UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 2007 > Jul > Jul 19

Re: The 1952 Tremonton Utah

From: Martin Shough <parcellular.nul>
Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2007 17:04:34 +0100
Archived: Thu, 19 Jul 2007 09:24:39 -0400
Subject: Re: The 1952 Tremonton Utah

>From: Michael Tarbell <mtarbell.nul>
>To: ufoupdates.nul
>Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2007 06:40:08 -0600
>Subject: Re: The 1952 Tremonton Utah 'Seagulls' Confirmation?

>>From: Martin Shough <parcellular.nul>
>>To: <ufoupdates.nul>
>>Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2007 14:02:58 +0100
>>Subject: Re: The 1952 Tremonton Utah 'Seagulls'Confirmation?

>I was presumptive to say "diminish smoothly"... specifically, I
>was presuming that a sudden or sporadic such diminution would
>have been noted in the analysis (particularly since it would
>suggest extreme accelerations, certainly noteworthy in the UFO
>context). The switch from f8 to f16 was visually obvious, and if
>this were the source of the change in angular diameter, Baker
>would almost certainly have identified it as such.


>Hartmann's suggestion that the objects are "unresolved" seems at
>odds with Baker's observation (same reference as above) that,
>based on microscopic examination of the film, the camera was
>well-focused: "...the edges of the images are sharp and clear
>on many of the properly exposed frames".

Well, this seems to be the basis of the distance estimates if
they are gulls, so perhaps I should have said "unresolved if they
are gulls". If they are just blob-shaped then perhaps they are
fully-resolved blobs. The argument then moves on to dyanimical
features like variation in brightness, angulkar rates and so on.

>I agree with your assessment, while making the awkward
>confession that I have not actually seen the film myself (but
>would certainly like to). Don Ledger has indicated that he owns
>or has access to a good copy. If you are still following this
>thread Don, can you point me in the right direction?

I haven't seen the whole film either. I suspect few people have.
I have only seen short clips and still frames. It would
certainly be interesting to watch from start to finish.

>A point that still bugs me (I am clueless about film movie
>cameras, so bear with me): The film is described in various
>places (and by Newhouse himself) as 16 mm, shot at 16
>frames/sec. He claims to have shot ~30 ft (9144 mm) of film,
>which would seem to imply (9144/16) or ~572 frames, and an
>elapsed time of 572*(1/16) or ~36 sec. But Baker clearly states
>that the film consists of ~1200 frames with an elapsed time of
>~75 sec, which would seem to correspond to 8 mm frames, not 16
>mm. What is eluding me here?

I suspect we have to assume that 16mm is the film width, but
that frames are ~ 8mm in the longitudinal direction?


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