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 - Warren

From: Frank Warren <frank-warren.nul>
Date: Mon, 09 Feb 2004 08:26:59 -0800
Fwd Date: Mon, 09 Feb 2004 12:40:17 -0500
Subject: Re: The Beveridge UFO - Warren


>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.

Don, Dick, Et Al.,

First, Don, I initiated this thread because the original
"Whittlesea thread" seemed IMHO to become "static"; that the
focus seemed to shift from the "contributions" of those who have
bothered to look into this case, to "how" they said something,
or the "way they said it. Because of "that," I thought it would
be nice, to focus on the "positive" accomplishments of those
that chose to take the time to analyze/investigate/research the
pic!

In re-reading the thread(s) and looking at the offerings of
various people on the list, I for one was quite impressed with
the expeditious "response, investigation, research effort, and
analysis of the photograph! To that end, I had hoped that like
minds would chime in, and this would be an "up-lifting thread"
and focus could be put on the "mechanics" of the research of the
event, as well as future events, and fill in any "research
holes" that might still be existent in this case.

To the best of my knowledge, in re-reading the posts concerning
the event near Beveridge, I don't believe "anyone" has stated
"conclusively" what the object is/was - of course no one can, as
the data is inconclusive. That said, so we're on the same page,
what is being offered are "educated opinions" or "hypothetical
conclusions" based on the current data to date.

To be clear - for me - and only for me - IMHO I believe, based
on "my own analysis" as well as other contributions from fellow
listers, and data etc., offered on this list, that the "object"
captured digitally in the pic known as the "Whittlesea UFO" is
an "flying insect" of some sort that was in close proximity to
the camera. This is of course a theory - "my theory." My theory
or "opinion" could change if additional evidence/data is
realized.

Finally, having said all that, and before I continue with my
rejoinder to your post; hopefully we can get back on course with
the initial goal of this thread which was to "focus" on the
"positive aspects" of the investigation/research to date, by
fellow listers who have donated their time and efforts to figure
out just what the hell this thing is!

Again, my hat is off, and I bow to the efforts and good work of
my fellow Listers!

>What "bugs" me Dick is the assumption that the object is a bug
>when there is no evidence to support this contention.

There is evidence, Don, starting with the pic itself, which is
direct evidence. If you blow the pic up you can make out
"wings," IMHO. There is "circumstantial evidence in that we know
Australia is filled with "flying insects." There is "direct
evidence" that digital pictures of insects, e.g., bees taking on
an entirely different images when captured in flight - e.g.,
rods! There is "supportive evidence"; if it was a bug/insect
that would easily explain why there "weren't any eye witnesses."

>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.

"The majority" of photographers who earn a living at it, would
say in all the thousand of pictures they've taken, "they never
shot a UFO"; yet we know there are UFOs. For that matter most
people haven't seen a UFO - but they exist.

>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.

There has been work done Don - good work - and it is continuing,
and there has been "opinions" given during the process.

>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.

I think Don if you re-read the posts from those concerned, and
look at their respective research, e.g., Amy, John, Dan, Diane,
Larry and Bruce "nonsense" is not the term you would use
describing their work!

>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.

Interesting point... makes one wonder if there has been any work
done in regards to UFOs and sonic booms.

>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.

>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.

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


As mentioned earlier, everyone "has" or "is" coming to "their
own" "hypothetical conclusions" either based on their own
research, or that of those on this list, or elsewhere from the
available data to date; moreover, although this might be a UFO,
(verbatim) there is no evidence that it is in fact "flying,"
i.e., "self-propelled." So technically, we can't even call it a
UFO - "photographic anomaly" or "unknown object" would be better
suited.

In conclusion Don, to avoid any continuance in a negative vein
for this particular thread, I want to make clear that my
response is not meant to be offensive in any form or manner,
merely and explanation for establishing the thread originally,
as well as how I have come to the conclusion, (hypothetically)
at present given the data to date, that the object in the pic is
a "bug, critter, insect" etc., opposed to a "metalic craft" of
some sort.


Respectfully,

Frank Warren






[ 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