Paul Trent

The Photographer

Paul Arthur Trent (c. 1918–1998) was an unassuming farmer living near Sheridan, Oregon, approximately 13 miles southwest of McMinnville. On the evening of May 11, 1950, at 7:30 PM, he became the witness to what many in the UFO community consider the most credible and significant photographic evidence of an unidentified flying object ever captured. Working his farm with his wife Evelyn, Trent would inadvertently document an encounter that would captivate UFO researchers for over seven decades.

The Encounter and Photographs

According to multiple accounts, Evelyn Trent was walking back to their house after feeding caged rabbits on the farm when she observed a slow-moving, metallic disk-shaped object approaching from the northeast. She called out to her husband, who was inside the house. Paul emerged and, after a brief observation, ran back inside to retrieve a camera that was already loaded with film. In those moments before the object accelerated westward and disappeared from view, Paul Trent managed to capture two photographs—images that would become the centerpiece of UFO photographic research for generations.

The photographs showed a clearly defined, disk-shaped object with what appeared to be a raised central dome or cap. The craft exhibited metallic characteristics and smooth surfaces consistent with a solid, engineered structure. Published first by the McMinnville Telephone-Register on June 8, 1950, the images were quickly picked up by Life magazine and reprinted across major newspapers throughout the United States, instantly making them among the most recognized UFO photographs in the world.

Scientific Analysis and Credibility

The Trent photographs received serious scientific attention from prominent researchers. Astronomer William K. Hartmann, known for his early work on lunar formation, conducted a rigorous photometric and geometric analysis of the images and the site. Hartmann interviewed the Trents extensively, examined the physical evidence, and studied the photography itself. His initial conclusion, submitted to the Condon Committee, was remarkably positive: he determined that all geometric, psychological, and physical factors appeared consistent with the presence of an extraordinary, artificial flying object—estimated to be tens of meters in diameter—that had flown within view of the two witnesses.

However, Hartmann's assessment was later withdrawn following additional skeptical analysis, particularly work by researcher Robert Sheaffer, who presented alternative explanations. Subsequent investigations proposed that the photographs might depict a small model suspended by a thread from nearby power lines. A 2013 study by IPACO researchers claimed to detect a thread-like structure in the photographs and concluded the object was likely a small model. Despite this skepticism, many UFO researchers—including those who have re-examined the photographs—continue to argue that the image resolution and geometric properties are most consistent with a genuine, large, solid object filmed at distance.

Integrity and Legacy

What distinguished the Trent case in UFO research was the unwavering integrity of the witnesses themselves. Unlike many UFO experiencers who capitalized on their encounters through book deals, lecture circuits, or media appearances, Paul and Evelyn Trent famously never attempted to profit from their photographs or celebrity. They conducted no paid speaking engagements, signed no lucrative book contracts, and remained quiet about their experience, living out their rural Oregon lives in relative obscurity. This restraint, combined with their consistent account throughout their lifetimes, earned them a reputation in the UFO community as uniquely credible witnesses.

Evelyn Trent passed away in 1997; Paul Trent died a year later in 1998. Both maintained to the end of their lives that their sighting was genuine and that the photographs accurately depicted what they had witnessed that spring evening fifty years earlier. The McMinnville case remains one of the few UFO investigations where competing analyses—skeptical and sympathetic—acknowledge the quality of the evidence and the character of the witnesses, even when disagreeing sharply on interpretation.