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 'Seagulls'

From: Michael Tarbell <mtarbell.nul>
Date: Sun, 15 Jul 2007 10:01:53 -0600
Archived: Sun, 15 Jul 2007 13:11:56 -0400
Subject: Re: The 1952 Tremonton Utah 'Seagulls'


>From: David Rudiak <drudiak.nul>
>To: <ufoupdates.nul>
>Date: Sat, 14 Jul 2007 10:54:03 -0700
>Subject: Re: The 1952 Tremonton Utah 'Seagulls'Confirmation?

>>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.


As mentioned to Martin Shough off-List (who concurs), Jimmie
Robinson's estimate for angular rate (12.5 deg/sec) is about a
factor of 6 higher than the value (2.1 deg/sec) obtained from
analysis of the film documented in Project Blue Book - see,
e.g.:

http://nicap.org/docs/utah520702docs3.htm

Newhouse only attempted 'motionless camera' sequences on a
single object that broke away from the rest of the group,
getting '2-1/2' such sequences (the first beginning with the
object centered in the field of view). The rest of the group may
have been moving at a higher angular rate, but the film does not
allow this determination. It is notable that the objects
apparent diameters diminish smoothly by ~30% during the film,
indicating that they are traveling _away_ from the camera, such
that the raw angular rate data would underestimate the actual
speed at range.

In any case, the seagull theory remains unconvincing, but not
absurdly so with regard to range/velocity constraints. I must
say I would be surprised if someone with as much photographic
experience as Newhouse would be susceptible to 'compensatory
panning' of the camera to any significant degree.


Mike



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

See:

http://www.virtuallystrange.net/ufo/sdi/program/


[ 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