UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 2004 > Feb > Feb 3

Re: Whittlesea Australia UFO Photograph - Velez

From: John Velez <johnvelez.aic.nul>
Date: Mon, 2 Feb 2004 17:22:45 -0500
Fwd Date: Tue, 03 Feb 2004 08:09:21 -0500
Subject: Re: Whittlesea Australia UFO Photograph - Velez


>From: Amy Hebert <vanguard.nul>
>To: <ufoupdates.nul>
>Date: Sun, 1 Feb 2004 21:54:27 -0600
>Subject: Re: Whittlesea Australia UFO Photograph

>>From: John Velez <johnvelez.aic.nul>
>>To: ufoupdates.nul
>>Date: Sun, 1 Feb 2004 15:15:10 -0500
>>Subject: Re: Whittlesea Australia UFO Photograph

>>>From: Amy Hebert <vanguard.nul>
>>>To: <ufoupdates.nul>
>>>Date: Sun, 1 Feb 2004 07:46:47 -0600
>>>Subject: Re: Whittlesea Australia UFO Photograph

>>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?

Hello Amy,

BTW, this is the last post from you that I will be responding
to. Although you do make 'some' good contributions and make some
intelligent observations from time to time, you consistently
lose it whenever you address me. I have already told you that I
have much more productive things to do with the time of my life
than to dance around with you. With you, it's either "your way
or the highway." Enough already.

So... enjoy this, it'll be the last you hear from me for awhile
anyway.

You insult me with:

>No, inconsistencies between the location of the light source in
>an illustration and the location of the light source (and
>resulting shadows) in the original image is not "faking" it,
>it's just not paying attention to detail or ignoring it.

You really are funny. You have no idea at what time of day the
photo was taken. Yet you claim 'inconsistencies' in my 3D
rendition.

1. The time of day was two minutes before 3 pm, Oz time - which
puts the sun a lot lower in the sky than you 'think' it was.
Right out of the box, your estimation of where in the sky the
sun is is off by at least an hour.

2. Without knowing _anything_ at all about the 3D model I
created (for my own edification) you claim that I positioned
elements and lighting in the wrong place. Amy, how in heavens'
name can you know what I did when you didn't even bother to ask
me? That's what prompted the 'psychic hotline' comment. You
would have to be to know what you 'claim' to know.

3. You are always on about everybody's 'misperceptions' with the
glaring exception of ever criticizing your own. You have created
a model of a brown turd-like structure with large white wings
using _several_ pieces of software including some intendedfor
'drawing and painting', called it a "fly" and claim that it
resembles the Whittlesea object. This whole thing is just an
exercise in proving yourself 'right' somehow and everybody else
who sees what I see, (a domed disc) is wrong. Because you have a
'book' to sell you won't stop until everybody says, "You're
right Amy, it's a fly." It ain't gonna happen with me. Which is
why I am terminating communication with you. It's pointless.

>Show me where the
>sun was in your illustration compared to the location of the sun
>in the Whittlesea UFO photograph and where it would have been at
>approximately 2:00pm on the day the photograph was taken.

Now you ask me to show you! <LOL> Why, I was laboring under the
delusion that you already knew! You have said repeatedly that I
placed the sun in the wrong position several times. Wouldn't you
have to know 'where' I placed it in order to make such a
comment? Why ask me if you already 'know?'

Ahem, that's _3:00 pm_ not 2 pm. The sun was lower in the sky
than you think it was. I believe it is _you_ who do not know (or
have a clue) as to 'where' the sun is coming from in the
Whittlesea photo. You know the old mechanics' saying; "put brain
'in gear' _before_ engaging mouth!"  <g>

>>>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?

>Since the book I am writing has nothing to do with the topic at
>hand, this conversation is actually more of a distraction than a
>bid for attention eh?

No Amy. I'm calling it like I see it. What original
contributions have you made to ufology that warrant a whole
'book?'

I have a question about your "Reality Check" website; is it _us_
or _you_ who supposedly and in your estimation need a "Reality
Check"? Even the name of it is condescending. It's kind of an
insulting name for a website that purports to be investigative
and open-minded eh?

Bottom line, it is all just a means for you to promote yourself
as a legitimate UFO researcher, which you are not.

>Unfortunately, the experiment I conducted did not produce the
>same results as outlined by your procedures.

Of course not. That's because you haven't got the foggiest
notion as to what I did, or didn't do.

>Furthermore, my
>analysis of the Whittlesea UFO photograph indicates the sun was
>above, to the right and _behind_ the objects in the foreground
>not above, to the right and _in front_ or just over and behind
>the photographer's right shoulder as you claim.

Gee, I guess your "analysis" must be wrong then.

>It does not take a rocket scientist or a Bryce 'expert' to see
>that the reflection of the sun on your "domed disc" is not
>consistent with the shadows and position of the sun in the
>Whittlesea UFO photograph.

You're living proof of that.  :0

Talk to you some other time, Amy. Not enough hours in a day for
me to waste it all verbally dancing around in circles with you.
Besides, you don't even have your basic facts straight, it's all
a waste of time anyway.

Remember now... 3 pm not 2 pm. The sun was lower in the sky than
you 'think' it was. (Or would like it to be!)


Sayonara, it's been real,

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