UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 2002 > Nov > Nov 12

Re: UAVs vs 'Rods'

From: Amy Hebert <yellowrose129.nul>
Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2002 09:59:01 -0600
Archived: Tue, 12 Nov 2002 15:25:22 -0500
Subject: Re: UAVs vs 'Rods'

>From: Don Ledger <dledger.nul>
>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates.nul>
>Date: Mon, 11 Nov 2002 23:00:14 -0400
>Subject: Re: UAVs vs 'Rods'

>>From: Amy Hebert <yellowrose129.nul>
>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates.nul>
>>Date: Sun, 10 Nov 2002 16:42:49 -0600
>>Subject: UAVs vs 'Rods'

>>Although most 'Rod' images have been demonstrated to be flying
>>insects frozen in flight - see the IFO Database:


>Hi Amy,

>I checked out some of the IFO sites claims of birds in flight.
>It looks to me as if he went out and took pictures of birds in
>flight - which they obviously were - and then identified them as
>birds in flight. Some of the others were not so obvious yet he
>claims they were birds in flight with no real proof of that.

Hi, Don:

That "he" is a 'she' and it is me. I created the IFO Database
and all the images, except where otherwise noted, belong to me.

That's the whole point of an IFO Database - to collect and
catalog images of IFO's or Identified Flying Objects for use in
comparing images of alleged UFO's to images of known flying

Much like chemists use databases of spectral analyses of known
substances to help identify the contents of unknown substances
and astrophysicists use spectroscopy to determine the chemical
composition of the stars (based on a database of the known
spectra of various elements), I am developing a database of
images of known or identified flying objects to assist in the
analyses of unidentified flying objects or UFO's as a research

I identified each flying object before I photographed or video
taped it so I would know what the image represented and thus
created a catalog of images of IFO's or Identified Flying
Objects. Although some of the images may not seem clear to you,
I was there, I was the photographer and I know what they were.

Common objects we see every day in the skies above us
can appear to be many things when captured in a photograph
or on video tape (or digital). If I had presented my images
of bird, bugs, debris and conventional aircraft as UFO's,
would you have known they were all really images of IFO's?

We may not be able to use images of IFO's to positively
identify all alleged images of UFO's but it helps to have a
database of images of known objects to begin our
analyses. I've learned a lot just from going out and
photographing IFO's and studying the visual and behavioral
characteristics of birds and other flying objects and how many
shapes, sizes and forms they can take when frozen in time and
captured on film. I highly recommend you try it. In fact, it
should be a required process for anyone wishing to become
a qualified observer, investigator or researcher of aerial

>I'd caution you in the use of UAVs as an explanation for the
>Albany sighting and the Brighton Police sighting. The Albany
>sighting still looks like a insect generated shutter abberation
>on a video camera to me.

As a part of the IFO Database, I have been studying the
characteristics of images of so-called "rods" and how these
images may have been produced. I would have quickly identified
the Albany UFO as an insect in flight except for the fact that
it _appears_ to go behind several clouds. Unless the footage has
been altered in some way to make it appear that the object is
flying above the clouds, we are left with a mystery object that
does not fit the typical profile of images of insects in flight
(I know, I've been studying and reproducing these images for
years - of insects in flight).

You may caution me about using UAV's as a possible explanation
for some UFOs but it makes more sense, to me, to consider all
possible explanations regardless of what the FAA regulations
state or what we have been _told_ about how the military
conducts it's operations. Considering UAV's as a possible
explanation makes a lot more sense than claiming it is from
another planet with little ETs running around inside. And since
we are studying phenomena, we need to include the most logical
explanations in our analyses no matter how much these
explanations may conflict with our belief systems.

>The Brighton police sighting is harder
>to explain. As for UAVs, check your aviation regulations FAA and
>CAA and find me one that permits the military to fly these
>things in anything but a war zone or a practice area known as a
>MOA or Military Operations Area. Think what you are talking
>about here, an unmanned test vehicle, in each case flying over
>two heavily populated regions.

I never said it was a test vehicle. And how do you know it was
military? For all we know it could have been an operational UAV,
not an experimental or test vehicle, and it could have belonged
to non-military related agencies.

Anything is possible these days and if we are seeing it, it
could belong to just about anyone.

>Number one - the law does not allow this and two - it's stupid
>and irresponsible.And if you want three-what happens if it
>malfunctions and crashes into one of these populated regions?

If they can make UAV's, rather MAV's, 6 inches in diameter and
smaller, how much more dangerous can these be than large birds
and seagulls that often fly in and around airports and populated
regions? I think there is more danger from uncontrolled large
birds and terrorists than there is from remote controlled UAV's
and MAV's.

But you're right, we must consider what might happen if one of
these objects malfunctioned and crashed into a populated region.
What would happen if we were not suppose to know they were
flying these things up there against FAA regulations and they
crashed? How might they recover these objects without alerting
the public or the press? Hmmm. But then, they would _never_ do
such a thing because the government _never_ lies to us and they
always follow the FAA regulations. Nope, they must be from
another planet because they cannot be ours, no way.

>I'd advise everyone to think carefully before attributing UFOs
>to UAVs and experimental test vehicles when it comes to densely
>populated areas and violating high use control zones. Certainly
>no UAVs would ever be permitted there.

Why are you so sure of this, Don?

>Albany incidentally has a control zone that is 20 nautical
> miles in diameter with its center at Albany RCO. It has a
>double ARSA [Airport Radar Service Area] each of which stretches
>upward about 1 mile AGL.

What about... below radar? How do they regulate flying objects
that do not show up on radar if they don't even know they are
there? What are the regulations concerning small objects that
fly below radar?

What if someone flies a remote controlled model airplane into a
busy airport or populated region with explosives or biochemical
agents on board? If they fly below radar, how can they be
detected and how can they be regulated?

Isn't it even remotely possible, Don, that there are UAV's
and/or MAV's being flown over populated regions despite what we
are being told and some of these objects could be identified as

Amy Hebert
(web master and creator of the IFO Database ;>)

[ Next Message | Previous Message | This Day's Messages ]
This Month's Index |

UFO UpDates Main Index

UFO UpDates - Toronto - Operated by Errol Bruce-Knapp

Archive programming by Glenn Campbell at Glenn-Campbell.com