astrophotographer wrote:Martin Shough and I may disagree on many things but the one thing I have noticed about his work over the years is he discusses the ideas put forth and does not resort to the usual UFO theatrics. I consider him one of those UFO proponents that deserve respect.
Hi again Tim, I think, it depends on your definition of ‘UFO proponent’ as I generally classify that as pro-ETH and whilst I may be wrong I don’t think Martin is of that particular persuasion, incidentally along with Ian Ridpath he’s one of my very few ‘go-to’ people. Granted, this is exclusively for UFO reports involving astronomy or possible celestial objects as my own understanding of such is limited to say the least, however, due to both respecting his opinion and with him being a research associate for NARCAP (and their involvement) I contacted him early on whilst researching the CEFAA footage. I then alerted him after I’d made my earlier post (regarding locating similar footage & including TheHoaxkiller’s animations) and he replied that he didn’t disagree with anything I’d suggested.
astrophotographer wrote:Yes, Hoaxkiller did a lot of the heavy lifting on this one but I think all of the individuals involved ATS deserve a good amount of credit as well. Many saw it for what it was pretty quickly. I am still trying to figure out how the astronomers analysis got twisted around. Is CEFAA really that bad at figuring out what he wrote or is there something else going on here?
Regarding the astronomer I know what you mean and I don’t know if it will be much help in understanding how or why he was misquoted but the following are the relevant –albeit brief- excerpts from the emails, first the question:
I was seeking a little clarification regarding the comments that are being attributed to you in your capacity as a CEFAA analyst, or more specifically the following statement posted to a mainstream news website by Leslie Kean:
“
Astronomer Luis Barrera highlighted heat on top and in the band below during his analysis. The black area is some kind of energy, and the neutral blue represents solid mass, according to Barrera."
Source:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/leslie-ke ... 42585.html Just to clarify this assertion, is this comment an accurate representation of what you concluded?
And the reply:
Sorry I have never concluded that "The black area is some kind of energy, and the neutral blue represents solid mass, according to Barrera." During the analysis of those videos, the main idea was the study of asymmetries in order to detect mass loss around the "object" (which is typically observed in small bodies falling to the earth ). On the other hand, such asymmetries can be used to compare it with the expected pattern of insect or birds flying in the field of view.
Perhaps more worthy of note were the correspondences I shared with Ted Roe regarding the footage as I also alerted him to my earlier post and he stated for the first time (that I’m aware of) NARCAP *
had* triangulated the footage and supported the findings of the other analysts:
In our review of the videos the object in question never touches the ground nor does it originate from the ground. We triangulate between the cameras, we can calculate the speed of the object in question and determine that its moving very, very quickly....
Yet strangely he closes with:
Let me remind you that we have not written an analysis not publicly stated a firm position so our place in this debate is secondary to CEFAA. We support their work and analysis to this point and await further data that we are told is forthcoming.
I say strangely because according to Haines the analysis was submitted to CEFAA months ago and he also stated that Roe was unaware of it at the time, this was of course learned from the email that Martin posted to UFOupdates which was also partly the reason I initially contacted Martin. (
As detailed here)
Cheers.
)
).
