UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 2007 > Jul > Jul 20

Re: The 1952 Tremonton Utah'Seagulls'Confirmation?

From: David Rudiak <drudiak.nul>
Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2007 11:57:43 -0700
Archived: Fri, 20 Jul 2007 09:43:21 -0400
Subject: Re: The 1952 Tremonton Utah'Seagulls'Confirmation?


>From: Martin Shough <parcellular.nul>
>To: <ufoupdates.nul>
>Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2007 18:04:00 +0100
>Subject: Re: The 1952 Tremonton Utah'Seagulls'Confirmation?

>>From: Bruce Maccabee <brumac.nul>
>>To: <ufoupdates.nul>
>>Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2007 18:35:59 -0400
>>Subject: Re: The 1952 Tremonton Utah 'Seagulls'Confirmation?

<snip>

>>I discovered, or more accurately, rediscovered the image size
>>vs brightness relationship while I was analyzing the New
>>Zealand (Dec. 31, 1978) film oh, so long ago!

<snip>

>>However, this has to be modified when brightness becomes very
>>large. Light travels sideways in the film thereby increasing
>>the size of the image beyond its geosize according to the
>>relation, where I = image size including brightness effects,

>>I = geosize + K log (Exposure)

>>K is a function of the film and its development. Exposure is the
>>amount of light energy hitting the film (the illuminance on the
>>film multiplied by the shutter time, or the irradiance in W/cm^2
>>times the shutter time). Exposure depends upon how much light
>>falls on the film while the shutter is open and this also
>>depends upon the area of the the lens aperture which is
>>proportional to the square of the f#.

<snip>

>>IF there was very
>>little change then probably there was little image growth due to
>>exposure. If there was a large change (e.g., 30%) then the image
>>sizes at f/16 would probably still be "inflated" somewhat by
>>brightness.

>How do the edges of the image behave as it grows with this
>flaring? Al Chop is quoted as saying that these were "burned
>right down to the celluloid", which I take to mean the
>negative
>is saturated in the image areas (don't know if this applies to
>both sides of the f/stop change) but the edges are said to be
>"sharp".

If the filming was done near just after sunset and "birds" were
milling about opposite the sun where the sky was darkening, then
the birds could be reflecting the sunlight and appear brighter
than the darkening background sky.

However, this was not the situation with the Tremonton film,
taken in daytime in bright sunlight. Birds simply cannot
outshine the background sky. If Newhouse had overexposed the
birds and "burned" them right down to the celluloid, the sky
should also have been overexposed and washed out.

>Hartmann says that "when the objects dimmed
>sufficiently they faded out entirely with no dark dot or
>silhouette being visible", implying that most if not all of the
>image size is due to overexposure, which allows the angular
>source size to be small enough for unresolved birds.

Check Paul Hill's book, p. 151-152, where he discusses the
Tremonton film and cites it as evidence that the saucers were
using banked turns. Hill says he viewed the film repeatedly in
the 1950s at normal speed, slow motion, forward, backwards, and
stop motion (maybe upside-down and inside-out as well). He says
it was exactly what they did with the research vehicles they
flew at Wallops Island.

Hill comments: "What Ruppelt took to be fading in and out I was
sure was the presentation of broadside and edge views due to
banking. In stop motion, one could see the elliptic in-between
in some frames."

Thus, a very different conclusion from Hartmann. I really don't
see how the bright objects in the Tremonton film could be
"overexposed" "birds." I don't think it's physically possible,
unless the birds had mirror-like surfaces, which they don't.

Instead I think we have a situation as described by Hill, and
also by Kenneth Arnold, where the objects can appear to be
brilliantly bright seen in full, but fade out when seen in
profile.

Birds will also "fade out" to some extent in profile, but they
would never appear to be glowing and overexposed as in the
Tremonton film.

>On the
>other hand the further away the bird is not only the faster it
>needs to fly but the more efficiently it needs to reflect the
>sun. Wouls it be possible to put a lower limit on the light flux
>at the emulsion and then infer the emitted/reflected intensity
>from general principles? (I think the NPIC did something like
>this because they decided gulls were "not sufficiently
>actinic"
>but I don't know the detail of how they did it)

I think the Navy analysts got that right and Hartmann got it
wrong. No way will birds be reflective enough to glow like in
the film and outshine the sky.

>It would be interesting to hear from any researchers on the List
>who had personal knowledge of the Newhouse family or the
>investigation. Also I'd second Mike's query: Where can we see
>the entire film today?.

You might be interested to know that Canadian documentary film-
maker David Cherniak had planned to interview Newhouse last year
for his new UFO documentary, but Newhouse died only a day or two
before the interview. However, Newhouse's son was also a witness
to the objects, and David hoped to interview him in the future.
However, I don't know if he ever got back to do the interview.


David Rudiak


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