There are two issues here. The negative and the print. First I think you actually need to understand what occurs when photons contact a photosensitive medium. With overexposure, the details of the subject become increasingly “lost” (that is no longer “stored” on the medium). This because the number of photons contacting any particular place on the medium will finally add up to a complete “whiteout” (ie; a completely clear negative in which NO detail is discernable – and it is utterly impossible to recover).
Thanks for the darkroom 101 lesson but I have spent many more hours in the darkroom than you probably could imagine.
Cloud patterns the same? See analysis provided in the link above.
Wind? Have a look at the lower level clouds in P4. They clearly demonstrate a quite strong wind blowing from right to left of frame. Plus the striated appearance of the upper clouds indicate that there were upper atmosphere winds as well.
So, you could not do it yourself. Nice try. Shough's work refutes some of what you stated. He comes up with times that are in the matter of minutes (something I had mentioned previously) between the photographs. Additionally, if you read what he wrote, the winds blow from east to west at Trindade and this is his theory regarding the photographs and the clouds. That being the clouds are moving from LEFT TO RIGHT.
Your statements here actually reveal more about your level of professionalism than they do mine.
I have never claimed to be a scientist but you have. You have yet to demonstrate that you are actually trained in such a profession.
When you provide your references that is (getting them out of you is like pulling teeth! LOL). I have never claimed any special knowledge. I merely present the evidence as I see it (complete WITH references).
You know, all I keep seeing is you parroting what these websites tell you and even then you don't read them completely. I make no apologies about presenting information and I am not writing a term paper for you. If you request a reference, I have readily provided it. For some reason, you are too lazy or not smart enough to find the information for yourself. As a result, any opinion you have offerred so far is invalid because you have not researched the topic thoroughly.
1) see here: (
http://www.martinshough.com/aerialphenomena/trindade/clouds.htm)
2) Have a look at the cloud patterns in (particularly) P4. Lower level winds probably generally north easterly - upper level winds possibly southerly.
3) Given the movement of the clouds between photos it is apparent that the wind is fairly strong. How about 35kts?
4) Oh really… Just compare the originals with what he presented.
1) Shough does not demonstrate a match that conforms to the short time period mentioned by the witnesses.
2) The clouds, according to Shough, are moving in a direction towards the west and the winds are E or SE.
3) He also indicates the normal winds are not that great. Can you show us the math you used to compute the wind speeds? I find your estimate incorrect and based on nothing presented. The seas are reasonably mild. A 35 kt wind would chop them up something awful. Additionally, it would have made for a rather unstable operation in operating launches (which had just occurred at the time of the event). Having spent many hours at sea, I think I can confidently state that winds of 35 kts make it very difficult for small craft to operate.
4) He states he used an equilization filter. You claimed he used diffferent filters or filtering methods. I am asking how you determined this? Did you perform some tests on the images or was it your "seat of the pants" estimate?
FYI: My assessment was:
If you look at the photos with a critical eye, you will note that the camera is only slightly below the level of the top of the fuel-oil tank! (That is we can almost see the top of the tank - and in photo 2 the line of the siding board on the house - which is almost level with the height of the top of the tank - forms a continuous line with the top of the tank. If the camera were much lower (like waist high) then that board line would be below the top of the tank).
I suggest you read how Dr. Maccabee placed the horizontal then. See my post above. He states the horizontal for the camera was at the lower portion of the tank. Can you demonstrate his "critical eye" is not as good as yours?
Sometimes, all it takes is the power of observation
You seem to think that past researchers are “all knowing, all seeing” and that they have missed nothing. Well you are mistaken. They have missed the simple assessment that I have made as to where the height of the camera is. Perhaps it was too simple for them, wrapped up in minute technical details… perhaps a too obvious a thing for them to have thought of… this often happens in science… people work for centuries on a problem, then some bright spark comes along and says “oh, but you have not seen it from this perspective…” Did you know Newton had a cat? He cut a hole in his door to let it in and out. The cat had kittens… he cut extra smaller holes in his door to let them in and out also… great mind as he was he failed to recognise that the kittens could have also gone through the original hole! LOL.!
In other words, you can't present evidence and it is another "seat of the pants" guess because, based on your powers of perception, you are better than everybody else. I have presented it in a follow-up post above. I suggest you compare the photos taken by Hartmann in the Condon study (which he apparently took standing up straight) and those with the Trent's. There is a significant difference between the horizontal/horizon in relation to the garage and house. The only way that can happen is if the camera was at a lower elevation.
http://www.ncas.org/condon/text/images/pl25.jpg
and
http://www.ncas.org/condon/text/images/pl23.jpg
