UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 2004 > Feb > Feb 9

Re: The Beveridge UFO - Stanford

From: Ray Stanford <dinotracker.nul>
Date: Sun, 8 Feb 2004 13:21:40 -0500
Fwd Date: Mon, 09 Feb 2004 11:41:17 -0500
Subject: Re: The Beveridge UFO - Stanford


>From: Don Ledger <dledger.nul>
>To: ufoupdates.nul
>Date: Sat, 07 Feb 2004 22:13:12 -0400
>Subject: Re: The Beveridge UFO

>>From: Ray Stanford <dinotracker.nul>
>>To: <ufoupdates.nul>
>>Date: Sat, 7 Feb 2004 12:57:54 -0500
>>Subject: Re: The Beveridge UFO - Ledger

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

><snip>

>>>Yeah? Who decided it was a bug?

>>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,

>Yeah, well what's the reason for the gentle brow beating in the
>2nd and 3rd paragraphs. If you want to argue your case leave the
>"inner need" BS out of it and we can take it from there. I don't
>hang on UFO pics to round out my life, don't have some deep need
>to believe in them. What I have a deep need for is a new
>airplane.

I was not alleging that you "hang on UFO pics to round out" your
life, Don, but making a statement of well established fact, and
you and I and all others involved wouldn't be into UFOs if there
were not some kind of inner need being met there. No insult
intended. It's just a fact of life that we are influenced not
only by what we recognize consciously as our personal interests,
but also what we hold, unconsciously, as important. It's not a
matter of "B.S.", but simply the manner in which the human
perceptual system works. If in doubt, ask Richard Haines, Ph.D.,
a psychologist well appraised concerning the human visual and
perceptual systems in part due to some of the work he did at
Ames before he retired from NASA. If mind bias and perceptual
mechanisms are not involved in your personal 'seeing', then
you're an alien of some sort, as you're surely not human. Human
or not, I wish you a new airplane. :)

And don't talk to me about the fact that humans don't pretty
well see what they want to see in something. I cannot forget the
farmer (and his wife and children) who reported to me that every
night some time after midnight an orange-glowing UFO was coming
down over their field with opened-out landing gear and landing.
He invited me and the project crew to come out the next morning
and watch the landing for ourselves. I accepted and told the
crew not to get their hopes up because if there's one thing UFOs
don't normally do is land night-after-night in the same place.
So we took excellent binoculars along and waited with the
utterly sincere farm family for "the landing". In the wee hours,
the farmer went out (We were enjoying good homemade cookies and
coffee, inside, provided by his wife.) and came back inside
declaring something to the effect that, "They're out there, the
landing gear are opened out, and they are descending." (He had
been watching this through low grade binoculars and a will-to-
 believe mind.)

Well, Don, we went out, saw the planet Jupiter setting in the
west, focused the Bausch & Lomb, high-power binoculars (and a
telescope), and showed the farmer and his family that
the"landing pods" were really the most visible moons of Jupiter.
Being intellectually honest, they agreed that we were right. It
is unrealistic to allege that the mind and unconscious desires
and needs does not play a major part in human perception,
including your own, and whether you realize it or not. That is
especially so when the ratio of signal to noise is quite low, as
in the photo under discussion.

>I've been to your site and Amy's and in your case I've seen
>nothing there to make me believe that this is a bug. I don't see
>legs either.

You're losing your memory or mind, and I trust it's the former
rather than the latter. How can I say that? Simply because I
have no website and no web page. :) I never have had any,
either. But I commend Amy Hebert for her work and agree with her
suggestion as to the most likely cause of the image in the
disputed photo.

>And Amy's method of using a dupe to emmulate a bug does't sit
>well with me either. What you end up with there is a bug created
>by using the outlines of something that might be anomalous. Put
>wings on a pig and it's still a pig with wings.

Don, you simply are not addressing Amy's intention in that
presentation. Maybe you're just being snide or else you do not
understand the function of paradigm creation or modeling in the
scientific process. It does not matter whether sophisticated
software was used to present a model or hand-made art, the model
is only intended as a illustration of a generalized,
hypothetical situation that might have resulted in the image on
the Australian film.

>If she could show me an actual picture of a bug that could
>definitely be proved to be a bug that comes close to matching the
>Beverage UFO, then zip I'm there. Otherwise either way it's just
>a theory and not definitive. But consider this, it only takes a
>few feet of distance to blow your bug out of the picture. I've
>seen no estimate of distance for this bug to show up in the
>picture-and in focus.

Forget it, Don. The bug, object, or whatever, is not in focus,
as Bruce Maccabee has mentioned. It is not image smear, alone,
that makes that image indistinct, as Bruce clearly carefully
explained. So, bug or omnibus alien vehicle, the thing is not in
focus, and that puts some very serious constraints on the
distance that thing could have been from the camera, favoring
the bug hypothesis, as Bruce Maccabee has commented and
carefully explained.

>The camera probably was set for
>infinityand that bug would have been unseen at say 4 feet or
>cloase. out past that and it's getting to be a big bug.

Unseen? Baloney. The aperture was surely small enough that a
nearby buy would not have been optically dissolved into
invisibility. Quite to the contrary!

>>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.

>That may be. It's a bit amazing don't you think, that these
>things never show up in the proper manner, making it easier to
>determine what they are.

Honestly, Don, do you really think that a bug speeding by near
the camera (in this circumstance) would show up any other way
than a bit distorted by a lack of focus and speed? How could it
be otherwise? Please explain your reasoning there.

The real problem here has nothing to do with the bug, or the
photo, per se. It has to do with our personal concepts of how a
classic UFO should appear and our perception of an ambiguous
image that has some slight resemblance to a cartoonist's concept
of a UFO.

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

>I think this issue will do well enough for me for the time
>being, but that's up to the List and its Moderator. I'd be happy
>knowing for sure in what direction the photographer was facing.
>I don't believe West.

I am confident that the photographer is approximately right
about the direction the camera was pointing, and now that you
mention it, note that you were mistaken on that. Common, Don,
you're too smart a guy to hold onto a simple mistake about the
direction in which the camera was pointing, when the
photographer tells us otherwise.


Every good wish,

Ray Stanford




[ 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