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 - Velez

From: John Velez <johnvelez.aic.nul>
Date: Mon, 9 Feb 2004 14:57:16 -0500
Fwd Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2004 07:31:14 -0500
Subject: Re: The Beveridge UFO - Velez

>From: Ray Stanford <dinotracker.nul>
>To: <ufoupdates.nul>
>Date: Sun, 8 Feb 2004 13:21:40 -0500
>Subject: Re: The Beveridge UFO

>>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


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

>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.

I think it is you who do not, to use your own words, "understand
modeling in the scientific process," Ray. If you think that the
club/turd shaped object that Amy is using as her example of a
'fly' is an accurate reproduction of the body of any known 'fly'
then I completely understand why you have no faith in half of
what you see. (perceive)

If Amy had used the 3D model of the body of a fly and then was
able to make a convincing look-alike for the Whittlesea object,
I too would have been convinced that the possibility we are
seeing a 'fly' was the best possible explanation. But that's not
the case is it?

The fact is; Amy had to create a really distorted image/thing,
(that 'club' shaped object she calls a 'fly') put wings on it
and move it around nine ways from Sunday just to get it begin to
resemble the object in the photo. Yet _that_ depiction is what
you consider to be a fair and accurate 'scientific
model/rendition of a 'fly'.

Again, no wonder you don't trust your own perceptions.

>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.

What a 'spin-doctor' you are, Ray! It's really quite remarkable.
One of the many comments that Bruce Maccabee made was;

>Knowing the distance is very important, obviously. Unfortunately
>even if we knew exact distances to all the known objects in the
>photo that wouldn't help us determine the distance to the UO
>(unknown object). If we knew, a priori, some information about
>the object (such as its size!) we could determine the distance.

Without those distance measurements there is no way to tell what
it is we're looking at. Why arrive at _any_ conclusions so early
in the proceedings? Especially if you consider that we are not
yet in possession of all the facts. What kind of "science" are
you practicing, Ray? Science 'by proclamation'? as Stan Freidman
is fond of saying.

>>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.

Twaddle! Says you. Don makes an excellent point when he draws
our attention to the size of the disturbance in the atmosphere
surrounding the 'object.' We still don't know what it is we're
looking at in spite of the all-fired rush that some of us are
apparently in to arrive at a conclusion and to put this case on
a shelf. Again I ask... What's the rush?

All the facts aren't in yet, Ray. If the anxiety is getting to
you so much to put this one to rest, maybe you ought to sit out
this dance.

'With every good wish'  ;)

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