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'Confirmation?

From: Martin Shough <parcellular.nul>
Date: Sun, 15 Jul 2007 18:16:10 +0100
Archived: Sun, 15 Jul 2007 13:24:00 -0400
Subject: Re: The 1952 Tremonton Utah'Seagulls'Confirmation?


>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?

<snip>

>>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.

Thanks David

This is the sort of experiment that should be widely known, and
replicated. Unfortunately I fear you have been misled by Mr
Robinson's claim of "75 mph at 500 ft". This is based on a
wholly erroneous 12 deg/sec angular rate. At the actual average
rate measured (0.031-0.039 rad/sec), assuming a steady camera, a
3000 ft range would equate to about 105 mph, not 450 mph - still
fast for a gull of course!

But in this case *if* Newhouse had unconsciously panned
*against* the action at a rate of about 2 deg/sec and doubled
the apparent speed then the true speed at 3000 ft drops to a
more bird-friendly (though still marginal) 52.5 mph. Probably to
be comfortable for milling gulls the distance ought to come down
to nearer to about 2000 ft.

The measurements that seem to be agreed on by the Navy, Baker
and Hartmann suggested that if they were gulls they had to be at
a minimum distance of about 2000 ft, moving at about 45 mph.
Although Hartmann thought they were birds and claimed to have
seen similar gull flocks near Tremonton he conceded that even
when "taking into account... uncertainty due to possible
residual panning motion" these figures are "on the margin of
acceptability". Baker (AAAS symposium 1969) concluded that the
gull theory was "not very satisfying".

Your figure of about 3000 ft for recognisable resolution seems
to strain the gull theory about equally. Ideally your experiment
should be repeated in the Tremonton area in similar conditions
with the same camera, as Brad Sparks has advocated. An
experiment could also be done to test the hypothesis that when
attempting to hold a camera still against a moving subject there
is an unconscious tendency to move the camera in the opposite
direction. If there is such a tendency it should be possible to
measure how much and apply a correction to the Tremonton film
with some scientifically valid level of confidence.


Martin Shough





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