UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 2004 > Feb > Feb 8

Re: The Beveridge UFO - Velez

From: John Velez <johnvelez.aic.nul>
Date: Sat, 7 Feb 2004 18:31:56 -0500
Fwd Date: Sun, 08 Feb 2004 09:46:07 -0500
Subject: Re: The Beveridge UFO - Velez


>From: Don Ledger <dledger.nul>
>To:  ufoupdates.nul
>Date: Sat, 07 Feb 2004 12:50:17 -0400
>Subject: Re: The Beveridge UFO

>>From: Richard Hall <hallrichard99.nul>
>>To: ufoupdates.nul
>>Date: Sat, 07 Feb 2004 14:34:14 +0000
>>Subject: Re: The Beveridge UFO

><snip>

>>This thread is beginning to bug me.

>>But seriously folks, has anyone addressed the possibility (all
>>alternatives need to be considered and confirmed or ruled out) that
>>the image is the result of a developmental flaw? If so, I missed
>>that. But then, I haven't followed every single comment having seen
>>hundreds of such photos come and go over the years.

>>Very often when the photographer sees nothing, it is because there
>>was nothing there to see. This may be different for digital cameras,
>>but someone should at least address the issue if they haven't
>>already.

>What "bugs" me Dick is the assumption that the object is a bug
>when there is no evidence to support this contention. There is
>work to be done here. For one thing the stated direction in
>which the picture was taken conflicts with the stated time of
>day and the shadow lines. Additionally I've been a photographer
>for some 30 years and made a profession out of it for some time.
>This bug in front of the lens has never occurred in the
>thousands of pics I've taken nor for that matter have birds
>shown up, unless I was shooting them. I have one anomalous photo
>out of those thousands, and that was during a time exposure of
>the Moon, a top shaped object -which I did not see- on it's side
>some distance away from the Moon. I don't know what it is, but
>one thing I'm certain of is that it's not a lens flare [consider
>the light during time exposure] now a bug.

>These convenient bugs and birds, which no one seems to be able
>to identify or explain, are just that... convienient. Let's do
>the work before we run around half cocked pretending that we
>"ufologists" are beyond being duped by a bug in front of the
>lens when indeed you might be duped into the wrong
>identification.

>Since the nature of the anomalous object-commonly known as a
>ufo- is picked up with a camera and not seen by the witness-
>what's the big deal? The camera-even the SLR-is far more capable
>of stopping action at 1/2,000th of a second than is the human
>eye which stops action only up to about 1/15th-1/16th of a
>second.Digital cameras can stop action up to 1/20,000 of a
>second. I see nothing remotely unusual about the photographer
>not "seeing" that object, particularly through the tiny field of
>a view finder. I sometimes wonder if any of those on these lists
>ever use a camera or know anything about them considering the
>nonsense I see on here.

>Some one mentions there being no "sonic boom" if this object was
>moving above the speed of sound. Paul R. Hill, an aerodynamicist
>with Langley at NASA wondered the same thing about reports back
>in the 50's 60s and 70's etc., and believed that it had
>something to do with a possible field generated around the
>object as a result of it's power source or perhaps purposely to
>allow the object to slide effortlessly through the atmosphere.
>He also noted that often the object was moving with a large
>portion of its surface inclined into to the direction of flight
>which would induce terrific drag, rather than attempting to
>plane at some angle of attack. It has to be remembered that the
>atmosphere creates terrific drag even after transonic
>achievement, so eliminating it is a desirable effect.

>Here's an experiment. Try and find the solid body of the Columbia inside
>the plasma ball surrounding it as it breaks up in the atmosphere.
>Those that can't get by today's physics are really going to have a
>problem in the "UFO" field.

Hi Don,

You wrote:

>If we can't determine what it is then it is an unknown [that
>means UFO, for those that don't understand the term], not a bug
>or a bird because we can't identify it.

<lol> Ooooh, be careful, Don! You're using the dreaded 'UFO'
acronym! There are some who will insist that you mean to say
that the object is an 'alien craft from outer space.' Not that
it is an 'unidentified flying object.' I never fail to be
surprised about how many people are still stuck on what is meant
by the acronym 'U.F.O.' All this time I was laboring under
impression that we all understood each other when we used -
basic- terms like 'UFO.' If we have to stop and explain every
time we use the term, maybe it is time to choose a new one.

All I know is; each and every time I use the acronym UFO) that
what is meant is; an 'unidentified flying object' and not 'alien
invaders from outer space.' Some people just can't seem to make
that distinction. Not only that, some will insist that that is
what you mean even after you tell them that it is _not_ what you
meant! What do you do then? Pull your hair out? Old horseplayers
have a saying about not being able to win for all the losing!
It's, Catch 22. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

>Sour grapes explanation. It's probably a "bug".

"Sour grapes explanation", Hee-Haw! I love that one! I've been
sitting back studying the responses to this photo. Talk about
'Short Attention Span Theater'!!! There are people who have
already _shelved_ the case because they think that there is
nothing more to be learned or done in this case! Still others
have declared that the object could be a "bug," ergo, end of
story. Nothing left to discuss. Sayonara Whittlesea  photo, it's
been a blast but now it's time to move on and feed on the next
thing.

The sheer speed with which some people can sweep something under
a rug, or become 'bored' is nothing short of blinding. Or as Mel
Brooks would label it; "Ludicrous speed."

No use discussing this photo anymore, it's been solved, wrapped
up neatly, tied in ribbon and put on a shelf to collect dust.
And you may wonder why so little ever gets accomplished in
ufology. Well wonder no more my friend and pass around the
Ritalin tablets. The average attention span for 'some' around
here can be measured in moments. <vbg>

I don't let it 'bug' me. I just continue to ask my questions and
hope I find some answers here and there. If you finally learn
anything about the position of the sun when the photo was taken
I would appreciate your sharing it with me, Don. I for one,
haven't put this one to bed yet. Too many unanswered questions.
And in spite of many opinions to the contrary, that 'thing' in
the photo (whatever it is) _still_ looks like a domed disc to my
eyes.

I hate having an itch that I can't scratch.


Warmest regards,

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