From: bruce maccabee <email@example.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: firstname.lastname@example.org [Barbara Becker] > >Date: Wed, 29 Oct 1997 13:01:08 -0600 > >To: ufo updates <email@example.com> > >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? <snip> >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 illuminating.
[ Next Message | Previous Message | This Day's Messages ]
This Month's Index |
UFO UpDates - Toronto - Operated by Errol Bruce-Knapp