Summary

On the evening of May 11, 1950, Evelyn Trent was feeding rabbits on their farm near McMinnville, Oregon, when she spotted a strange, metallic disc-shaped object silently gliding through the sky. She called her husband Paul, who grabbed their camera and captured two photographs that would become among the most scrutinized images in UFO history. Despite numerous analyses over seven decades, no evidence of hoaxing has been found, and the photos remain unexplained.

The Encounter

Discovery of the Object

At approximately 7:30 PM, Evelyn Trent walked to the back yard to feed their rabbits. The weather was clear with good visibility in the early evening light. She noticed a strange object moving slowly from the northeast.

Evelyn later described: “It was very bright, almost silvery, and there was no noise or smoke.”

Paul Trent’s Response

Evelyn urgently called to her husband, who was inside the house. Paul Trent quickly retrieved their Roamer camera, loaded with 60mm film. He managed to take two photographs before the object accelerated and disappeared to the west.

Paul stated: “It was like a good-sized parachute canopy without the strings, only silvery bright mixed with bronze…I didn’t hear any motor.”

The Photographs

Technical Details

The two photographs show:

  • A distinctly disc-shaped object
  • Asymmetrical form with a flat bottom and domed top
  • Clear detail despite distance
  • Consistent shadows and lighting
  • Power lines providing reference points

Camera and Film

  • Camera: Roamer (simple viewfinder camera)
  • Film: 60mm black and white
  • No special lenses or filters
  • Standard commercial processing

Initial Handling

Delayed Development

The Trents didn’t immediately develop the film:

  • Finished the roll over several weeks
  • Had it developed at a local drugstore
  • Didn’t initially think it was important
  • Showed photos to friends and family

Local Publicity

  • Banker Frank Wortmann saw the photos
  • Convinced Trents to show them to the McMinnville Telephone Register
  • Published June 8, 1950
  • Story picked up by International News Service

Scientific Analysis

Condon Committee Study (1968)

The University of Colorado’s scientific study concluded:

  • No evidence of hoaxing
  • Object appeared to be distant and large
  • Atmospheric effects consistent with claims
  • Called it “one of the few UFO reports in which all factors investigated…appear to be consistent with the assertion that an extraordinary flying object…flew within sight of two witnesses”

William K. Hartmann’s Analysis

Photographic analyst for the Condon Committee found:

  • Consistent atmospheric perspective
  • Proper shadowing for time of day
  • Distance calculations suggested large object
  • No evidence of suspension (string, wire)

Bruce Maccabee’s Investigation (1970s-1980s)

Optical physicist Dr. Maccabee conducted extensive analysis:

  • Photometric measurements
  • Atmospheric scattering calculations
  • Suspension tests negative
  • Concluded object was distant and large

Skeptical Investigations

Philip J. Klass’s Theory

Skeptic Philip Klass proposed:

  • Model suspended from wires
  • Shadows suggested different time than claimed
  • Trents sought publicity

Problems with Debunking

  • Multiple analyses found no evidence of suspension
  • Shadow analysis inconclusive due to various factors
  • Trents avoided publicity for weeks
  • Maintained story consistency for decades

The Witnesses

Paul Trent (1903-1998)

  • Farmer and laborer
  • No history of pranks or hoaxes
  • Described as honest by community
  • Never profited from photos

Evelyn Trent (1909-1997)

  • Housewife and farmworker
  • Consistent testimony throughout life
  • Reluctant about publicity
  • Maintained encounter authenticity

Character Assessment

Neighbors and community members described the Trents as:

  • Simple, hardworking people
  • Not interested in publicity
  • Honest and straightforward
  • Unlikely hoaxers

Physical Evidence Analysis

Negative Examination

The original negatives showed:

  • No signs of retouching
  • Proper grain structure
  • Consistent exposure
  • No double exposure evidence

Distance Calculations

Based on atmospheric haze and lighting:

  • Object estimated over 1 kilometer distant
  • Size calculated at 20-30 feet diameter
  • Too large for common explanations

Reproduction Attempts

Model Photography

Attempts to recreate photos using models showed:

  • Difficult to match atmospheric effects
  • Suspension methods leave traces
  • Lighting hard to duplicate
  • Scale relationships challenging

Computer Analysis

Modern digital analysis revealed:

  • Edge characteristics consistent with distant object
  • No pixelation suggesting close model
  • Atmospheric scattering patterns correct
  • Power line sag indicates no attached strings

Cultural Impact

UFO Icon

The McMinnville photos became:

  • Classic “flying saucer” image
  • Featured in countless books and documentaries
  • Standard for comparison with other photos
  • Symbol of credible UFO evidence

Annual Festival

McMinnville now hosts:

  • Annual UFO Festival
  • Celebrates the famous photographs
  • Draws thousands of visitors
  • Economic benefit to community

Later Developments

Negative Rediscovery

Original negatives were:

  • Lost for 17 years
  • Found in UPI files (1967)
  • Enabled modern analysis
  • Confirmed authenticity

Witness Consistency

Throughout their lives, the Trents:

  • Never changed their story
  • Didn’t seek money or fame
  • Participated reluctantly in investigations
  • Maintained absolute conviction

Expert Opinions

Dr. Robert Sheaffer (Skeptic)

“While not impossible to hoax, the effort required would be extraordinary for farmers in 1950.”

Dr. Bruce Maccabee (Physicist)

“After extensive analysis, I find no evidence of a hoax. The photos appear to show a real, distant object.”

William K. Hartmann (Condon Committee)

“This is one of the few UFO reports in which all factors investigated…appear to be consistent.”

Modern Significance

Enduring Mystery

The McMinnville photos remain significant because:

  • No definitive debunking after 70+ years
  • Multiple scientific validations
  • Witness credibility maintained
  • Technical quality allows continued analysis

Research Standard

The case established:

  • Protocols for photo analysis
  • Importance of witness credibility
  • Value of original negatives
  • Need for atmospheric analysis

Conclusions

The Trent photographs represent either:

  • Genuine images of an unknown aerial object
  • One of the most skillful hoaxes in UFO history

The evidence strongly supports authenticity:

  • Multiple scientific analyses found no hoaxing
  • Witnesses maintained story without profit motive
  • Technical aspects consistent with distant object
  • Community testimony supported character

Whether the object was extraterrestrial, secret military, or unknown natural phenomenon remains undetermined. What seems certain is that Paul and Evelyn Trent photographed something unusual in the sky over Oregon that continues to defy conventional explanation seven decades later. Their simple act of documentation created one of the most enduring mysteries in UFO history.