Sceptiques vs. les Soucoupes Volantes: The Roswell Slides Saga: José De La Cruz Ríos López & Photography/Perspective....

This short article is an English translation (well, my English^^) of the French previous and more detailled one.

****

Recently, José de la Cruz Rios Lopez accepted to discuss and to defend his investigation in our FB discussion group.

Remember the main and crucial point of the Expert Rios Lopez (similar to Zalce expertize): The body in the slide cant be the Palmer's mummy because the size they calculated. Palmer Mummy is 73.6 cm and they calculate the body in the slide to be 120 cm long.

Rios Lopez investigation claiming a 120 cm body size...

Dr Zalce May the 5th conference screenshoot claiming a 120cm body size...

The standard they used is seriously flawed...

In our previous articles, we have already pointed how their methodology is seriously flawed. They use as "standard" the hips of the woman depicted in the slide and they claim it is 40 cm long. In no case it is a "standard" because:

a) They totally ignore the real size of the woman hips.

b) There exist interindividual differences in woman hips size/width, it can be 28 cm to 46 cm wide according to its sample of 148 women. But they pick 40 cm for a reason we ignore (NB: in the previous study, the average was 34,6 cm wide).

To be short, because they obtain the body is third times (120 cm) the woman hips (40 cm), for each 1 cm they are wrong concerning the real width of the woman hip, it implies 3 cm error for their body size estimation. Or, if we follow our previous women sample and their "method", the size may vary from 84 cm to 138 cm! But in the legend of the first figure above, we read +- 1 cm measurement error. Really?

Chart extracted from the study with N=148 women.

Alenjandro Franz N recreation using a better standard and obtaining 76.2 cm, closed the Palmer Mummy size...

The standard they used is BEHIND the body...

In their estimations, they dont care about perspective and how, because their standard is behind the body they are attempting to estimate the size, it will affect the calculations. In other words, they calculated as if the lady and the body have a ratio 1/1 and being in the exact same plane. Or, they forget to correct their (flawed) standard taking into account the distance & perspective.

When we pointed this fact, Rios Lopez explained us that because the lady is only about 30cm behind the body, its distance doesn't affect the calculations! It is again totally erroneous and a very wrong point.

For example (and only), if the body is about 1 meter the camera and then the lady 30 cm behind the body, in fact she would be 1/4 more wide (angular/apparent size) if she was in the same plane of the body. Or, if you prefer, the woman becomes 3/4 at 30 cm the size she should appear if she was at the same plane than the body. So, if we assume the hips are 40 cm wide - which is a fallacious argument, see before -, the standard corrected by perspective becomes 30 cm, and then the body size estimation becomes 90 cm.

They already have lost 30 cm!

They propose an IMPOSSIBLE slide/photograph...

The 3600 X 2432 copy of the slide we used (of course reduced for the blog)...

If we assume two seconds the body is 120 cm long, the 50mm camera must be placed about 173 cm to obtain what is depicted in the slide. Without to be 173 cm back a 120cm sized object, you (your camera) cant capture "fully" it cause the Angle of View of your 50mm camera (logic). First, as amateur photograph, I can assure you the photograph is not taken at 173 cm, but at a shorter distance. Let us to demonstrate it.

As Tim Printy proposed. The copy of the slide we used for the calculations is a 3600 X 2432.

With a 50mm camera, the 3600 pixels correspond with 36.9° (then 0.011°/pixel) - The angle of view (AoF) for a 50mm is 39.6° (horizontaly) for 35mm/36 x 24 format.

AoF for 36 x 24mm format and 50mm focal lengh.

The size in pixels of the body is about 3427 pixels (then 37.7°). The body is not perpendicular to the camera, but about 8° "inclined". If the body was perpendular and not about 8° inclined, it would be about 38.1° (37,7°/cos8).

A free sotware allows to obtain easy the distance, or linear/angular sizes when at least two known of them (distance, angular size or linear size).

So, two scenario are competing:

a) If the body is 120 cm long, the distance is 173 cm.

b) If it is the Palmer' mummy (73,6 cm) as we defend it is, the distance is 107 cm.

But what happens concerning the woman apparent size for these two different scenario?

An IMPOSSIBLE photograph where the woman must be in front the body (so not as the real slide) versus a POSSIBLE one where the woman remains behind the body (as in the real slide).

Remember they used the wide of the hip, but more exactly an half-hip (so 40 cm/2 = 20 cm) probably because the woman is not fully visible in the slide. The half-hip angular size we obtain from the slide is about 7.3°. So, for a 20 cm wide the distance will be... about 153 cm! It implies that the woman must be in front IF a 120 cm body (distance 173 cm) to be wide like she appears (apparent/angular size). But the real slide shows her behind the body, not in front. The "body size 120 cm scenario" is then impossible, or you must have the woman in front of the body, which is not the case in the real slide. (Following first figure).

On the other hand and for the "Palmer Mummy scenario", and then the 73.6 cm body size, the distance is 107 cm and the woman distance calculated about 48 cm behind the body (center of it). Matching the real slide then.

In essence, the 120 cm body size claimed by some experts seems to be falsified, and the 73,6 cm clearly matching the real slide. (Following second figure).

Clic or open the pictures in order to see them in max size.