UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 2004 > Feb > Feb 11

Re: The Beveridge UFO - Velez

From: John Velez <johnvelez.aic.nul>
Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2004 16:42:17 -0500
Fwd Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2004 07:04:29 -0500
Subject: Re: The Beveridge UFO - Velez


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

>>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

>>>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.

Hello All,

Ray Stanford wrote:

>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.

I have written out carefully how and what I have examined in the
Whittlesea photo on-List and privately to a few individuals. Why
do you assume the worst of me in terms of 'taking my perceptions
at face value without examination?'

>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.

You (again, condescendingly) said to Don Ledger, "Maybe you're
just being snide or else you do not understand the function of
paradigm creation or modeling in the scientific process."

Does that not state that you think Amy's 'model' was one you
consider to be useful "scientifically." And that Don somehow
misses the lesson in favor of being "snide" about it. I don't
know, Ray. How many ways are there to interpret your 'not so
veiled' insults?

>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.

By the time this is published to the List you (and EBK acting as
witness) will be in possession of a copy of my certification in
computer graphic art signed and dated by the Dean of the
department and affixed with the seal of Long Island University.

You can also contact Mr. Irwin Finkelstien, President of 'Jalor
Color Labs' (250 Hudson St. N.Y., N.Y.) and he will confirm my
almost twenty-five years of hands-on work experience as a
journeyman lithographer and graphic artist. I also studied film
and photographic techniques with experts from the Kodak company.
There are courses in various aspects of image creation and
reproduction that are too numerous to mention here that I took
at the Association of Graphic Artists headquarters here in NYC.

Now that you have insinuated that I have been less than honest
about my credentials as a graphic professional, I demand that
you produce copies of your own credentials.

What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

Now it's your turn. How do we know that your credentials are
real? Produce 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.

It _is_ pixel drop-out. What do you think it is, Ray. ET? Maybe
it's an enormous club-shaped Martian fly, eh?

>>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.

And Bruce Maccabee gave several possibilities, including speed
estimates if the object was large and farther away from the
camera. He may 'favor' the insect hypothesis but he doesn't
carve anything in stone in regard to what the object could/might
be. The only one attempting to arrive at premature conclusions
is you, Ray. And one or two others who have a personal agenda or
who think they know more/better than the rest of us.

>>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.

Wow! You certainly are full of yourself aren't you? This
conversation has just come to a screeching halt. I do not have
to take this kind of insult. You're not really interested in
discussing anything. You're way too enthralled with the sound of
your own voice to ever hear anything I might have to say.

I demand a public apology for the way you have spoken to me,
and as for _your_ 'alleged' credentials, I await copies.


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