UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 2004 > Feb > Feb 7

Re: Whittlesea Australia UFO Photograph - Maccabee

From: Bruce Maccabee <brumac.nul>
Date: Fri, 6 Feb 2004 13:49:08 -0500
Fwd Date: Sat, 07 Feb 2004 08:17:28 -0500
Subject: Re: Whittlesea Australia UFO Photograph - Maccabee

>From: John Velez <johnvelez.aic.nul>
>To: ufoupdates.nul
>Date: Thu, 5 Feb 2004 11:56:47 -0500
>Subject: Re: Whittlesea Australia UFO Photograph

>>From: Bruce Maccabee <brumac.nul>
>>To: <ufoupdates.nul>
>>Date: Thu, 5 Feb 2004 00:23:50 -0500
>>Subject: Re: Whittlesea Australia UFO Photograph

>Could better size, distance and speed estimates be obtained by
>getting more detailed information directly from the camera man
>himself? E.g. If we knew the precise distance to the first
>telephone pole (from the camera) would that information aid in
>determining the distance to the object in question.

>Getting some kind of read on size, distance and speed is
>paramount to our ability to determine if it is a 'bird' or a
>'fly' that was captured in mid-flight.

Knowing the distance is very important, obviously. Unfortunately
even if we knew exact distances to all the known objects in the
photo that wouldn't help us determine the distance to the UO
(unknown object). If we knew, a priori, some information about
the object (such as its size!) we could determine the distance.
In a rare case (McMinnville photos) the photographic information
was sufficient to provide a distance estimate based on
atmospheric attenuation and scatering of light. Unfortunately
the image conditions that pertained to the (first) McMinnville
photo do not occur here. HAD THERE BEEN VISUAL WITNESSES.... we
might be in a better position to estimate distance. If, for
example someone had said "it went behind the telephone pole"...
well, then we would know it wasn't a bug. And so on.

*Amy: You keep saying that 'some people have identified the
object as a flying saucer' which isn't true. There is a huge
difference between someone saying that what they see 'looks'
like a flying saucer, and a statement that it _is_ a flying
saucer. Until you learn to make that simple distinction you're
going to have trouble understanding what many of us _are_

I really don't believe that any of the members of this List are
ignorant enough to make such a wild and unsubstantiated claim. I
am deeply surprised that you do think so. This is a pretty
bright group of individuals (overall) that we have assembled
here. A lot of contentious bickering could be eliminated if you
stop insisting on misinterpreting what people are saying.

Let's all get on the same page here. We'll get a lot more
accomplished and with minimal disruption in the flow of the work
being done.

[ 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