UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 2007 > Jul > Jul 14

Re: The 1952 Tremonton Utah 'Seagulls'

From: Martin Shough <parcellular.nul>
Date: Sat, 14 Jul 2007 16:15:21 +0100
Archived: Sat, 14 Jul 2007 12:15:52 -0400
Subject: Re: The 1952 Tremonton Utah 'Seagulls'

>From: Dimitris Hatzopoulos <dhatz-ufo.nul>
>To: ufoupdates.nul
>Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2007 20:13:30 +0300
>Subject: The 1952 Tremonton Utah 'Seagulls' Confirmation?

>Source: Jimmie Robinson's Blog - Las Cruces, New Mexico, USA


>Tuesday, June 26, 2007

>The Tremonton Seagulls

>by Jimmie Robinson -- B.S., U. of Arizona 1953.
>Physicist, White Sands Missile Range, NM 1954-55.
>Asst. Astronomer, New Mexico St. University, 1955-1974
>Systems Analyst, WSMR 1976- 1988


>Consider the following: The focal length (76mm) of the camera is
>known; the frame size (16mm) of the film is also known, hence
>the field of view (fov) of each frame is known (fov = frame
>size/focal length). Therefore, if the camera is held stationary
>while an object is timed traversing the frame (which Newhouse
>did several times), then we have a reliable measure of the
>object's apparent angular velocity, which in this case turns out
>to be approximately 12deg./sec. Consequently, at a distance of
>one mile, the objects would have been moving about 750mph,
>190mph @ a quarter of a mile, or 75mph .nul ft. The distance of
>the objects is unknown, but (a) No bird is unidentifiable as
>such at 500ft., or can fly 75mph, hence birds cannot explain the
>movie, (b) no aircraft is unidentifiable as such at four miles,
>and no aircraft was capable of the 3000mph velocity required for
>that distance, and (c) no balloon is unidentifiable as such
>.nul, nor can move 75mph on a calm day.

>There are no assumptions, theories, opinions, or conjectures
>involved in this conclusion. These are scientific facts, and are
>all you need to rule out any known object or phenomenon as an
>explanation for the Newhouse film. It's as simple as that.

As I pointed out to Jimmie Robinson privately there is in fact
one assumption being made here: The assumption that Newhouse did
indeed hold the camera steady and allow the objects to pass
through the FOV.

This was the very assumption that the Robertson Panel called in
question, suggesting that someone trying hard not to pan with
the action might have unconsciously oversompensated and panned
_against_ the action, thus inflating the apparent angular rate.
Newhouse's assertion that he did not do this may (or may not) be
a good one, but it does not unfortunately have the status of
"scientific fact" in the sense claimed, so it isn't "as simple
as that". It may be possible to calculate some plausible limit
on the amount of angular error that could arise from such
overcompensation, but I haven't seen this argument explicitly
tackled anywhere. Has anyone else?

That aside, its's very interesting story from Mr Robinson,

Martin Shough

Listen to 'Strange Days... Indeed' - The PodCast



[ 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