UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 2007 > May > May 18

Re: Just A Few Roswell Questions - Rudiak

From: David Rudiak <drudiak.nul>
Date: Thu, 17 May 2007 11:38:15 -0700
Fwd Date: Fri, 18 May 2007 07:16:48 -0400
Subject: Re: Just A Few Roswell Questions - Rudiak

>From: Neil Morris <neil.nul>
>To: ufoupdates.nul
>Date: Wed, 16 May 2007 10:58:41 +0100
>Subject: Re: Just A Few Roswell Questions

>>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

>>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

>>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.

>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.

From what I've seen, test shots had nothing to do with it.
Andrew simply measured the angles between rug stripes in several
of the photos to arrive at his conclusion of two cameras with
two different focal lengths.

But unless you know the height of the camera and also where it
is pointed, you cannot conclude two focal lengths were involved
simply because there was a difference in stripe angles. E.g., if
the camera was pointed straight down at the feet, the stripes
would be parallel, but if pointed towards the wall (as in the
actual photos), the stripes will converge to a vanishing point.
This is true even with the camera at the same height.

In the Ramey/Dubose photos vs. one of the Marcel photos, the
camera is also clearly at very different heights. The cameraman
is standing for the Ramey/Dubose photos and kneeling down at
Marcel's level for the Marcel photo. This will also change the
rug stripe convergence angles even using the same camera.

>>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.

Bob Shell has already addressed these points.

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

>>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.

This is totally untrue. The length of the shadow projected into
the plane of the camera has everything to do with the sun's
position. E.g., assume a simple sundial stick. If the sun was
directly to the left, as assumed by Lavoie, the shadow to the
right of the stick would be the longest. But if the sun was
directly behind the camera, then the shadow would be on the
other side of the stick and have a length of zero from the
perspective of the camera. If the sun was at 45 degrees between
these two positions, the photographed shadowed would be about
70% of the length if the sun was directly to the left.

>>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.)

What this is all getting to, is that if Ramey's office was
diagonal to a N/S/E/W grid along with most of Fort Worth base,
the sun would have been left and _behind_ the camera, not
directly to the left. The photo could have been taken at a later
time of day but cast the same length of shadow from the camera's
perspective. Again, if the sun was 45 degrees behind and left of
the camera, the shadow would be about 70% of the length if the
sun were due left. Shadows later in the afternoon will get
progressively longer, but will still be foreshortened by the
angle of the sun relative to the camera.

>>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

>>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.

Even if one assumes this was a car and was perfectly identified,
this still doesn't explain how the bumper could cast the shadow
from the sun directly to the left, since sunlight to the bumper
would be blocked by the hood (bonnet to Brits) and fender of the
car at the time specified by Lavoie.

>>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


>>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.

Neil, you are contradicting yourself here. If NM and TX used
Standard Time back then and the military bases adoped the local
convention, then the bases would also have been using Standard

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

I'd appreciate that. This whole DST vs. Standard Time is another
confounding variable in trying to determine a timeline. However,
it has been firmly established that the base flying disc press
release first hit the AP news at 2:26 p.m. Roswell/Mountain
STANDARD Time or 3:26 in Fort Worth. And various period news
stories have Ramey beginning to change the story to a weather
balloon within an hour of this time and also being on the phone
with the Pentagon and at least one reporter (from the San
Francisco Examiner).

If Robert Shirkey's 2:00 p.m. departure time from Roswell (or
3:00 p.m. Fort Worth time) for Marcel's plane is reasonably
accurate, then Ramey was already changing the story to a weather
balloon before Marcel's plane even arrived in Fort Worth.

Other important times mentioned:

4:53 p.m. Central/Fort Worth Standard time: When Ramey's
involvement was first mentioned in AP bulletins. This is the
likely time when Johnson would have been dispatched for real by
the city editor to cover the story.

5:30 p.m. Central (Standard?) time: When the Dallas Morning News
said they were told by Ramey's operative Kirton that the object
had been definitely identified as a Rawin device and the flight
to Wright Field had been cancelled.

6:17 p.m. Central Standard Time: When the FBI telegram from
Dallas went out saying Kirton told them it was a weather balloon
and attached hexagonal radar reflector, Wright Field disagreed,
and the flight to Wright Field was still on.

>>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

Even if this is true, it still doesn't explain why Johnson
wouldn't have taken notes like a good reporter should have, or
at least have reported back orally to whomever did write the

It also doesn't explain why Johnson was so definite about being
the reporter to write the Star-Telegram/Associated Press article
when first interviewed by Kevin Randle, then later decided to
change this.

However, I suspect it has a lot to do with Johnson later
changing the story to Ramey not knowing what he had on his hands
from Johnson's original story that Ramey told him it was a
weather balloon.

Oddly this is also reflected in the Star-Telegram article
saying that both Ramey and Dubose instantly identified it as a
weather device and later bringing in the weather officer
(Newton) was basically all for show.

David Rudiak

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