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: Sun, 1 Feb 2004 15:15:10 -0500
Fwd Date: Sun, 01 Feb 2004 16:16:56 -0500
Subject: Re: Whittlesea Australia UFO Photograph - Velez


>From: Amy Hebert <vanguard.nul>
>To: <ufoupdates.nul>
>Date: Sun, 1 Feb 2004 07:46:47 -0600
>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

>>>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?

Hello Amy, All,

Here we go again....you wrote:

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

Let me see if I get this straight, you don't see any evidence of
fakery in the Whittlesea photo but _I_ am faking my
illustrations. Am I reading you correctly?

I'm not even going to dignify that lame accusation with a
response. I will however accept your 'amateur' opinion (for what
it's worth) that you don't find any evidence of fakery in the
Whittlesea photo.

>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),

Wow! Writing a 'book' eh? I'll bet getting some attention so
people will want to read it is an important activity eh?

BTW, I'm impressed with all the software you own. I have 'oodles
of software too.' I spent two years of my life (full-time) in
computer labs at Long Island University learning how to use it
all. Where did you go to learn to use yours?

>I discovered, quite by accident,
>that the sun could not have been in the position you claim it
>was in.

That must have been some accident, Amy. Without having seen the
mesh from my original to know precisely 'where' in the 3D
space/environment I placed the object I created and the light
source in the scene, you have determined that the sun was not in
the position I "claim" it was in.

And you were able to determine that by randomly placing objects
'in your 3D space and assuming that it is identical to where I
placed mine. You missed your calling; ufology is a waste of your
talents, should be working for the psychic hotline!

Give me a break, please.....

>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

Sister Mary Margaret, don't make me laugh! This is a joke right?
If you see a 'fly' in the Whittlesea photo you really need to
have your eyes examined.

To call your graphic depiction and comparison of a fly to the
Whittlesea photo a 'wild stretch of the imagination' is to give
it more credit than it deserves. Get yer eyes checked, lady!

You see a "fly!"  <LMAO>

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

Sadly, no, we will probably never know the truth about the
Whittlesea photo. Thanks to *amateurs with an Internet soapbox
we can all look forward to having ever more obstacles to
overcome.

When this List first started it was closed to all save people
who had a 'legitimate' connection to the phenomenon. ie;
research people, investigators, their witnesses etc. Don't get
me wrong, I love the richness that the influx of voices, ideas,
and theories that manifested when EBK opened the List to the
public. It's just that in order to gain the benefits of an 'open
List', the price paid was an increase in static noise from
'armchair' amateurs with Internet access, some software, a book
to sell, a website to promote and two cents worth of very
personal theories and opinions.

So far the diversity gained has been worth the price. I just
pine for the old days from time to time is all.  ;)


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