From: Martin Shough <parcellular.nul> Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2011 13:06:19 -0000 Archived: Thu, 10 Feb 2011 09:33:23 -0500 Subject: Re: More On The Trindade Island Case >From: Greg Paloma <fractalmaze.nul> >To: post.nul >Date: Wed, 9 Feb 2011 16:56:09 -0700 >Subject: Re: More On The Trindade Island Case >>From: A. J. Gevaerd - Revista UFO <aj.nul> >>To: <post.nul> >>Date: Tue, 8 Feb 2011 08:48:03 -0200 >>Subject: More On The Trindade Island Case >>As I informed in my previous message, >>http://www.ufoupdateslist.com/2011/feb/m04-013.shtml >>we already have a complete version of the new information about >>the Trindade Island Case available to the International UFO >>Community in the website of the Brazilian UFO Magazine >>(www.ufo.com.br). >>As stated before, the difference between this new info and >>previous attempts to discredit the case and Barauna's photos >>(some of them that didn't stand up for more than 5 minutes), is >>that this time the new witness to make his claims, Marcelo >>Ribeiro, is Barauna's nephew and was actually very close to >>him, like a son. >Question for Brazilian UFO Magazine: >Since there was a 14 second period by which all the photos were >allegedly taken, how much time would you actually allow for slop >in that published estimate? For instance, if it was proven they >were instead taken over a two minute window rather than the >reported 14 seconds, would that change your mind? What if 10 >minutes had passed, etc.? >At what point would you have to concede their forgery if only >time itself became established factually in contrast to the >Barauna 14 second Barauna account? What would the cut-off... the >acceptable cut-off number be for all of you: for acceptance vs >forgery, etc? >I'm would ask each of you to give a collective or separate >response. Greg Excuse me for butting in, but when considering the answers you get you might want to remember that the 14 seconds was stated by Barauna to have been the minumum time required to take 6 rapid shots with his Rolleiflex, measured by the Navy timing him. This does not necessarily mean that the actual event duration was 14 seconds (allowing for confusion and excitement, being jostled - as claimed - and keeping the eye away from the viewfinder to get a good look etc), and the result was not so interpreted by the Navy, who IIRC estimated that the duration was probably "less than1 minute". There is certainly a tension between plausible duration and likely duration estimated from cloud motions. This tension may amount to a discrepancy. But the 14 second figure is a bit of a red herring. Regards Martin Shough Listen to 'Strange Days... Indeed' - The PodCast At: http://www.virtuallystrange.net/ufo/sdi/program/ These contents above are copyright of the author and UFO UpDates - Toronto. They may not be reproduced without the express permission of both parties and are intended for educational use only.
[ Next Message | Previous Message | This Day's Messages ]
This Month's Index |
UFO UpDates - Toronto - Operated by Errol Bruce-Knapp