From: Dave Kauble <dkauble@iquest.net>
Date: Thu, 19 Feb 1998 13:30:07 -0500
Fwd Date: Thu, 19 Feb 1998 21:33:22 -0500
Subject: Re: Pilot's Incredible Sighting & Photo


>Date: Wed, 18 Feb 1998 09:40:11 +0200
>From: Jakes Louw <LOUWJE@telkom.co.za>
>To: updates@globalserve.net
>Subject: UFO UpDate: Pilot's Incredible Sighting & Photo

>Dave

>The "object" is clearly due to the fact that the
>shot was taken through a canopy or porthole, and
>there is an object inside with the cameraman
>that is reflecting sunlight, causing an image on
>the reflective surface.

>Why: glider is at some distance, so most cameras
>would register the shot as infinity, but object
>appears radically out of focus; also the
>reflected image clearly interferes with the
>demarcated edge of the gliders' wings, which means
>the image is closer to the camera than the
>glider; the time of sighting (200 PM PST) would
>indicate that the sun would be highly elevated,
>and ideal for giving anomylous reflections of
>such diverse things as the dashboard or canopy
>frame/surround.

>Why has this only surfaced now, after nearly 10 years?

>Can anybody verify John Kings' story: anybody from
>any of the other aircraft?


Jakes

The object cannot be dismissed as a reflection inside the canopy of one
plane.

As the account below the photo explains, the photo was taken from a
chase plane and was observed by BOTH pilots.  Several pictures were
taken with the Minolta camera.

The only explanation I can offer, without knowing John English's
reasons, are that, similar to many pilots, offering such evidence and
making such claims can damage a flying career. Perhaps John has other
reasons, but I can assure you that his account and picture were offered
for free, and as he says, he still has the negative.  I gather his
motives are sincere, since no money is involved, and his name and e-mail
were proferred openly.  Mr. English also questions what it was that he
and the other pilot saw, but undoubtedly they saw something.

I don't suppose to know what was seen, but the credibility of the
observers appears to be good, and therefore what was seen was something
tangible and not a camera goof.

As Mr. King states, only with scrutiny and analysis will we learn more.
That is what I expected when I posted the report and the photo, and why
I did so.

Best,

Dave