UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 2011 > Feb > Feb 11

Re: More On The Trindade Island Case

From: Greg Paloma <fractalmaze.nul>
Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2011 14:03:01 -0700
Archived: Fri, 11 Feb 2011 06:26:48 -0500
Subject: Re: More On The Trindade Island Case


>From: Martin Shough <parcellular.nul>
>To: <post.nul>
>Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2011 13:06:19 -0000
>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).

<snip>

>>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.


Mr Shough,

I much appreciate this reply but this should not also substitute
for the anticipated response I most desire from the case
champions closest to the event by language, length of study, and
assumed detail.

Many interconnecting factors underlie my question including the
linear relationship between event time and the number of
witnesses reported. This is also in direct correlation to the
cloud shift.

We should all agree that the greater the length of time of the
actual ufo sighting event, the greater the probability for more
witneses. Since we have only a few direct witnesses, we should
count that as favoring less time for the transpiration of the
event.

Your estimate is reasonable and in the interest of the
unavoidable and sought after consensus, I will assume you would
settle for a total time of 45 +/- 15 seconds. That is about 9
+/- 3 seconds average between all six shots. Are we agreeed? Do
the Brazillian researchers agree as well?

I should add for the readers benefit that photo 4 is actually
photo 6, photos 4 and 5 did not contain the object. Also, with
six shot we divide by five intervals not six - just in case one
wondered how I derived my numbers in the above section.

We could lengthen that time interval between shots 2 and 3 but
we must also decrease it proportionately for the others - I say
this only because there was an apparent pause and wait between
shots 2 and 3 as it came back from behind the central peaks. I
believe I'm correct? However, it should not deviate considerably
within the stated ranges.

It should be added that not having been encumbered with a
camera, those equally startled by the event would be less apt to
find excuses for not finding the object in the sky. So, it is
amazing we see his first photo of a far away object which does
not agree with the assumed prep time one might have expected him
to go through. I would rather think that of the six attempted
photos that the first image would have been much more over the
island and much after it's celebrated entrance.

Does Barauna ever give a revised estimate or better answer for
the total photographic time duration? I believe I have also read
30 seconds too, but not sure? If so, how soon after the event
did he provide such information?

Still waiting for my response from the others. So, I hope that
you might wait a little for them before responding again . . .
OK? :)


Kind Regards,

G. Paloma



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 Main Index

UFO UpDates - Toronto - Operated by Errol Bruce-Knapp


Archive programming by Glenn Campbell at Glenn-Campbell.com