UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 2004 > Feb > Feb 10

Re: The Beveridge UFO - Warren

From: Frank Warren <frank-warren.nul>
Date: Mon, 09 Feb 2004 11:34:36 -0800
Fwd Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2004 07:29:36 -0500
Subject: Re: The Beveridge UFO - Warren

>From: Don Ledger <dledger.nul>
>To:  ufoupdates.nul
>Date: Sun, 08 Feb 2004 16:05:22 -0400
>Subject: Re: The Beveridge UFO

>>From: Frank Warren <frank-warren.nul>
>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates.nul>
>>Date: Sun, 08 Feb 2004 06:06:42 -0800
>>Subject: Re: The Beveridge UFO


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

>>I decided it was a bug, however; to get the "jest" of what I was
>>saying you would have to read the original post as to not take the
>>one line shown above out of context.

>>At any rate , in "my opinion," I "believe" barring further
>>evidence/data that the object captured digitally in the so- called
>>"Whittlesea UFO" pic is a flying insect of some sort "caught in
>>flight" in close proximity to the camera. I've come to this
>>"hypothetical conclusion" based on my own "inspection/research" of
>>the pic, along with the data presented by fellow listers.

>>Furthermore, I started this thread because it seemed to me that the
>>original "Whittlesea thread" had become "static," and I felt it
>>necessary to put some emphasis on the fine work done by those who
>>chose to take the time and analyze the pic, as well as those who
>>added their respective observations, (your name was included of

>>The "expeditious collection, collation, evaluation and dissemination
>>of the data for the event is exactly what Ufology needs, only on a
>>larger scale, but certainly in the manner that was/is performed here
>>by the members of this list.

>I'm assuming that you decided for yourself and to your own
>satisfaction that the Beveridge or Whittlesea object was a bug.
>I on the other hand have not, as yet, been satisfied that this
>is indeed a bug or a bird. One of the reasons I don't like to
>blow this shot off is due to the very nature of the "gaseous
>appearing" envelope surrounding the object. Much can be learned
>from ordinary jet's exhausts of the aircraft's performance and I
>believe that there is something to the aura surrounding some UFO
>photos. Rather than being out of focus perhaps this is some by-
>product of it's power source. I made mention of this to Errol on
>SDI Saturday evening. I'm sure there are some out there that can
>make much of that aura by measuring light intensity, spectrum
>and what have you. What does it look like in infrared for
>example? How is the envelope refracting or filtering light
>passing through it?

I have in fact come to the conclusion that the object in the
afore mentioned pic is an insect of some sort, with the evidence
at hand, however; I reserve the right to change that "opinion"
if further evidence presents itself.

I am not in anyway, "blowing this off," only making a hypothesis
with the current data to date; moreover, there isn't any
"definitive" proof in any direction, and if that day comes,
regardless of the outcome, (bug or craft of some sort etc.)it
will certainly help with future events of "unknown objects"
captured with a digital camera; to that end the relevance is of
great value no matter what the object is.

I believe "all angles" of the pic should be exercised, this
certainly includes what could be an "aura" or some "distortion"
surrounding the object.

>Since we now have the specs on the Kodak camera that was used we
>know that if it was a bug it had to be approximately 20 inches
>away or slightly closer to the lens of the camera for that level
>of detail to show up.

I think my sister-in-law has that very same camera,(I know it's
a Kodak) if so, I will try some experiments and see what I can
come up with. If it were a bug as I believe (so far) and we
don't know the "size" or "what kind" how can the distance be
judged so accurately. Separately, I might point out that the
"gravel" at the bottom of the pic, presumably near the
photographer's feet is clearly recognizable.

>Again, I'm curious about this as a possible piece of the puzzle,
>not as Ray suggests, that I'm  loath to give it up because I (..
>have some inner need to perceive).

>Those who know me, know better.

Personally Don, I hope I'm wrong in my theory, however; even if
I am, we will then have another photo of a UFO in the pile
without any other supportive evidence as to what it really is.



[ 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