From: Greg Paloma <fractalmaze.nul> Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2011 13:07:25 -0700 Archived: Wed, 16 Feb 2011 07:24:50 -0500 Subject: Re: Question For A. J. Gevaerd On Trindade >From: Michael Tarbell <mtarbell.nul> >To: post.nul >Date: Sun, 13 Feb 2011 17:20:22 -0700 >Subject: Re: Question For A. J. Gevaerd On Trindade >>From: A. J. Gevaerd - Revista UFO <aj.nul> >>To: <post.nul> >>Date: Sun, 13 Feb 2011 13:47:44 -0200 >>Subject: Re: Question For A. J. Gevaerd On Trindade >>>From: Greg Paloma <fractalmaze.nul> >>>To: post.nul >>>Date: Sat, 12 Feb 2011 16:10:11 -0700 >>>Subject: Question For A. J. Gevaerd On Trindade >>>A Question for The Brazilian UFO Magazine: >>>What are the various published total duration intervals for the >>>Barauna UFO photo sequence? A quick list would be best along >>>with their publisher and published dates. Add any thoughts and >>>evolutionary reflections where needed. >>I frankly don't know the duration intervals for the Barauna UFO >>photo sequence. I believe they have already been published >>somewhere and there will be - I hope - a list of available >>publishers and publishing dates for the info on the Web. >Not having the familiarity with this case that Martin Shough and >others on the UpDates list do, I can at least submit there is >one readily available published estimate to be found, namely in >the Navy report >see http://www.nicap.org/newevidarticle.htm >that followed Bacellar's briefing to the Navy High Command on 27 >Jan 1958, in which it is stated explicitly that "The photographs >were taken in no more than 30 seconds". Hi Mike, Yes, thanks! Because of the language barrier and potential for new developments or other documents, I preferred to ask those we would consider the long standing experts in Brazil. They did make themselves known, and who could miss the opportunity to ask. Martin intercepted my question and volunteered an estimate of no more that one minute. I still haven't gotten any new replies from A.J.. >If there are any controversies surrounding the authenticity of >this report, I am not aware of them, although it does seem to >have a somewhat odd provenance. I would agree that the lack of negatives brings about some serious concerns. Especially, when considering their importance! >I gather that the thrust of Greg's inquiry is to establish that >the brevity of this interval is incompatible with the evolution >of the cloud formations in the images. Yes, that would be one of the glaring problems. Rather than adjust to decreasing liklihood we see a willingness to bend earlier facts. By now, one has to be fair and claim an equal ownership to both potentials. >It is straightforward in Photoshop to place corresponding areas >of photos #1 and #4 side-by-side and adjust the brightness and >contrast to enhance the cloud patterns. I must concede that I >would not expect the indicated degree of cloud pattern evolution >in a 30 second period, or even twice that. Scenario 1: The same cloud group evolving over time. Scenario 2: The group of clouds is completely or partially replaced by a new set, while considering potentials for both their decay or growth. I would agree... I'd done this already and get a range of 3 +/- 1 minute based upon, broadly encompassing, several detailed scenarios. Perhaps I will publish? >Notwithstanding Martin's persuasive analysis demonstrating that >this would not be ruled out meteorologically, it does strike me >as an issue of serious concern. But assuming a hoax, it's >difficult to believe that Barauna would not have anticipated the >potential for such a (perceived) discrepancy and taken pains to >avoid it, considering the care and skill, not to mention luck, >that attended the scheme as a whole. Generally agreeing but these particular sections had to be contrast enhanced in order to behold their true and more convincing habit differences. Such quick-compare marvels weren't available back then. I believe he probably took a series or several sets of photos and selected the best he had in consideration of your valid point with ample opportunity to remove other mismatched problem areas since the photos are probably cropped. Basically, he did the best he could with what he had, up to an including the possibility of getting the photos true sequence out of order before transfering the UFO onto the receivinng print. Note, that he didn't immediately provide the negatives and took them home for a while, which again brings up issues with their genuine provenance. Esentialy, mistakes were made and now we're discovering them. It would really help if we actually knew which way the clouds were moving and at what speed. From inspection, they appear to be moving SW to W - I see evidence of cloud drag (Slant) up their vertical column. I will see if I can get typical upper air movement/soundings during that time of year. Perhaps, there's a stable pattern this far out in the South Atlantic. I believe this may be true. I already left a few messages at NOAA for better leads. The cloud ceiling would also be nice to obtain. Regards, 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