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 - Heber

From: Amy Hebert <vanguard.nul>
Date: Sun, 1 Feb 2004 07:46:47 -0600
Fwd Date: Sun, 01 Feb 2004 12:23:36 -0500
Subject: Re: Whittlesea Australia UFO Photograph - Heber


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

>>From: Dan Bright <ufo.nul>
>>To: ufoupdates.nul
>>Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2004 19:12:14 -0000
>>Subject: Re: Whittlesea Australia UFO Photograph - Bright

>>I've posted two non-bicubic (genuine fractals algorithm)
>>enlargements on my site for the benefit of those who don't have
>>access to such image re-sampling software:

>>Image and enlargements: http://tinyurl.com/2espv

<snip>

>Twaddle! I have taken the time to post an example taken from the
>photo which refutes the claim of Mr. Anonymous that lighting and
>shadows are inconsistent between the crossing sign and the
>object in the sky.

>"Expert" my eye!
>See:

>http://www.virtuallystrange.net/ufo/ufoupdates/listers/WhatIsee/

>...and scroll to the last image on the page. Make up your own
>mind. So much for "anonymous experts" eh?

Hi John:

Although I see no evidence the photograph in question has been
faked, I did find various inconsistencies in your example.

In reproducing your 3D model of the Whittlesea UFO using my own
Bryce 5 (I use Bryce 5, Poser, Adobe, Paint Shop Pro 8 and
numerous other programs to create 3D graphics for my research
and the book I am writing), I discovered, quite by accident,
that the sun could not have been in the position you claim it
was in.

After creating a reproduction of your reproduction to see what I
might learn, I could not re-create the reflection of the sun off
the "dome" of the "domed disc" without placing the sun lower on
the horizon and in front of the "disc". In so doing, I noticed
something was wrong with the shadows. Placing the sun in a
position to create the same reflection on my 3D model "disc" as
the reflection on your 3D model "disc" created long shadows
totally inconsistent with the shadows in the original Whittlesea
UFO photograph.

Go to:

http://a-realitycheck.com/whittleseaufo/comparison.htm

(My new web site, "Reality Check" is not open yet but I wanted
to use some of the space I have there.)

Furthermore, the "shadows" the arrow points to in the last image
on your page are not consistent with the shadows from other
objects in the photograph. In fact, what the arrow seems to be
pointing to is not a shadow at all but merely a darker
coloration of the gravel behind the sign (notice the lighter
colorations on top of the dark - shadows don't do this).

You claim the light is coming from above, to the right and
slightly in *front* of all the objects in the photo. You also
claim the sun would have been over and slightly *behind* the
photographer's right shoulder. If this is true, where is the
photographer's shadow?

It seems as though you are altering the sun's location in the
sky in order to make your model appear more accurate.

Also in the process of analyzing the object in the photograph, I
developed another example of what the object may be. I had
thought it might be a bird but an accidental nudge of the mouse
caused an over contrast of the image and gave me a whole new
perspective of what might have been photographed.

Go to:

http://a-realitycheck.com/whittleseaufo/analysis.htm

We will probably never know what the Whittlesea UFO really was.


A. Hebert




[ 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