McMinnville photo

I read the article on the McMinnville, Oregon, UFO photograph’s “exposure” [ FT321:28] with great amusement. By using Kevin Randle’s statement that the 1950 photograph taken by Paul Trent is “either a craft from another world or a hoax” as the starting point, Dr David Clarke and Andy Roberts propose that it is indeed the latter.

Randle’s statement is absurd. It would be more accurate to say that either the photograph’s subject is “unidentified” or it is a hoax. As forteans, we suspend judgement until something is either proven or disproven. And the belief that UFOs represent some sort of craft from another planet or galaxy has been discarded by an ever-growing portion of the people who nevertheless believe that they are something real. Keel and Vallee both rejected that position in the 1970s. No honest person can say that he or she knows what they are.

At any rate, sceptics have long believed that, in the McMinnville case, a wire was used to suspend a car part (or some such thing) in

midair and that the Trents then photographed that. However, as the authors admit, no one has proven that to be true. “As we have often said,” the authors continue, “the simplest explanation is often the best one.” Especially if that’s the explanation that one is predisposed to believe.

“The simplest explanation” to any anomalous event is “it didn’t happen”, or “it’s a fraud,” or that “the witness is a liar” – but that hasn’t always proven to be the best answer. If it were, then no one would bother to examine the evidence of this or any other such event. I certainly admit that the photograph could be a hoax; the point is that that hasn’t been prov-

en, and until it is, the question is open. It speaks volumes about the evidence that the photographs have continued to be debated for 64 years. I have no axe to grind here; I would be delighted to see this case decided one way or another. If that can’t be done, then why are Clarke and Roberts even bothering to bring it up? Bryan White Duncanville, Texas