John Burroughs wrote:I would like to hear more on the Radition!!!
Andrew Pike wrote:Interesting that you also have Nevilles saying half a millirem or something similar. I clearly hear this as half a milliroentgen with my version. Also the value seven-tenths (0.7 in decimal form) is interesting. These suggest the values, as I have maintained for years, in the Halt memo should be 0.5 and 0.7 not .05 and .07. It seems the typist typed the 0 and . the wrong way around. There is much more on this in chapter five of my book, as well as the 0.1 milliroentgen value.
Storm wrote:I say that the dial is divided up into 10.
IanR wrote:Storm wrote:I say that the dial is divided up into 10.
But it isn't. It's divided into 5 as the picture shows. Each step is 0.1 mR and is further divided into 10. So seven tenths is 0.07. Halt tried to clarify when he said "Or seven units, let’s call it, on the point five scale".
BTW, good job on the new transcript. I'll try to find time to go through and listen again. If anyone isn't familiar with my own version, it's here
http://www.ianridpath.com/ufo/halttape.htm
Halt has seen and commented on it, and he didn't contest the "night bird" reading.
Ian
Storm wrote:NO Ian, the dial has three scales on it be fair. It has 1 to 10 markings just like a ruler, then these are further divided up into smaller divisions, 1 to 10. That makes the scale have a value of 100 small and 10 large calibrations.
Storm wrote:The "scoped" was the hardest. (....) Then you have to see if your word fits in context, which scoped would. And as he has said later he was using a lens to view the object it made it into my final draft.
Storm wrote:the only Tenths reference you can get from the instrument is of you look at the scale as divided mainly into 10, each of which is divided into 5, because if you use the smaller markings you would have to say 1 of 50, a 50th. I mean thats just obvious.
Silvertop wrote:I've often wondered just how much radiation there as you can hear the geiger counter on the tape going crackers.
Andrew Pike wrote:Let us be blunt Ian, if you do not believe there is anything to this case, or indeed you believe all UFOs can be explained by astronomical events and similar natural phenomena, why are you still here? Because it is only here, i.e. this site, isn't it.
Return to The Rendlesham forest incident
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests