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 - Stanford

From: Ray Stanford <dinotracker.nul>
Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2004 12:51:46 -0500
Fwd Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2004 15:08:07 -0500
Subject: Re: The Beveridge UFO - Stanford


>From: John Velez <johnvelez.aic.nul>
>To: ufoupdates.nul
>Date: Mon, 9 Feb 2004 14:57:16 -0500
>Subject: Re: The Beveridge UFO

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

<snio>

>>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.

Anyone is foolish who takes their perceptions of ambiguous
situations or images (whether in a photo or in the sky) at face
value without due examination, including you, John. Furthermore,
it is ironic that a person likie you who becomes a fiery mouthed
monster if you think anyone is putting words into your mouth
figuratively put words into my mouth in saying that I consider
Amy's model an, "...accurate 'scientific model/rendition of a
'fly'..."! I challenge you to provide a quote from any of my
previpous posts saying that Amy had accurately depicted a fly! I
clearly said it was a generalized modelling of a situation which
involved both form and dynamics. Shame of you for trying to put
words in my mouth, John.

Oh, and by the way, you like to tell us you had two years in
classes relevant to this discussion of camera image matters, but
curiously you do not tell your grade in those courses or whether
you even passed or really even finished them. I'm beginning to
think you were stretching things since you declared as though
speaking 'excathedra' that the whazzit in the Mars photo was
pixel dropout when a host of gray-scale gradients were visible.
I even suspect that you secretly now know that you were wrong on
that, too.

>>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;

I suggest you keep out of that and let Bruce tell me if I am
wrong concerning the hypothesis he was favoring on this.

Hey, Bruce, would you please telling us, again, what hypothesis
seems most commensurate with the facts of that photo. :) I paid
attention to your words, but it seems John must have been
distracted, perhaps by his own beliefs about it.

<snip>

>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?

I practive lot more science than you seem even capable of
understanding, John. Your complaint that, "Especially if you
consider that we are not yet in possession of all the facts."
proves that. Science is a process of gaining knowledge by
examination of the know, then construction (on that basis) of
falsifiable hypothesis predicting specific things or results
unknown beforehand, and then testing of that hypothesis by both
the one proposing the hypothesis and by his peers. Science does
not have faith for all the facts to magically show up (or be
pontificated by John Velez, a priori) but deductes them by
experimentation and the scientific method.

>Science 'by proclamation'? as Stan Freidman is fond of saying.

There you go de facto having Stan Friedman comment on my
statements without even consulting him! Shame on you again,
John. Let Stan comment, if he wishes.

Tell me, John. How many mainstream, peer-reviewed, scientific
papers have you ever delivered on any subject at any mainstream
scientific conferences on any subject? :) Well, as early as
1998, I delivered three peer-reviewed papers on Early Cretaceous
ichnites to the Philadelphia Academy of Sciences' international
conference, with a tremendously enthusiastic audience response
(the audiences were about 90% professional scientists), even
causing one of the world's best known paleontologists (Robert T.
Bakker, Ph.D.) to spontaneously jump up and declare to the
audience that my personal findings (he had examined them first-
 hand) constitute the most impressive and scientifically
important assemblage of dinosaur fossils ever assembled by any
individual in the entire history of paleontology. One of the
scientific world's most highly regarded and referenced dinosaur
paleontologists told an equeally world-class dinosaur
paleontologists that my contributions to the science of east
coast (USA) paleontology exceed those of all other
paleontologists who have ever worked in the east coast,
combined.

Scheduled for publication this month in a premier international
scientific journal, is my paper, A New Dinosaur Ichnotaxon From
The Lower Cretaceous Patuxent Formation Of Maryland And
Virginia, describing and naming my discoveries of the world's
first indisputably hypsilophodontid dinosaur tracks (front and
back footprints). I am first author, the second author being
Dr. Robert E. Weems (U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia),
and the third author being none less than the world's most
prominent expert of dinosaur (and other ancient) tracks, Dr.
Martin G. Lockley, Department of Geology, the University of
Colorado, Denver.

Do you really think those professional and internationally
referenced scientists take me to be the pseudoscientific smuck
you are clearly trying to make me out to me? And, yes, John,
they know of earlier my psychic work and my work in UFOlogy,
too, and both have read several of my writings on both subjects.

It is universally accepted by every paleintologist and
paleoichnologist who has examined my vast collection of seld-
found tracks and trackways during the last two years, that I am
the pioneer discoverer of Maryland's Cretaceous dinosaur,
mammal, pterosaur, and other tracks when they were totally
unknown before my descoveries, and that I have at least fifteen
different varieties of dinosaur tracks catalogued.

Tell me, John, don't you think that a discoverer with that kind
of track record (pun intended) deserves better credit at
observation and objective pattern discernment than you have been
willing to grant me? I early-on said on this list that at first
glance I thought that I might be looking at a domed disc in the
Beveridge image (I even sent the link to my three adult children
and asked them to consider that it might be a domed disc in that
photo.) but that after contemplating the image in a more
objective frame of mind I realized it probably shows a
unfocused, speeding, and slightly turning (out of the photo
plane) 'bug'.

Yes, John, I admitted to this List that I was wrong in that
first interpretation of what made that image, but never once on
this list have I ever heard you admit that you were wrong on
even the smallest of matters dealing with anything! Real
forthcoming and objective, aren't you?! I have read several of
your letters letters (folling fiery tirades against others, by
you) trying to convince us that you really weren' being nasty to
anyone, that you'really just Mr. white-hatted Johnny nice guy!
 What a joke!

Hey, haven't you noticed, John, that more and more of the real
thinkers on this list are coming across to the 'it looks most
like a bug' side? :) That kind of bugs you, doesn't it?

>>>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.'

Your comments again demonstrate your lack of objectivity. You
were screaming your subjective head off declaring the importance
of this photo of a domed UFO in your silly early posting
concerning it. The photo is utterly useless in diagnosing the
nature of the the classis UFO problem, because it is of very
poor image quality. All it demonstrates is the willingness of
you and a few others on this list to see a UFO in it.

You say that Don, "...makes an excellent point when he draws our
attention to the size of the disturbance in the atmosphere
surrounding the object." !

How about you telling us just precisely what evidence you have
that there was any 'disturbance in the atmosphere' surrounding
the thing photographed. Evidently you mean 'of' the atmosphere,
since you seem to be implying the presence of something other
than mere unfocused image and motion smear and effects attendant
to electronic imaging.

I say there is no evidence of any exotic effects on the
atmosphere around that thing, and that the noise you imagine to
be such has not the slightest resemblence to such bona-fide
magnetohydrodynamic plasma (plasma-in-magnetically-induced-
motion) phenomena as my project has filmed surrounding
propelling truly anomalous sky objects of diverse shapes and of
a tremendous range of sizes.

Ray Stanford

"You know my method. It is founded upon the observance of
trifles." -- Sherlock Holmes in The Boscombe Valley Mystery



[ 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