UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 2007 > Jul > Jul 15

Re: The 1952 Tremonton Utah

From: David Rudiak <drudiak.nul>
Date: Sat, 14 Jul 2007 10:54:03 -0700
Archived: Sun, 15 Jul 2007 10:46:39 -0400
Subject: Re: The 1952 Tremonton Utah

>From: Martin Shough <parcellular.nul>
>To: <ufoupdates.nul>
>Date: Sat, 14 Jul 2007 16:15:21 +0100
>Subject: Re: The 1952 Tremonton Utah 'Seagulls' Confirmation?

>>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?

>>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?

I've done the experiment with local sea gulls and found I could
clearly recognize them at a distance of up to 2/3rds of a mile,
say 3000 feet for round numbers. Under the steady camera
assumption, the objects would then be moving (75 mph at 500
feet) x 3000/500 = 450 mph.

If Newhouse had compensated for only half the motion, then the
speed would be 225 mph; for 80%, 90 mph, etc. Only if he had
panned with the motion at 90% or more would the speed drop to 45
mph or less, i.e., down to seagull-type speeds.

David Rudiak

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