From: Greg Paloma <fractalmaze.nul> Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2011 12:51:49 -0700 Archived: Wed, 16 Feb 2011 07:23:14 -0500 Subject: Re: More On The Trindade Island Case >From: Martin Shough <parcellular.nul> >To: <post.nul> >Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2011 11:59:39 -0000 >Subject: Re: More On The Trindade Island Case >>From: Greg Paloma <fractalmaze.nul> >>To: post.nul >>Date: Sat, 12 Feb 2011 15:54:40 -0700 >>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 ><snip> >>>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 ;-) >>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. >There you go again. I neither offered an "upper limit", nor will >I do so. I did not offer a one minute as an "my estimate" of >anything. Rather, I cautioned you not to assume that your "14 >seconds" (recalled by Barauna from the Navy's timing of 6 rapid- >fire shots with his camera) was regarded by the Navy or anybody >else as the true event duration. Another example of what I mean >is Capt Brandao's intelligence report in which he opted for >(IIRC) "half a minute" for the 6 photos. Clearly the purpose of >the timing exercise (14 seconds) was understood as setting a >*lower bound*. The practical value dependent on memory and >circumstances thern becomes a matter of judgement. But these are >not my estimates, neither should you use them or any others to >infer an upper limit on my behalf. >I already explained that there is an unresolved tension between >the apparent cloud changes (well brought out by Kentaro Mori) >and plausible duration, which might amount to a discrepancy. As >you may have discovered, a few years ago I tried to estimate >some brackets for possible duration based on angular >displacements of some (possibly) identifiable cloud features and >likely wind speed and direction at various levels estimated from >historical averages. Making certain assumptions about the type >and height of cloud etc I concluded that the photos were more >likely to be consistent with a minimum duration of about 2 >minutes. >Clearly this result is in tension to some extent with subjective >guesses and reasoned judgements lying in the <1 minute area. But >not so much as would be the case if the result had been 30 >minutes, say, or if it had been impossible to find any cloud >features in common at all. So whether the tension amounts to a >serious discrepancy is another matter of judgement, and depends >for example on whether one agrees or not with identification of >a certain cloud type as cirrus or altostratus etc etc. I >regarded this exercise as interesting but inconclusive. >Indeed Kentaro has since cast doubt on whether a certain >distinctive cloud feature which I attempted to isolate in >multiple photos and use as a marker is really a reliable feature >at all. He suspects I may have been misled by a defect in the >print emulsion. If so this would mean the exercise is invalid >and we're back to square one - except for one general result >which I believe is more robust, and that is that *most* of the >cloud in the photos is foreground convective cloud due to the >presence of the island mountains and would probably change on a >timescale too short and in a fashion too chaotic to offer a >useful "clock". >So the argument rests on uncertain estimates about the type and >altitude and likely speed of a single small area of what appears >to possibly be (but may not be) a stable cirrus or altostratus >feature visible through a gap in the foreground mountain clouds. >The meaning of much of the rest of your post is a little opaque >to me, but I hope this gives you some feeling for the >uncertainty involved and illustrates why a) I recommend caution >in trying to reduce the case to a simplistic numbers game and >why b) I will not give you a number. >Martin Shough Martin, there I go again? :)) I specifically wasn't asking you... but you volunteered a response. Most importantly, I had asked the question under the premise of a cut-off value for the time duration that would indicate forged Vs authentic... Your response was "No more than one minute." Excuse me but that is the clear indication of an upper max! :)) Therefore, I have every right to stick to your first response since it was the most natural, unforced, and authentic provided. But, don't worry, I won't clobber you with it . . . Or, should I ;-> Notice that I at least put in ranges to convey the very variances that you now wish to own. See my response to Mike. You can't convincing sight the variables at play, which I'm quite aware of, but then provide a single static answer with no reasonable output error range to convey that very same understanding or viewpoint. Our judgement is not better than the scientists and professional analysts that were involved in the immediate aftermath and closest to the available firsthand information. Notice, I didn't presume to know either. I simply asked those who may know more or could confirm or deny published values. I believe the period witnesses quite intelligent to adequately address the time duration better than us. So, finally... we have 14 and no more than 30 seconds from that time period (max of 30 seconds!). Yet, I'm to believe A.J. Gevaerd doesn't know what the published time durations are but he lives there, studied it for years, and runs a UFO Magazine. Confusing? A. J. and company certainly have had adequate opportunity to contribute added insights here or to have interviewed some of the primary witnesses to better establish variances. (know of other interviews). What about a whole nest of other questions I could ask? Will they fall flat on those too? Or, is it just with the critical ones like this? My revised estimates based upon the best, most reliable, and available information is now: ~ 30 +/- 15 seconds. Or, ~ 6 +/- 3 second time intervals between each of the six shots! I believe it will be quite difficult to refute this except by proclamation or wishful thinking! But, this is now clashing with the cloud analysis. So, let's be much more fair to the data at hand! Let me explain what another underlying tension might be: If we accept longer total durations, then we must accept lower average speed estimate for the objects involved plus throw away other testimony and witness accounts. Unfortunately, this brings them into the realm of a rather undesirable UFO traveling at period aircraft speed. Therefore, in order to provide support to the cloud displacement (or total to partial replacement) we must accept a rather poorer UFO speed... no longer in the "remarkable" category based upon speed if we begin to accept larger time intervals. This may be one of the primary reasons some would still like to cling to the lower numbers in the cloud analysis despite new information. It is more likely that the longer time durations discovered by a reasonable cloud study (Kentaro Mori, Martin, others, myself) indicates a staged series of photos later substituted in for the deck-originals. This would corroborate the recent confessions of the close nephew while providing a reason why the original negatives are missing since they would have nothing on them UFO related. Only during their transfer to a print would the "UFO" object have been easily impregnated onto a receiving surface by use of an overlying contact mask. It is distinctly possible the smaller and rather confusing "contrast-inverted" negatives he showed on deck were merely close approximates to the finals - created by use of a simple internal mask such as another transparent film roll stationed above the real one. After all, Barauna was clever and he had faked photos before... particularly a UFO photo! If I saw that prominent and unique island formation in one "on-board" negative, it certainly could appear like any other that could have been artificially substituted in at a later date... The nephew may not have remembered the precise details of which forgery attempt Barauna described to him but certainly would remember if Barauna had confessed their complete forgery! As a result, let's put these two facts into proper perspective - not hold one as being unaccountable to the other since the later, on a scale of much greater proportions, is the more obvious one to be correctly recalled years later by the close nephew. I'd certainly like to scrutinize the nephew's first interview to determine the manner in which some information has come forward. How familiar was he with the case already and Barauna's other forgery? The double spoon hypothesis certainly carries with it the correct geometry and could provide several other underlying answers to more subtle questions. It seems distinctly possible that the new Trindade viewpoint might have to be adjusted to something like this: "It really did happen, but only the UFO photos were faked." But then its still quite hard to swallow the whole thing whether that's true or not. Greg 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