UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 2007 > May > May 16

Re: Just A Few Roswell Questions - Morris

From: Neil Morris <neil.nul>
Date: Wed, 16 May 2007 10:58:41 +0100
Fwd Date: Wed, 16 May 2007 14:31:49 -0400
Subject: Re: Just A Few Roswell Questions - Morris


>From: David Rudiak <drudiak.nul>
>To: <ufoupdates.nul>
>Date: Fri, 11 May 2007 11:09:40 -0700
>Subject: Re: Just A Few Roswell Questions

>>From: Neil Morris <neil.nul>
>>To: ufoupdates.nul
>>Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2007 10:29:06 +0100
>>Subject: Re: Just A Few Roswell Questions

>>The events of that afternoon in Fort Worth are far more complex
>>than it first seems. We now know from our lens analysis that
>>Bond only took 4 of the 7 known photographs,

>Not so. This is another of Andrew Lavoie's faulty analyses. He
>compared the angles between the rug stripes in the Ramey/Dubose
>photos and one of the Ramey alone photos with one of the Marcel
>photos (Marcel looking right). Because the stripe angle
>separation between the Ramey et al photos were similar whereas
>the Marcel photo stripes were more splayed out, he concluded
>that two different cameras with two different focal lengths were
>used.

>What's wrong with this conclusion? It doesn't take simple
>perspective into account. Lavoie would only be right if _all_
>the photos were taken at the same height. But they weren't. The
>stripe angles will change with the height of the camera above
>the rug even if one camera is used. It is very obvious just by
>eyeballing the photos that the Marcel photo was taken with the
>cameraman kneeling down at Marcel's level (e.g., the top of the
>radiator and the chair seats are just barely visible) while all
>the Ramey photos used were taken with the cameraman standing up
>(much more of the radiator top and the chair seats are exposed.

>The higher the camera (Ramey photos), the less skewed the
>stripes will be. The lower the camera, the more skewed they are.
>End of story. One camera could have taken all the photos.

David,

Andrew no longer subscibes to the mailing list but I will
forward your comments on to him. But from what I recall and
without checking back(this analysis was done back in 2005)
perspective was allowed for and not only that I personally
produced a set of test photographs (taken both in standing and
crouching hights) at 3 different focal lengths for Andrew to
test his analysis with. He himself sought out a professional
large format photographer who was also a camera collector (he
has several SpeedGraphic's) and between them they produced a
range of test images to cross check. I can also say that the
professional photog's first comment about the 4 UTA images were
that "these were not taken with the same lens" but that's only
an opinion from a photo professional who still uses 5x4 format
cameras in his day job.

>There could conceivably be two cameras at work here, but a
>simplistic and erroneous analysis like the one LaVoie used won't
>give us the definitive answer claimed by Lavoie and other
>members of the RPIT (Roswell Photointerpretation) group.

There are other factors too: 5x4 format flat sheet film had and
still has, a reference notch to locate the film sheet correctly
into the film holders. From this we can deduce which way the
camera taking the photograph was held _if_ it were a
SpeedGraphic. The Ramey, Ramey/DuBose and Marcel Right images
all follow a pattern and indicate the camera was rotated 90
degree counter clockwise, yet the Marcel Left would have had to
have been taken with the camera rotated 90 degrees in the
opposite direction had it been a SpeedGraphic. Photographers
even amatuer ones like myself are creatures of habit, it would
also be _very_ tricky to operate a SpeedGraphic in that odd
position with a handheld flash which is what Bond used.

There is also the circumstantial evidence that the Ramey and
RameyDuBose images were taken on one batch of film yet the
Marcel images were taken on film from a completely different
production line, as confirmed from the batch coding on the film
itself and aslo the negative archive coding that indicates the
two sets of negatives were processed and archived at different
times. And though far from conclusive evidence even the film
holders used for the Marcel shots are of a different brand and
style from those used for the Ramey images.

>>and that these
>>photographs we can time, due to the sun/shadow angle seen
>>through Ramey's office window to _3.15pm_ local
>>time(+-15mins).

>This is more of Lavoie's faulty analysis . As Kevin Randle tried
>to point out, we don't know the orientation of the room (and
>thus can't know for sure the position of the sun). Good point.
>Lavoie merely assumed that the sun was coming directly from the
>left, or west, i.e., assuming the walls of the room was laid out
>east/west and north/south.

If you know _where_ you are ie Fort Worth, you don't need
azimuth information _all_ you need is the elevation angle which
we checked against the US Navy astronomical database for sun
angles for Fort Worth on July 8th 1947.

>One indication that this probably isn't right is the fact,
>evident from aerial photographs, that most of the streets and
>building at the Fort Worth base are laid out diagonally, i.e.,
>at 45 degrees to the usual north/south/east/west grid. Was this
>also true of Ramey's office? I don't know, but it easily could
>have been.

>A more definite indication is the fact that the bottom edge of
>the shadow used by LaVoie is obviously _slanted_ upward to the
>right. In other words, the sun instead of being directly to the
>left, was instead to the left and _behind_. At 3:15 p.m. CST,
>the sun was at azimuth 264 deg., or almost due west (270 deg.)

>Lavoie also assumes the shadow was being cast by the bumper of a
>car and even claims to know the exact make and year ( 1941
>Buick).

The front fender seen in the image _is_ unique to the Series 60
Buick.

>Considering that all we can see of the outside is
>through a small slit in Ramey's curtain, this is truly amazing.
>In fact, what is really casting the shadow is entirely open to
>conjecture, as is the time of day. When I model something like
>an old 1940s Buick in a 3-D ray-tracer where I can simulate
>various angles of the sun at different times of day (and
>assuming different orientations of the car relative to the sun),
>I can't get anything like the shadow. E.g., assuming, as LaVoie
>did, that the sun is directly to the left at around 3:15 p.m.,
>the shadow from the hood and fender of the "Buick" totally
>obscures the bumper shadow. In other words, LaVoie's sundial
>"Buick" is more like a "bumper" floating in the air with no car
>behind it.

You can actually make out _very_ vaguely more of the same car in
the other Ramey UTA neg.

>My best guess is that the shadow-caster may be something simple
>like a concrete curb instead of a car bumper. The recessed
>"license plate holder" might instead be a drain in the curb.
>Whatever it is, it is being strongly illuminated by the sun on
>the top, which wouldn't be possible for a car bumper (rest of
>car is in the way).

>When I instead model a simple curb and assume Ramey's office is
>oriented diagonally (i.e. rotated about 45 degrees to a typical
>N/S/E/W grid), I get a time closer to two hours later, i.e.,
>around 5:15 p.m. CST. However given all the uncertainties, I
>don't have a lot of faith in that shadow time either.

>At least a later time is consistent with everything else. The
>story was already out, which is why J. Bond Johnson was
>dispatched to cover it to begin with. AP was apparently first to
>break the story on the newswire at 3:26 CST:

>AP chronology: http://roswellproof.com/AP_Chronology.html

>Comparing newspaper stories, Ramey began to change the story to
>weather balloon about an hour later (NY Times, San Francisco
>Examiner, Chicago Tribune). Acting AAF chief staff Vandenberg
>was also reported dropping into the AAF public relations office
>at the Pentagon to handle the crisis. Vandenberg's log again
>indicates he was out of his office for an hour again starting
>about hour after the initial AP newswire (from about 4:15 to
>5:15 CST). Ramey was called in Fort Worth from the Pentagon PR
>office. According to the Washington Post, Ramey gave a
>description, but then said he hadn't seen it yet! How could Bond
>Johnson have already photographed Ramey with the debris, yet
>Ramey hadn't seen it yet over an hour later?

>Johnson's orginal story was also that he got sent only because
>he happened to come in at the shift change, around 5:00 p.m.,
>and there was nobody else available. In fact, the first mention
>of Ramey's involvement by AP was a bulletin at 4:53 p.m. (saying
>Ramey _had_ shipped the "disc" to Wright Field). That at least
>is in accordance with Johnson's earlier accounts before he began
>altering his story.

>Another indication that this early photo time is all hooey comes
>from Robert Shirkey, the assistant operations officer at
>Roswell, who recalled Marcel's B-29 arriving and being loaded
>just after he got back from lunch. Shirkey thought it took off
>at around 2:00 p.m. Roswell time or 3:00 in Fort Worth. Flight
>time from Roswell to Fort Worth would be 1-1/2 to 2 hours (for
>comparison, a log of a B-29 flight the next day carrying the
>mysterious crate to Fort Worth had a flight time of 1 hour 55
>minutes). Then Marcel had to get from the B-29 to Ramey's
>office. (Robert Porter on the plane with Marcel said a guard was
>posted before they were allowed to leave.) Ramey wasn't in his
>office at first, said Marcel. When Ramey returned he showed
>Ramey some of the samples (laying them out on Ramey's desk, not
>the floor), then he and Ramey went to the map room before
>returning to Ramey's office. That's when the balloon switch
>occurred. The photos were taken afterwards. Thus we are talking
>probably around 2-1/2 hours to the photo session from Marcel's
>departure time from Roswell. If Shirkey was right about the
>time, the photos would likely have been taken around 5:30. Even
>if we push back Shirkey's time an hour, it would have been 4:30,
>or at least at hour after Johnson's imaginary pre-Roswell story
>photo shoot.

Please note that from our investigation into the complexities of
the adoption of Daylight Saving time in the US, back in the 40's
we also discovered that the US military _adopted_ and used DST
_whatever_ the use of DST was in the local area. This of course
could now totally confuse and muddy the timeline waters, _which_
times are actually being reported?. Military times will be DST
but civilian times reported will _not_ as NM and TX did not use
DST but the bases there would have.

David if you want the historical references for all this I can
probably dig them out for you.

>And remember, it was also around this time (i.e., around 4:30),
>according to the newspapers, that Ramey was on the phone with
>the Pentagon and claiming to not having seen the debris yet. So
>the actual photo shoot must have been later than this. It sure
>wasn't 3:15 plus or minus 15 minutes.

>>This puts Bond in Ramey's office _before_ the Roswell Disc story
>>broke on AP and nearly 3 hours _before_ Newton allegedly came
>>on duty(6pm) to have his picture taken with his debris.

>Again, this is total garbage. Given the multitudinous
>uncertainties, LaVoie's "precise" shadow time is highly
>questionable at best (it certainly can't be pinned down to
>within +/- 15 minutes), and all other evidence (including Bond
>Johnson's original story) points to the photos being taken much
>later.

>>When Bond took his pictures there was _no_ news story,

>But in Johnson's original account, he was dispatched because
>there _was_ a news story. In fact, he said his editor had gotten
>Ramey's involvement from the AP newswire which is why he was
>sent to the base. This would suggest around 4:53 p.m. time when
>AP first mentioned Ramey.

>>he didn't even take any written copy just the photos.

>But when Kevin Randle originally interviewed Johnson, several
>times he claimed to be the author of the AP story. At the very
>least he would have conveyed to someone at the Star-Telegram
>what he had been told by Ramey.

He _didn't_ write any story that night, the journalist who was
in the ST office that evening confirmed _all_ the "disc" stories
published in the ST were compiled and written by the city desk
editor, who's name I would have to dig out of my files, but I do
have.

Neil


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