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: The Beveridge UFO - Stanford

From: Ray Stanford <dinotracker.nul>
Date: Sat, 7 Feb 2004 12:57:54 -0500
Fwd Date: Sat, 07 Feb 2004 17:34:02 -0500
Subject: Re:  The Beveridge UFO - Stanford

>From: Don Ledger <dledger.nul>
>To: ufoupdates.nul
>Date: Fri, 06 Feb 2004 23:29:45 -0400
>Subject: Re: The Beveridge UFO

>>From: Tim Shell <tshell.nul>
>>To: ufoupdates.nul
>>Date: Thu, 05 Feb 2004 08:13:39 -0600
>>Subject: Re: The Beveridge UFO

>>>From: Frank Warren <frank-warren.nul>
>>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates.nul>
>>>Date: Wed, 04 Feb 2004 18:36:22 -0800
>>>Subject: The Beveridge UFO

>>>Oh and by the way - the thingy in the picture was a bug flying
>>>by in close proximity to the camera!

>>Okay, but what kind of bug?

>Yeah? Who decided it was a bug?

Hi Don,

I, for one, did, but only after careful image analysis and
consideration of a host of other 'possibilities', even though at
first glimpse I fancied we might be looking at something less
prosaic, like, say, a cartoonist's version of a 'UFO'. I have
heard from others on this List who feel the same way.

That doesn't mean I expect those who might enjoy perceiving (or
have some inner need to perceive) a UFO in the image to agree,
however. Everyone has a right to their own perceptive paradigm.

In my opinion, however, one who tries to let go of his or her
expectations or hopes in analyzing an image and just asks, "What
is most likely to have produced that image? What am I really
looking at, there?" is far more likely to accurately determine
what created an image than anyone with a hope or wish at what
might be there.

I am, of course, not asking you, Don, or anyone else to
necessarily agree with my conclusion about what the image shows,
but I trust you understand my plea for an objective examination
of what might realistically be the source of the image. I have
seen domed, daylight discs and successfully movie-filmed several
such objects, so I have no reason to, a priori, reject the
possibility that someone else might have photographed one (even
if he didn't notice anything unusual). Realistically, however,
I must say that the image shown looks to me a heck of a lot more
like a unfocused, flying bug (I think I may be able to made out
some unfocused images of some of the bug's legs, too) than any
domed UFO I have ever seen and filmed, first hand, or accepted
as possibly real in seemingly credible photos made by others.

Finally, whatever one makes of this photo, both its circumstance
(unseen) and the lack of unambiguous image content make it next
to useless, or probably utterly useless, in elucidating the 'UFO
mystery' in its classical sense.

Thus, I second the motion of others who have suggested we move
on to hopefully more meaningful issues.

Ray Stanford

"You know my method. It is founded upon the observance of trifles." --
Sherlock Holmes in The Boscombe Valley Mystery

[ 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