Copyright 2017, InterAmerica, Inc.
In the October 1978 issue of UFO Report [pictured],
long-time UFO researcher Hayden Hewes provided a “scientific analysis” of the
July 7, 1947 photo [below] of a UFO taken by William A. Rhoades of Phoenix,
The photo has become iconic and discussed ad infinitum,
ad eternum, ad nauseum, some would say.
The analysis via Mr. Hewes seems thorough and diligent,
using “Color contouring, edge enhancement, digitized for pixels, computerized,
digitized, and with a high-pass filter” the magazine indicates with examples.
There has been the usual skeptical and belief arguments
about the photo, and scrutiny by a few UFO buffs who used to frequent this blog
or Kevin Randle’s and comment on the photo.
What intrigues me about the photo is something I’ve
mentioned about the McMinnville photos taken by farmer Paul Trent on May 11,
1950, also discussed to the point of tedium but also iconic and rife with
This photo, one of two by farmer Trent, is from
Note the UFO or flying disk is flying overhead, askew to the
ground. That is the UFO is not flying level with the ground; it’s tilted.
And if William Rhoades’ photo is genuine, his UFO (or
“flying heel” with an intriguing underbelly light or spot) is also askew with
the ground, flying with a tilt as if ready to zoom upwards.
You, who’ve looked at older flying saucer photos, have
noticed that almost all of them show the “object” askew, some in such a weird
fashion that one intuitively thinks the photos are hoaxed: no flying machine
would be flying around so haphazardly.
Yet, the 1947 and 1950 photos, by Rhoades and Trent,
ostensibly non-hoaxed many believe, seem to show a flying disk and “heel” not
following the terrain in a serious way.
The “objects” are oblivious to the ground, as if the mission
isn’t to surveil anything underneath but rather to just make an appearance, for
Now if both the Trent photos and the Rhoades photo are
concoctions, why didn’t those who created their contrived models place them
level with the ground, as it would seem a person, not throwing something in the
air, would do?
The trouble that both parties went to, if they were indeed
hoaxing, would call for a stabilized “craft” – not unlike that one sees when an
airplane is flying over, unless …
… in the Trent case, the alleged mirror some say he used as
a model for his object went atilt because of its unbalance on the purported
string used to hoist the mirror into position for the faked photo(s).
As for Mr. Rhoades’ photo, if it were a thrown-in-the-air
thing, then it would be askew.
Mr. Rhoades, like Paul Trent, took two photos. The first
showed a cigar configuration, then we have the second shot, shown above, of the
The other thing that has always bothered me about the
photo-taking is that both men were not privy to the objects when they first
Paul Trent was told of the sighting by his wife and had to run
into the house to grab his camera and set it to take a photo when he got back
outside, where he took his two shots.
Mr. Rhoades heard a “whooshing sound” as he was approaching
his workshop in the rear of his house, and thinking it was a low-flying jet,
grabbed his camera and ran outside to take his two snapshots.
Now, either Trent’s flying disk or Mr. Rhoades’ flying heel
were both lallygagging (flying slowly and without purpose), allowing the men to
snap their photos or the pictures are fake – taken with care and easily because
the “objects” weren’t really going anywhere.