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 - Ledger

From: Don Ledger <dledger.nul>
Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2004 01:22:02 -0400
Fwd Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2004 07:33:45 -0500
Subject: Re: The Beveridge UFO - Ledger

>From: Amy Hebert <vanguard.nul>
>To: <ufoupdates.nul>
>Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2004 10:33:38 >-0600
>Subject: Re: The Beveridge UFO


>Well, let's just keep beating this poor dead horse some more. Nothing
>better to do with my time... not!

>What you are calling the "gaseous appearing envelope" surrounding the
>object appears to be due to the Gibb's effect - as pointed out by
>Steve Sensi back in the begining of this discussion about the
>Whittlesea UFO photo (as well as possible blurring due to the motion
>of the object), See:


>I have observed this effect in almost every photograph (most often in
>digital photographs) and video still I have in the old IFO Database
>as well as in the new IFO Database not to mention the hundreds of
>images I've studied but did not include in these databases.

>Don, how do you plan to separate the UFO's "aura" or "envelope" from
>the distortion caused by the Gibbs effect in order to analyze the
>potential power source of this object? How will you know you are
>_not_ analyzing the distortion rather than the "power source",
>exhaust, gaseous envelope, etc.?

>This image is, afterall, a jpg.

>I have placed a few images from the old and new IFO Database on a web
>page for your review. I increased the contrast so the Gibbs effect
>would be more visible. The first 4 images are of IFO's. See if you
>can identify them then tell me which ones might have a "gaseous
>envelope" or exhaust that might be analyzed to determine it's 'power
>source' and how you plan to separate the distortion from the original
>pixels in a jpg.



>I will be posting more IFO information related to the Whittlesea UFO
>in the near future.

>To learn more about the Gibbs effect and other photographic artifact
>common in digital photography go to:



>A. Hebert

>PS - Sorry for the sloppy job I did on this web page. I only had just
>enough time to throw it together.

Hi Amy,

No problem with the quick job. And thanks. But what's the rush? This is
what we are here for, right? Cripes I've seen weeks of nonsense on this
Lists about some of the most innocuous subjects. I often wonder where
Errol finds the patience. My apologies here now.

No Steve and Amy I don't see that same degree of Gibb's effect
in other parts of the photo or mosquitoing-or ringing if you
will as is surrounding the "object" and I'm betting no one else
does either.

Many have been rushing in to show off their expertise re JPEG,
MPEG and their vast experience of dealing with it. and is
probably a satisfying way in which to stroke egos, but it
doesn't do much for the study of the image does it? I want to
see more and proof to boot. If this is an IFO, prove it. Don't
just throw words around.

Amy, you seem to be a bit miffed with my curiosity [and Paul R.
Hill's] about the surrounding envelope. Since all aircraft abide
and endure it during flight I believe it a subject worthy of
exploration. If not with this photo ten perhaps the next.

Amy, if you and others are tired of this argument - I have a
mental picture of many bored readers-aloof and using their horse
tails, on-a-stick, to scare the flies off cow patties - then
don't waste your time on it.

I never said, BTW, that we could determine the power source, but
there is a real science in aerodynamics dealing with drag
coefficients and the effect of the boundary layer on the
aircraft's performance and speed.

There must be dozens of these types of photos around and I'd be
real surprised to find MPEG compression problems on some of the
older silver halide negatives.

Lastly, have a close look at your own pics Amy. You had to push
the contrast to make the effect appear [which doesn't look
anything like the object blurring incidentally] where in the
Beveridge photo the blurring is in sharp contrast to the rez in
the rest of the picture.

Why do you suppose that dumb little Kodak picked only your "bug"
to display the Gibbs effect. Ah,ah- motion doesn't count. The
shutter speed stopped that. Just like it froze the left-side
light signal blinking back and forth. No Gibbs effect there.

Dan Bright's contrast and color enhancements seems to bring out
some detail and even suggests a wing, but it looks much to small
a surface area to sustain lift. A bee's wing area to body weight
ratio is bad enough but even its wings are larger proportionally
than what I see in the color enhancements.

Ain't this fun?

Don Ledger

[ 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