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: Martin Shough <parcellular.nul>
Date: Sun, 15 Jul 2007 17:26:50 +0100
Archived: Sun, 15 Jul 2007 13:15:28 -0400
Subject: Re: The 1952 Tremonton Utah

>From: Don Ledger <dledger.nul>
>To:  ufoupdates.nul
>Date: Sat, 14 Jul 2007 15:44:22 -0300
>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?

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


>>>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 have the movie UFO here and in the film Newhouse says he held
>the camera steady and let a single object fly out of frame -
>and that's shown. Why would he lie about that?

Hi Don

I don't know if anyone has ever alleged that he did. I'm
certainly not saying that. As I understand the proposition, it
is that Newhouse was watching through the viewfinder and
unconsciously panned the camera opposite to the object motion
when trying to hold the camera still. I can see how that might
happen. I can also see that there are arguments that it probably
didn't happen (especially as Newhouse did this three times). But
the point at issue was Mr Robinson's claim that the rigid
stillness of Newhouse's camera is an absolute "scientific fact"
leaving no room for conjecture.

This is untrue. It is not a "scientific fact" but a witness
report. Along with his descriptions of the objects as they
appeared before the film sequence (B-29 sized saucers) it is a
report that one wouldn't want to dismiss without good reason,
but for someone asked to analyse the film on its own merits it
must be disappointing that this crucial measure of angular rate
- the measure that makes the difference between possible
unresolved gulls and definite unknowns - depends on a witness

Mr Robinson's chain of calculation (which incidentally includes
a factor 6 error in the angular rate and neglects Robert M L
Baker's conclusion that the 2 deg/sec rate  - not 12 deg/sec -
 is the average of a range of rates between 0.6 and 4.0 degs/sec
interpreted as camera jitter) definitely _is_ based on an
assumption, which needs to be demonstrated first before the
calculation can be said to lead to "scientific fact" beyond

>It should be easy enough these days to determine
>if the camera moved.

I don't know if this can be done or not, but I definitely agree
with you that it should be done if possible.



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