From: Martin Shough <parcellular.nul> Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2011 13:13:51 -0000 Archived: Wed, 16 Feb 2011 08:17:12 -0500 Subject: Re: More On The Trindade Island Case >From: Greg Paloma <fractalmaze.nul> >To: post.nul >Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2011 12:51:49 -0700 >Subject: Re: More On The Trindade Island Case <snip> >I specifically wasn't asking you... but you volunteered a >response... >Your response was "No more than one minute." Excuse me but that >is the clear indication of an upper max! :)) Please clean your filters, Greg. That was _not_ my response. I did _not_ volunteer an answer to your question. For the benefit of anyone else incapable of re-reading an email I repeat my post here: [QUOTE] 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. [END QUOTE] I trust (for I am incorrigibly optimistic) you are now able to see that I did not at any time author the words you claim, and still less did I offer them as my personal "upper limit" on an acceptable photo duration. I was merely trying to helpfully steer you away from a too-literal and (IMO) misconceived focus on the "14 seconds" which you appeared to want to set down as a marker. No more. >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 ;-> You have no right to misconstrue my first statement, then to squirm away from my clarification of its intent, and now to perversely misrepresent both statement and clarification with magnificent contempt for the black-and-white evidence that I now have to drag out and thrust under your nose - not without without getting clobbered by me, so wise up. >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. I can't be bothered to convince you that I was far from doing any such thing. As I said, I was trying to helpfully steer you away from a too-literal focus on the "14 seconds". Since you are now looking at the context of that figure I consider you so steered, and having sufficiently explained my ambivalent position with regard to the possible cloud development and the photo duration I leave you to your own thoughts. 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