UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 1997 > Nov > Nov 5

Re: Bruce Maccabee's photo 19 calculations

From: bruce maccabee <brumac@compuserve.com>
Date: Tue, 4 Nov 1997 11:26:42 -0500
Fwd Date: Wed, 05 Nov 1997 10:47:09 -0500
Subject: Re: Bruce Maccabee's photo 19 calculations

> >From: c549597@showme.missouri.edu [Barbara Becker]
> >Date: Wed, 29 Oct 1997 13:01:08 -0600
> >To: ufo updates <updates@globalserve.net>
> >Subject: Bruce Maccabee's photo 19 calculations

> >Bruce:
> >Our discussion has prompted me to review your calculations on
> >photo 19. I would like your permission to have the document
> >scanned to be uploaded here or at another (UFO dedicatd) site for
> >review.

> >I think there are a number of intelligent people out there who
> >will find your work...intruiging.
> >How about it?

>> I'm not a sure what you are referring to. Were these calculations
>> in a personal letter to you?

>No this is the original paper you sent to Walt Andrus.  The
> one where you place the camera height ("perfectly")at 4.1', the
> "UFO" dimensions >at 24x17 with the ring measurement at 14.86,
> at a distance of 370'.


      Are you saying you want to scan the handwritten notes I
sent?  Complete with diagrams and calculations? Be my guest.
If you do post these notes with the sketches then I can post my
paper "Reanalysis of Photo 19 Supports Walters' Story."

      Of course it will be necessary to note that the specific
numbers were modified many months later when  I discovered that
the magnification of the blowup photo I had used  to make
measurements  was actually 4.5% less than I had initially
estimated.  In other words it must be noted that all measurements
on the blowup sketch of the UFO must be multiplied by 1.045
(e.g.,  4 mm becomes 4.2 mm, 3 mm becomes 3.14 mm, etc.)   This
changed the distances calculated in the handwritten notes you
have somewhat.

     Also, in order to carry out those calculations I used a
range of heights for the camera, as estimated from photographic
measurements and a crude road survey. I settled on 4.1ft  as  a
"best fit"to the available.  Many months later an actual road
survey was done which basically confirmed the crude survey.
Furthermore, months later I was able to get actual measurements
from a Ford 150 truck such as Ed had in January 1988 (date of
Photo 19) and from these measurements I  determined that the
camera height was probably closer to 4.5 ft (but not as high as 5
ft or more, as had been suggested by  someone else).

      As you are well aware, but others aren't, this all came
about  because Rex Salisberry studied the road reflection under
the  image of the UFO and discovered for himself what was already
known to the investigators, namely that the somewhat  diamond
shaped reflection image was too "long" in the vertical  direction
to be simply the reflection of light emanating from a 7.5 ft
diametercircular area on the road.

      Rex made the mistake of assuming that the light from the
(assumed) circular bottom of the UFO could ONLY go STRAIGHT
DOWNWARD and hence the light coming down from the UFO  could ONLY
make a circle on the road with about the the same diameter as the
bottom of the UFO (estimated at 7.5 ft  if it were 185 ft away
and proportionally larger or smaller if the  distance were larger
or smaller). [Note:  the distance was  estimated based on the
ASSUMPTION that the UFO was exactly over the reflection.   It was
this tacit assumption, which  everyone had made(including me in
the spring of  1988), that I  questioned in my "Reanalysis" paper
where I pointed out that  there was no way of being certain that
the UFO was over the reflection and, in particular, it could have
been farther  away.]

    As you are, or should be, aware, using the highly restrictive
 assumption  (that light from the bottom of the UFO could only
travel straight downward from the UFO) Rex calculated that the
IMAGE of the reflected light on the road should be a  thin line,
that is, the mage of a circular reflection seen from such  a flat
angle as to appear to be a very thin ellipse..

    This was no surprise to anyone who had studied the photo  in
th spring of 1988, 2 1/2 years before Rex began his analysis.
But at that time no one made this restrictive assumption the
"key" to  analysis of the image of th road reflection photo.

    Rex pointed out that fact that the the  image had a much
greater vertical extension than it should have was  CONCLUSIVE
evidence that the photo was a double exposure  hoax (in which the
background scene of the road, trees, sky was  the SECOND exposure
after the first exposure had been made  of a model with a
"reflection" underneath).

     Rex got an independent analysis from a man who was told
that the reflection was based on light coming only downward from
the UFO.  That man got the same result as Rex.  Rex "went public"
with the results of his analysis in October, 1990.   When I
talked to the independent analyst he told me what Rex had told
him and  when he learned that  Rex had gone public with it he
became very  angry.  Furthermore, he agreed with me that the
downward hypothesis was too restrictive.

       Rex also tried to get "approval" for his analysis from Bob
Nathan  at JPL.   However, Nathan immediately realized that the
assumption  that light could only radiate downward was too
restrictive because the  light could also radiate outwards.
After all, the light from "power ring" also appears in the photo
immediately at the bottom of the UFO image, and the image of this
"ring" light is more  overexposed than th image of the
reflection.  This is proof that light  could radiate sideways as
well as downward.   Nathan told me he  refused to endorse
Salisberry's analysis because of the restrictive assumption (even
though Nathan favored the hoax  hypothesis..but at least Nathan
was honest enough to admit that he  couldn't prove it).

       Instead of basing my analysis on Rex's restrictive
hypothesis  I  have assumed light could radiate sideways as well
as straight down.  Furthermore, I have suggested three possible
explanations  for the unexpectedly large vertical extension of
the road reflection image.  The first of these was published in
"A History of the Gulf Breeze Sightings" (1988 MUFON Symp paper)
in which I commented  that the diamond shape of the reflection
indicated that the light sources within the bottom of the UFO
were not uniformly distributed and radiated light out sideways
with different intensities in different  directions.  (At least
one of Ed's photos shows the bottom of the UFO and there is a
highly non-uniform distribution  of light radiating sources.)

      The suggested that light was radiating sideways is
supported by the work of Jeff Sainio who has used the original
photo and computer-aided analysis to determine whether or not
the image of the road surface shows any evidence of illumination
by the UFO. He reported in a MUFON Symposium paper (1993) that
he had detected the illumination effect.  There was an increased
brightness on the road in the vicinity of the UFO  outside the
major reflection.  This increased illuminated is consistent with
a real event and not consistent with a double exposure hoax.)

    My second suggested explanation for the vertical extension of
the imageof the reflection was that this was vapor or fog beneath
the UFO which was strongly lit by light coming downward. A
strongly lit vapor of two or so feet in vertical extension could
explain the vertical extension of the image.

   The third suggested explanation is the one in the "Reanalysis
paper mentioned above.  It occurred to me that the assumption
that the UFO was over the illuminated area on the road was also
restrictive because there was no independent way of measuring the
distance to the UFO.   (The distance to the illumination on the
road was determined from landmarks and sighting lines.) However,
if the UFO was not over the refllection it had to be either
closer to the truck or farther away than the reflection (so it
would  appear to be over the reflection). If it were farther away
the  calculated size would be larger.   I knew from the stereo
camera  photos of May 1 that the diameter of the power ring in
that sighting  calculatedto be about 15 ft.   If I assumed the
UFO in photo 19 were  the same size as the UFO in the May 1
stereo photos, then that  would mean it was about 370 ft away.
But then the question was, how did it illuminate the road?   The
answer to this question would be a white beam pointed downward
from some point near the bottom  of the UFO and headed in the
direction of the truck, but not hitting  the truck.

      Since Ed reported that he had already been hit twice by the
 white beam (that caused a sensation of paralysis where it hit
his body), which was what made him stop the truck, it seemed
reasonable to suggest that they what appeared in the photo was
the reflection of this white beam off the road at such a glancing
angle that the reflection was very strong.   Strong forward
reflection  from rough (non-specular) surfaces is a well known
phenomenon called "normal gloss" although I used the term
"forward  gloss" in my paper (to differentiate it from "back
gloss" which is the  phenomenon of enhanced reflection back
toward the light source).

      At any rate, this third suggested explanation and the
discussion leading up to it is well explained in the Reanalysis
paper (which was published by MUFON),. so if you want to scan and
upload the handwritten notes,  go ahead.

>> And, incidently, whil you're beating on Photo 19, I wonder if you
>> have any comments on a similarly important photo, #1,

>Dont go there.

Why not?  Perhaps it doesn't obey your Too Damn Perfect  (TDP)
principle because  part of the image is obscured by the  tree?
How about photo 11? It's quite good, although I must admit  it's
not "perfect."

Afraid to tread there too?
How about stereo photos?
And so much more?


>I think you're getting paranoid.  I asked a question about photo
>19.  I thought it would be fun to toss the calculations out for
>all the people with math and science degrees to discuss.  We have
>a tendency here to discuss things that are not as concrete.  This
>would be something for the hard core science group to bat around.
>Of course if you feel uncomfortable with others reading your work
I> can totally understand.

     You can totally understand?  Barbara, that has been your
problem since 1991: uou don't "totally understand." Judging from
the letters  we exchanged back in 1991 I concluded that you never
did understand.

       As for me being paranoid, I think I gave a quite good
summary  of the argument over the road reflection in my
discussion above. What you have offered (or threatened?) to
upload will provide mathematical support for my discussion.

     But speaking of paranoid, are you now abandoning what you
put forward as the "conclusive" legal argument and are now
appealing to  physical analysis (which "could be wrong") to prove
that Ed's photos are TDP?

>After all, what if someone without a stake in this case found
>your reasoning and math to be flawed...then what?

I would hope the readers here would have a better understanding
of what was going on in all those calculations than you did.

>Lets stick to 19.  Everything is in writing.

Is that the only reason to stick to photo 19... because there is
materal in writing?   There is, of course the book UFOS ARE REAL
... And there are numerous other publications for discussion
about  Ed's original 1987-1988 photos (I can upload a paper on
photo 11,  for example).   And then there are the more recent
photos.... why  do you stay away from them?  Some of them are
even more "perfect."

      SO, yes, go ahead and upload what you have on photo 19. I'm
sure the people here will find the discussion suitably

Search for other documents from or mentioning: brumac | c549597

[ 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