reply to post by elevenaugust
Ok, so for those who are still interested in the case, here are the answers from Maccabee to my questions:
1-
Maccabee: To have a nearby object would require light emanating from the bottom, which makes the simple hanging of a pie-plate or truck
mirror less likely.
Me: OK, but what about a translucent (or semi-translucent) model? You did mention the possibility in your on-line analysis, talking about some
experimentation you have done about this point, but without exposing these further.
Maccabee: I recall (From nearly 37 years ago) that I experimented with a white paper model. My intent was to produce a bottom that was a
source of light that would also be uniform in brightness. I found that the paper model that was simple to make and has the same basic shape as the
UFO did not have a uniform brightness across the bottom. But then I realized that if one altered the shape appropriately one could probably make a
model that would satisfy the bottom brightness requirement. But then the question becomes, would the Trent's have built it in such a way as to have
a uniform bottom brightness? I don't think anyone would argue that Paul Trent designed his model to have a uniform bottom brightness.
More likely he grabbed something available to hang from the wire. Building a paper model would require some effort as opposed to hanging something
that already exists.
The bottom line is that one could imagine that he hung a model that "accidently" had the required bottom brightness distribution under the sunset
conditions at the time. Thus the distance calculation based on the bottom brightness and atmospheric effects must be considered biased in Trent's
favor, but not absolute proof that the object was distant.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
2-
Me: I'm not sure if you're aware of the work done by Mr Claude POHER back in 1977 about McMinnville (the report for the French CNES was
unfortunately only written in French, but I can do a translation for you if necessary). To make it short, he agreed with the translucent model
hypothesis, but its conclusion (mainly based on ground experimentations as well) was exactly the opposite of yours, i-e that a "translucent model
made of opal plastic material" could have been used.
Anyway, if a hoax, one have to prove that the model/material used could be easily be found by the Trent back in 1950; I guess that a translucent
plastic model would not be that easy to find.
Maccabee: I was aware of Poher's analysis. I agree that in those days there was not the same use of plastic as we have now. That is why I
based my analysis on a paper model.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
3-
Me: Oddly, I haven't found anywhere the mention of a possible underneath hollow model. Did you ever thought of this hypothesis?
Maccabee: I don't recall thinking specifically of a model with no bottom. But the same requirement would exist: the brightness across the
bottom must be uniform.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
4-
Me: I recently saw on an Internet UFO blog the mention of a 30s separation time between the two shoots, this blog quoting as the source of
this affirmation a magazine: "Official UFO" from 1977. I have found the magazine and bought it and did find that this data was given by "David A.
Kennedy" in an letter to the editor-in-chief of this magazine. Do you have any input about this data?
Maccabee: I don't recall this in Official UFO. However, for the first time in years I opened my copy of the infamous Condon Report (Colorado
University ) and therein I find, in Hartmann's report, "within 30 seconds". This is probably where Kennedy got his time. My guess is that the
time between pix could have been as short as 10-15 seconds.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now, I guess that what's comes up from this exchange is that, in the hoax hypothesis, the small model with no bottom is the more likely.
Next step would be to trying to reproduce the shoots, with the more possible similar data than those at the McMinnville farm back in 1950.