UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 2004 > Feb > Feb 1

Re: Whittlesea Australia UFO Photograph - Velez

From: John Velez <johnvelez.aic.nul>
Date: Sat, 31 Jan 2004 22:57:32 -0500
Fwd Date: Sun, 01 Feb 2004 11:38:47 -0500
Subject: Re: Whittlesea Australia UFO Photograph - Velez

>From: Dan Bright <ufo.nul>
>To: ufoupdates.nul
>Date: Sat, 31 Jan 2004 16:13:35 -0000
>Subject: Re: Whittlesea Australia UFO Photograph

>>From: John Velez <johnvelez.aic.nul>
>>To: ufoupdates.nul
>>Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2004 15:56:12 -0500
>>Subject: Re: Whittlesea Australia UFO Photograph

>>>He concluded that it appears to show characteristics that may be
>>>consistent with image manipulation.

>>There is absolutely no evidence _anywhere_ in the photo of
>>'manipulation' of any kind.

Howdy Dan,

You inquired:

>What do you make of the missing 'fringe'?

There is so much 'noise' surrounding the 'flying saucer' that
any 'fringe' would be lost in it. One poster has proposed that
the pixel noise that surrounds the object _is_ the 'fringe'!

BTW, I don't like to dignify your friend's 'opinion' by using
the term 'analysis'. I'm convinced your friend spent all of
three- and-a-half minutes conducting his so called, 'analysis'.
In your friend's own words: "If you zoom in on the 'UFO' you can
see that there's a lot of pixel noise around it, but the fringe
is missing."

Duh, if there is a 'fringe' surrounding the object how is one
to see it, separate it, tell it apart from, all the noise? Once
the visual noise reaches a certain level it begins to 'mask'
(wash-out) detail. Sometimes you can't have it both ways.
It's either 'clean' enough to allow observation of subtle detail,
or there is enough visual noise to wash-out those same details

>Regarding your Bryce 3D comparison, I particularly liked that -
>I was going to try it myself but you beat me to it.

The race is to the swiftest my friend! <g>

I wanted to produce a 3D object that was 'visually' based on my
own perception of the object in the Whittlesea photo. Bryce is
perfect for the job. I have other, deeper 3D creation software
on my hard drive, but none whose basic palette is so amply
suited and whose interface is so simple and intuitive for the
task as Bryce.

To briefly recap the procedure:

First, I created a lens shaped object and turned it on its side
so as to be seen 'edge-on.' I then created a 'sphere', sized it
and attached it to the lenticular/lens shaped object. After
combining the two elements into a single object, I added a
'texture' to the surface of it. I chose 'brushed aluminum' from
the Bryce menu because that is what my eye sees on the object in
the Whittlesea photo.

Next, the object was carefully positioned (in relation to the
horizon of the 3D space) at the same viewing angle we see the
Whittlesea object in. After that I selected a 'sky dome' that
matched Whittlesea as closely as I could manage for both color
and brightness. Created lighting that comes from the 'right' of
the 3D space, just as in the Whittlesea photo, was the last
operation performed.

As you can see (refer to graphics at URL provided) the end
result is almost a dead match-up (sans the motion blurring) for
the object in the Whittlesea photo.


>Naturally, I fully accept that a thorough investigation
>of the witness and sighting (including more rigorous image
>analyses than the preliminary findings reported here) would be
>needed to draw any definitive conclusions vis-a-vis the case per

They'll be debating this one long after you and I have departed
from this mortal coil, amigo!<lol> They're still debating the
Trent photo for Pete's sake, this one is pristine, new.

*Hey Errol, Woodsey, maybe it's a photo of one of those
'aerodynamic bananas' we talked about on SDI some time back.


John Velez

[ 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