UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 1997 > Nov > Nov 9

Re: Bruce Maccabee's photo 19 calculations

From: c549597@showme.missouri.edu [Barbara Becker]
Date: Sun, 09 Nov 1997 15:47:27 -0600
Fwd Date: Sun, 09 Nov 1997 18:31:38 -0500
Subject: Re: Bruce Maccabee's photo 19 calculations

> Date: Tue, 4 Nov 1997 11:26:42 -0500
> From: bruce maccabee <brumac@compuserve.com>
> Subject: Your Posts to UpDates
> To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>

> > >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."

Why would you have to wait till I posted your calculations to
post your article on the "reanalysis"?   Just put it out there.

> 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.

 I am aware of that. I have adjusted the calculations.

> 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.

I am aware of that also.  The only problem with 4.1 is that the
steering wheel on that truck is at least 5 feet from ground.

> Many months later an actual road survey was done which basically
> confirmed the crude survey.

I thought there was a problem with that survey.  Wasnt it the one
Ware had done where the sighting line was incorrect?  Or was this
the one Walters did for you personally?

> 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).

Ya, I had nothing else to do either so I too measured (too many,
that's more than one) Ford 150 pickup trucks and I couldnt find
one where the top of the steering wheel was below five feet.

<BIG snip>

I am sending a copy of this e-mail to Rex.  I dont think I should
respond for him on this issue.

> 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

What?  You assumed.  (Gee, when those of us who dont subscribe to
GB ASSUME that makes US stupid and wrong.) You have put a lot of
assumptions out as fact. The stereo photos were only as good as
Ed.  He admitted that he did not take the pictures on both
cameras simultaneously. And some were out of alignment.

> 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.

With your adjustment of 4.5% I figured 354'. When I wrote to you
you agreed. Do you still agree?

> 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,

Oh ya, this was the night he sent in his copyright application
for all photos from 1 thru 19...

<Snip>

> >> 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?

No, because Ive seen other analysis where it has been looked at
digitally and the "UFO" isnt even behind the tree.  At face value
it looks like it is but when looked at digitally it is obvious
that a product of the chemicals on the film is a sort of "filling
in" process.

While we are on photo 1... What was wrong with "A Believer's"
photos?  You do remember "A Believer" dont you?

GB Sentinel.  Thursday November 3, 1988.  Photo of "Ed type" UFO
accompanies article.  Headline: New UFO Photos Received at
Sentinel. Story:  Another anonymous photographer dropped photos
in the Sentinel's night deposit this week with a letter signed,
"A Believer". As has become our practice we will send the photos
to MUFON for examinations.  The letter is reprinted below in its
entirety. Letter:  Dear Sentinel, Please find enclosed the four
photos that I took of an object which I observed on the evening
of 10/12/88 at about 6 p.m. near Soundsign Drive. The object
moved west to east , repeatedly tracing its path with a slow
bobbing motion.  It then remained motionless for about thiry
seconds before moving to the east at a very high rate of speed.
The object made no noise and moved moved like no other aircraft
I've seen. I wouldn't have believed it if I hadn't seen it with
my own eyes.  Sorry but because of my position, I must remain
anonymous.
"A Believer".

Thursday November 24, 1988.  Photograph in Sentinel with caption:
After the publication of the UFO photos from "A Believer" a few
weeks ago, The Sentinel received four more polaroid photos from
him. We sent the first four to Dr. Bruce Maccabee who said
Tuesday he has looked at the photos but can't begin a formal
investigation without knowing precisely when and where they were
taken.  End Caption.

The interesting thing about this photo is that the second
one(11/24/88) that is reproduced in the Sentinel shows an "Ed
type" UFO partially obscured by trees. In fact, just glancing at
this photograph from "AB" it would be easy to mistake it for one
of Ed Walters, perhaps even photo number 1.

Correct me if I am wrong (and Im sure you will) but wasn't one of
your arguments FOR the validity of Walters photographs the fact
that photo number 1 shows Ed's UFO behind a tree?  Didn't you say
the sheer difficulty of accomplishing this rules out a hoax?

But here we very clearly have an "Ed Type" UFO photographed
behind a tree with a Polaroid...just like Ed's.  When I asked you
about this recently, you told me that you did not pursue "A
Believer" because you thought the photographs were hoaxed.

How can Walters' UFO be "real" and "A Believer" (a knock off for
Ed's photo 1) be a hoax?  Shouldn't the same standards apply for
both photgraphs? If Ed's is real then so is "A Believer's" and if
"A Believer's" is a hoax then shouldn't Ed's be a haox too?

<Snip >

> <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
> > 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.

>   OOOHHHH, getting kind of testy aren't we?

[Shaking head back and forth]

>        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.

 We'll see. Why dont you scan it in? Anyone out there with a
scanner, want to load it in? Bruce will you send a copy to
whoever volunteers (Im kind busy preparing to move to an even
colder part of the country.

BRRRRR. Looks like this email address will be invalid in a short while.)

> 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?

Hardly.  If you are so damn sure Im wrong...just call up Ed
Walters in Pennsacola Florida and ask him why he owns the
copyright to the Believer Bill and Jane photos and ask him how he
came to have it. Thats all.  Prove me wrong...dont just keep
skirting the issue.

> >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.

I understood your calculations just fine.  And by the way, your
insults are more degrading to you than to me.

<Snip>  Just another free ad for his book.


BB


Search for other documents from or mentioning: c549597 | brumac

[ 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