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: Whittlesea Australia UFO Photograph - Williams

From: Walt Williams <walt_williams.nul>
Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2004 05:59:08 +0000
Fwd Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2004 14:58:02 -0500
Subject: Re: Whittlesea Australia UFO Photograph - Williams


>From: Larry Hatch <larryhatch.nul>
>To: ufoupdates.nul
>Date: Sun, 08 Feb 2004 16:29:17 -0800
>Subject: Re: Whittlesea Australia UFO Photograph

>>From: Don Ledger <dledger.nul>
>>To:  ufoupdates.nul
>>Date: Sat, 07 Feb 2004 13:35:02 -0400
>>Subject: Re: Whittlesea Australia UFO Photograph

>>>From: Larry Hatch <larryhatch.nul>
>>>To: ufoupdates.nul
>>>Date: Sat, 07 Feb 2004 06:12:10 -0800
>>>Subject: Re: Whittlesea Australia UFO Photograph


Hello Larry, Amy and All,

Regarding URL:

http://a-realitycheck.com/whittleseaufo/analysis.htm

Just tossing in my three worthless cents.

Been reading the thread about the insect idea. Amy has done well
in her presentation. The question in my mind after reviewing her
work becomes...how far away from the camera and how large would
the insect need be to appear as 'it' presumably does in the
digital image.  Also the make and model of the camera  would be
useful to know.

Morphing an insect image model (generated via the Corel Bryce
program) to **MATCH** the original digital image is in my
opinion, cooking the data somewhat...and it may be argued that
it biases the conclusion in a particular direction. However, it
is fascinating glimpse into an alternative perspective and
nicely done.  If the 'insect' model was simply rotated and
scaled without changing the model geometry dimensions then that
would be pretty good evidence provided an actual insect phyla
model was employed, however if the model's dimensions was
altered then who knows what its value might be? Also, using an
authentic insect phyla as the comparitive standard in difference
to that (I presume) of a random creation of an artist's notion
of an insect could show plausible viability of the 'insect'
idea. It would be interesting to determine the insect model data
pedigree.

Interesting how these things reveal other useful information,
such as it appears that the insect is coasting, i.e., the wings
may not be flapping.  It seems that most insects don't coast, as
small insect's wings do not typically have enough surface area
to provide unpowered lift. Another curiosity, why is there so
much ?'motion'? blurring on the front to back axis, and
apparently more so than the wings? Seems one would want need to
know a little about the camera workings too, characteristics
such as the CCD imager array integration time. Knowing this will
reveal how fast an image is integrated and also give some notion
as to periodocity of wing motion, i.e., flapping speed, etc.
 Also, there seems to be much environment blurring around the
immediate area of the image object, wonder what caused that?
Again, might be a characteristic of the dithering algorythm used
in the imaging processing software of the camera? Be that as it
may, many suspected ET objects exhibit similar blurring which is
thought to be caused by a surrounding high energy field which is
said to ionize the atmosphere, another possible explanation.

Best Wishes,

Walt Williams,

walt_williams.nul
===================================

Walt Williams,

Director
Search for ExtraTerrestrial Visitation (SETV)
Northridge California, 91367, USA
http://www.setv.org

walt_williams.nul
===================================




[ 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