to remain out at sea during the course of the invasion.

Despite stiff resistance by the Brigade forces, over the course of the next three and a half days, the beachhead area occupied, with its focal point at Playa Girón, continued to shrink in size and eventually collapsed completely.  The rapid collapse of the beachhead not only prevented the establishment of the CRC as a Cuba-based government-in-arms but helped to consolidate the Castro mystique in the island and internationally.

Although commonly seen as an inevitable failure, "[i]t still must be asked," to quote Peter Wyden in his book Bay of Pigs - The Untold Story: "Could the venture have succeeded as it was mounted at H-Hour?" His reply: "Conceivably, just possibly, yes....With or without Castro's planes, a reasonably secure beachhead could have become a base for a Miró Cardona government." It is with the aim of addressing the overall question posed by Mr. Wyden that I have constructed  a Bay of Pigs simulation scenario as an add-on mod to the award-winning Panzer Corps turn-based computer strategy game from Slitherine Ltd (http://www.slitherine.com/products/product.asp?gid=399&PlatformID=1).

In development for over three years, the scenario is based on extensive research and attempts to encompass the historical circumstances of the battle as well as hypothetical eventualities that could reasonably have occurred. The various combat unit types that participated in the conflict are represented, including: 

• Brigade 2506 infantry units;
• Communist Cuban Militia and Rebel Army units;
• T-34/85, IS-2 (Stalin) and M41 tanks;
• SU-100 self-propelled guns;
• M-30 and 120-PM mortars;
• 85mm D44 and 122 mm artillery;
• M53 12.7 mm quad anti-aircraft gun;
• M35A1 gun trucks;
• Sea Fury and T-33 fighter aircraft;
• B-26 bombers.

As with any simulation, the scenario recreation of the battle has limitations.  Aside from the inherent limitations of the Panzer Corps game engine to accurately simulate "real world" combat, there is also the inability to account for battle-specific factors.  For example, the scenario affords the player a "bird's eye" view of battle conditions and the ability during a game turn for overall command of all of his units, including air units. In actuality, unit communications were seriously curtailed for Brigade 2506 Commander José Perez San Roman given that mainstay communications equipment had gone down with the ships sunk early on during the operation. In addition, no direct communication was available between Brigade headquarters and the airbase in Nicaragua and ground-to-air communication was rarely possible. 

Thus, given its limitations, the scenario is best suited to address "what if" questions in a relative rather than an absolute sense.  In other words, it can best be utilized to test whether ("everything else being equal")  Tactic A is better that Tactic B, but not to conclude that Tactic A will (probably) lead to X result.  In this context, comparison of scenario outcomes when implementing historical vs. alternate tactical approaches suggests some illuminating counterfactual conclusions, described below.

Castro was correct in his assessment that holding the town of Pálpite was critical to victory. The plan for the invasion called for paratroopers (from 1st Battalion) of Brigade 2506 to seize and hold the town of Pálpite, critically situated on the beachhead-side of the westernmost causeway through the bordering swamp. Troops of the 2nd and 5th Battalions disembarked at Playa Larga, some three miles to the south, would march toward Pálpite to reinforce the paratroopers holding the town. As it developed, the paratroopers (out of communication with the rest of the Brigade) occupied Pálpite only briefly and the 2nd Battalion at Playa Larga (the 5th Battalion having been shipwrecked some distance away due to air attacks) did not move forward to take the town. On the Communist side, Fidel Castro immediately recognized the tactical importance of Pálpite and ordered that seizing it be given top priority. Upon being notified that the town had been occupied, he gleefully declared: “We have won the war!”  Scenario play results suggest that his assessment was correct.  While in itself not assuring success, without holding Pálpite the failure of the invasion is virtually assured regardless of other circumstances.  Failure to control the narrow causeway at Pálpite allows Castro's forces to enter the beachhead area in large numbers.  Moreover, occupation of Pálpite by the Brigade allows time for the 5th Battalion to join the battle.  In the historical event, the 5th Battalion, shipwrecked on the western side of the Bay of Pigs, was cut off  from the rest of the Brigade when Communist forces occupied the northern end of the bay. 

"En masse" attacks by the Brigade’s B-26 bombers would have been more effective in maximizing damage on ground units in proportion to air losses.  Giving the failure to destroy the Communist planes on the ground before the D-Day landings, the Brigade's B-26 bombers (which lacked tail guns) faced overwhelming odds against the Communist fighters. The one or two squadron elements (2-4 aircraft) deployed over the beachhead at a time fell easy prey to the T-33s and Sea Furies. In a similar situation, British fighter pilots taking part in the Falklands/Malvinas War have indicated that en masse attacks by Argentine bombers would have overwhelmed their ability to defend against them. Scenario play results suggest that this tactic would have maximized the effectiveness of the Brigade's air support.

The beachhead could have been held longer, allowing replacement ammunition to arrive during the night of April 19.  A critical lack of ammunition by the afternoon of April 19 has been cited as a key factor for the defeat of the Brigade.  Support ships were poised to carry replacement ammunition to the beachhead during the night of April 19.  Adoption of the alternate tactics described previously makes it more feasible to hold the beachhead beyond the time of its historical collapse by the afternoon of April 19.

And on to the overarching question:

Was the failure of the invasion as it was mounted at H-Hour inevitable?  

The scenario assumes one of three possible victory outcomes if the beachhead is able to hold until the night of April 21.  Depending on the size of the territory held and the amount of casualties inflicted on Castro's forces, the possible scenario victory outcomes are:

• Crushing Victory: Castro is deposed. The CRC arrives in Havana to act as provisional government of Cuba and is granted recognition and support by the U.S. and many other countries.
• Victory: The CRC arrives at the liberated beachhead.  It is recognized as provisional government of Cuba and granted immediate military assistance by the U.S. and a number of Latin American countries.
• Marginal Victory: The CRC is recognized by the U.S. as Cuba's government-in-arms in exile and granted material support and resources.

The results of repeated playing of the scenario suggest that the alternate tactics previously discussed would have increased the probability of achieving a victorious outcome (as defined) at the Bay of Pigs.

LINKS:

Bay of Pigs Scenario Video Clip

Bay of Pigs Scenario Files Download  (requires Slitherine's Panzer Corps game software to play)

An alternate history scenario of the invasion as-planned can be downloaded from the following link:

Bay of Pigs - Operation Zapata As Planned Scenario (requires Slitherine's Panzer Corps game software to play)