UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 2011 > Feb > Feb 16

Re: More On The Trindade Island Case

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


>I specifically wasn't asking you... but you volunteered a
>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


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.


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.

>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



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