From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2000 12:03:54 EDT
Fwd Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2000 13:16:30 -0400
Subject: Re: Trent Photos Blowout! - Young


 >Date: Tue, 26 Sep 2000 11:08:09 -0700 (PDT)
 >From: Mac Tonnies <macbot@yahoo.com>
 >Subject: Re: Trent Photos Blowout!
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>

 >>Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2000 11:40:13 -0500
 >>From: Roger Evans <raka@swbell.net>
 >>Subject: Trent Photos Blowout!
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>Hello, one and all...

 >>I "happened" upon a site regarding the Trent photos that, in
 >>my opinion, pretty much drives the nail in a coffin well worn
 >>from being opened and closed too many times. Readers know my
 >>past opinions on the photos. After looking at this site, I am
 >>now convinced that they're fake.

 >>Take a look for yourselves:

 >>http://www.ufx.org/mcminn/photo.htm

<snip>

 >While the author if this page does a good job of illustrating
 >that Trent's camera angle was not what one would expect, one
 >must keep in mind that he didn't exactly "expect" to be
 >photographing a UFO.

Mac, Roger:

This would be true _if_ Trent did not hoax the pixs. On the
other hand, _if_ he was taking a carefully staged pix, it may
represent a good explanation for the angles.

The really important thing about Joel Carpenter's hypothesis is
the possible identity of the object, itself: a truck mirror.
This would explain the brightness of the underside (mirror
reflecting the sky or distant terrain), and the brightness of
the (chromed) upper part. This brightness is what Condon Study
investigator William Hartmann thought _could_ indicate that the
object was at a distance.

Look at the image of the truck mirror, and then at the Trent's
pix. Unbelievable!

Joel Carpenter's eagle eye may have put this one to bed,
finally. A lot of folks have wasted a lot of time on this
over the years.

Clear skies,

Bob Young