Re: The Beveridge UFO - Stanford
From: Ray Stanford <dinotracker.nul>
Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2004 15:11:52 -0500
Fwd Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2004 06:58:05 -0500
Subject: Re: The Beveridge UFO - Stanford
>From: John Velez <johnvelez.aic.nul>
>Date: Mon, 9 Feb 2004 14:57:16 -0500
>Subject: Re: The Beveridge UFO
>>From: Ray Stanford <dinotracker.nul>
>>Date: Sun, 8 Feb 2004 13:21:40 -0500
>>Subject: Re: The Beveridge UFO
>>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
>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 like 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
previous posts saying that Amy had accurately depicted a fly! I
clearly said it was a generalized modeling of a situation which
involved both form and dynamics. Shame of you for trying to put
words in my mouth, John.
>>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
>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.
>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 practice a 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 a
testable hypothesis predicting specific things or results
unknown beforehand, and then testing of that hypothesis by both
the one proposing the hypothesis and by peers.
>Science 'by proclamation'? as Stan Friedman 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
dinosaur symposium, 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,following two
of my talks) 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 equally
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,
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,
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 my earlier psychic work and my work in Ufology,
too, and both have read several of my writings on both subjects.
I would never ask scientists to co-author papers with me unless
they are informed that I have been involved in controvesial
It is universally accepted by every paleontologist and
paleoichnologist who has examined my vast collection of self-
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 discoveries, and that I have at least fifteen
different varieties of dinosaur tracks catalogued.
I am the finder of the only articulated dinosaur ever found in
Maryland, and it is the world's first-found hatchling nodosaur
(declared diagnostic by 28 professionals). One of the world's
most highly respected dinosaur paleontologists with a major
eastern university and I are preparing a paper describing and
naming it as a new species for a world-class scientific
My aforementioned co-author (on more papers than mentioned) Dr.
Martin G. Lockley and I are preparing a paper on my find of the
most high-quality, lar gest, and most scientifically significant
mammal track known, worldwide, out of the entire Mesozoic. If
you don't understand why such a track is scientifically
'earthshaking', then you aren't familiar with mesozoic
paleoichnology; but don't feel like the Lone Ranger, if so,
because most persons aren't. If that paper isn't accepted by the
best of the best, then we both will be surprised.
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? If you don't acknowledge that my success in
that field (both as to the ability to find and identify tracks
and to analyze and write scientifically) then you are dreaming
in a fantasy world of self delusion.
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 noticed you admit that you were wrong on
even the smallest of matters dealing with anything!
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? :) Doesn't that kind of 'bug' you? :)
>>>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 knowledge of and
lack of objectivity concerning the nature of perception. You
were declaring the importance of this photo as one of a domed
UFO in your early post concerning it. But, the photo is
utterly useless in diagnosing the nature of the classic UFO
problem, because it is of very poor image quality and there was
no witness. All it demonstrates is human gullibility. Try
presenting that photo (in the absence of witness testimony) to
any scientific jury and you would be laughed out of house,
You say that Don Leger, "...makes an excellent point when he
draws our attention to the size of the disturbance in the
atmosphere surrounding the object." !
How about you or Don (if he really said that) telling us just
precisely what evidence you have that there was any 'disturbance
in the atmosphere' surrounding the thing photographed, since you
seem to be implying something is there other than mere unfocused
image and motion smear and effects attendant to electronic
I see no evidence of any exotic effects in the atmosphere around
that thing, and that the noise you imagine to be such has not
the slightest resemblance to such bona-fide magnetohydrodynamic
plasma (plasma-in-magnetically-induced-motion) phenomena as my
project has filmed propelling truly anomalous sky objects of
diverse shapes and of a tremendous range of sizes. (We have
simultaneous ELF magnetometric recordings and spectra that
confirm the presence of a very strong magnetic field in some of
In short, I know what such effects look like from diverse
daylight UFO filmings and what we see in the Beveridge image has
no resemblance to any of them, and all such effects we have
filmed have distinctive commonalties.
>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.
In science all the facts are never in. But with this unimportant
photo showing nothing more than what resembles a passing 'bug',
only the dreamers are panting for more.
For those interested, I will be addressing (my paper has already
been approved by the professionals involved) a session called
Dinosaurs of the Eastern United States, at the Geological
Society of America annual meeting in Tyson's Corner, Virginia,
next month. If anyone really wants to attend, please query me
"You know my method. It is founded upon the observance of
trifles." -- Sherlock Holmes in The Boscombe Valley Mystery