From: "Terry J. Blanton" <commengr@bellsouth.net>
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1998 21:38:11 -0700
Fwd Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1998 10:01:17 -0400
Subject: Re: UPN's 'Danger in our Skies' and holographs

Bruce Maccabee wrote:

> Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1998 00:46:53 -0400
> From: Bruce Maccabee <brumac@compuserve.com>
> Subject: UFO UpDate: Re: UPN's 'Danger in our Skies' and holographs
> To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>

<snip>

> I guess you have't read my article in the MUFON Journal (april).

> Measurements of th angular size (image size) of the UO
> (unidentified object) show that it is constant until a couple of
> seconds before it disappears the second time behind the higher
> building. If the image size is interpreted as being inversely
> proportional to the distance (a logical assumption) then it
> maintain nearly a constant distance for most of the time
> (probably traveled along a straight or nearly straight track
> perpendicular to the camera field of view) and then moved away
> rapidly.

> IN fact, the data suggest an acceleration as the object abruptly
> turned to its left. Obviously such an effect could be
> synthesized... assuming the nasty synthesizer would think of
> it...I might point out that this video is being analyzed almost
> pixel by pixel.......

Okay, I went back and reviewed the video and I agree with you --
the object is receding from the camera as it disappears behind
the last building.  And it would not have to move very far from
the camera to disappear in the smoggy haze.

While my faith meter has improved slightly, it would get a bigger
jolt by having the photographer come forward. The ability to
create an amazingly realistic image is easily within the realm of
the home PC. Software has come a long way and I doubt I would
believe any anomalous image on the merits of the image alone. I
put more faith in the testimony of the witnesses. I've been
burned by more than one anonymous video.

Don't misunderstand. I'm a firm believer in alien visitation.
But I want the smoking gun AND the trigger finger before I can
call the images believeable.

A great example of this is Walter's video over the bay.  Here is
an object experiencing over 100 g's in it's movement with an
obvious shadow on the trees on the opposite side WITH the
testimony of the cameraman.

I think Ed filmed a real object and I doubt it's one of ours.

Terry