From: Greg Paloma <fractalmaze.nul> Date: Sat, 12 Feb 2011 15:54:40 -0700 Archived: Sun, 13 Feb 2011 07:21:02 -0500 Subject: Re: More On The Trindade Island Case >From: Martin Shough <parcellular.nul> >To: <post.nul> >Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2011 12:23:52 -0000 >Subject: Re: More On The Trindade Island Case >>From: Greg Paloma <fractalmaze.nul> >>To: post.nul >>Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2011 14:03:01 -0700 >>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 <snip> >>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? >Hi Greg >Your arithmetic is correct, but I offered my comment in a spirit >of helping you to callibrate the significance of answers to the >question you posed to Brazilian UFO Magazine. I am not "settling >for" anything, personally, and prefer that you don't assume >anything. There are various figures in the literature, and >different assumptions about what they signify and what their >source is. It is one ambiguous detail among many. I reserve my >right to adapt my judgments on them all without notice in the >light of all those "interconnecting factors" that make the whole >Trindade puzzle so complex and fascinating. I am an interested >observer and await your argument when it comes. >>Do the Brazillian researchers agree as well? >Please do not induct me into any sort of "block vote" on this >issue or any other. If "the Brazilian researchers" have a >corporate position, then like you I will be interested to see >what it is, and why, but I am not joining any campaign team or >having any badges pinned on my lapel, thanks ;-) Hi Martin, this is not a call to pin a badge on anyone, but more a field sticker tagging an important fact. I'm looking forward to their comments, but perhaps I'm too hopeful that they are willing to state published fact since there is still silence from their end? I accepted your one-minute upper estimate based upon your current understanding. But, we must concede that the Trindade UFO observation is well known as a short duration event. I have also come to understand that you are much more than a casual observer. Therefore, if there are various published estimates as you have stated, I shall look forward to your listing of them. I see a period article with the headlines of 14 seconds... there you will see a big picture of Barauna holding up his camera. Not sure if he states general agreement with that number but certainly he had ample opportunity to provide, counter, and correct with his own value and for them to include anyone else's... earliest accounts often being the most correct! Certainly, by your own careful estimate, having been familiar with the case for so long, you have not exceeded any of the published numbers? Your willingness to jump to answer my question seems to signal your innate confidence on this issue pointing to an unavoidable reality. I might believe now that evidence of the cloud shift itself has caused a tug to accommodate the larger time interval favoring one minute. But, might it also reveal an important divergence with the historically witnessed account? If by consensus we establish an average value that is also my intention through the course of this exercise. But, if we can actually reach agreement it might also serve to demonstrate cohesive understanding removing a complexity that really shouldn't exist in a case allegedly witnessed by so many and studied for so long. I'm perplexed that we might be evidencing an active back peddle to the prevailing facts that all strengthened upon it's rather short duration. My estimate, as you of course know, includes a reasonable range that includes your upper bound as my maximum and is 2 to 4 times the 14 second account. Add to this that a skilled photographer missed two shots due to the harried nature of the incident and the rapid object movement described, we must also concede that the lesser amount is more reasonable and yet note that we have still doubled and even quadrupled the time interval if for nothing else but to allow prevailing reason to surmount certain mental obstacles. I hoped also to illustrate the scientific process. That by merely asking such a simple question how it can rally forces to encompass and consider much more of the case - enough to see limits emerge both in terms of critical thought and in the emotional temperaments of those favorable to the case. Might I say limits of incredulity possibly too... for I can't imagine in any reasonable manner redefining this incident as a long term affair, especially within the confines of the published facts. The photos themselves fairly well map the beginning and end of the entire event. Even under careful scrutiny we might also find the photos revealing evidence of lateral elongation (motion blur), which is again indicative of rapid speed and again parallels and reconciles with the short duration witness accounts. I should add a note of philosophy that emotional investment of time in any particular venture is, in of itself, an obstacle to change and scientific progress. Often requiring one to flip opinion at the furthest reaches of ones own personal limits whether correct, incorrect, or foolish appearing - that most often being the case when it counters cherished and often critical beliefs. But, we must also confess that beliefs drive science importantly just as they can detract, especially when an internal hunch throws alignment to a seemingly disconnected set of variables. Or, in retrospect is it all merely coincidence that some get it right while others do not, leaving the false appearance of insight? But, in all this, I personally find truth from the human blessings of creativity - a kernel to the unknown on a path to the furthest reaches of imaginations, safe and secure in own individual thoughts! =) 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 - Toronto - Operated by Errol Bruce-Knapp