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 - Maccabee

From: Bruce Maccabee <brumac.nul>
Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2004 01:32:17 -0500
Fwd Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2004 07:44:49 -0500
Subject: Re: The Beveridge UFO - Maccabee


>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

<snip>

>>>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.

I hate to get into the middle of a "who said/did what to whom"
or "who is the idiot" type of argument, but since my discussion
of this UO photo (Unknown Object) is evidently "bugging " people
I guess I will take the opportunity to expound:

Note: I take no responsibility for baldness resulting from
pulling your hair out in frustration after reading the discourse
below!!!

If you pick any area of the sky in the photo and blow it up you
see "structure". Is this a real effect of the sky? No ,its a
combination of (linear) electronic noise in the CCD sensor and
digitization noise. This is one type of problem with
interpreting the picture. Some of the "atmospheric effect"
around the object may be just a result of (linear) electronic
and digitization noise.

The whole image has "soft" edges... suggesting poor focus. The
left edge seems to be the most blurred, but the right is also
considerably blurred.

The bottom and the top of the main (darker) body where it joins
the white "dome" seem to be the least blurred. The different
amounts of blurring COULD be attributed to left-right motion
combined with slight defocus. The overall lighting is consistent
with a "solid" object that is illuminated from above left in the
photo (bottom surface dark, top surface bright).

Thus we might suggest an object moving to the left or right
which is also slightly out of focus. This would probably suggest
something close to the camera (to be out of focus), say a couple
of feet away. It is true that the right edge seems a little less
blurred than the left side, but this could be a result in the
difference in lighting and/or a difference in reflectivity.

Another possibility for overall image blur... that is, fuzziness
all around, which doesn't require defocus is that an object
moved toward or away from the camera, i.e., changed its radial
distance. This sort of motion causes an image to shrink (moving
away) or grow (moving toward) during the shutter time but the
resulting edge blur is NOT symmetric around the whole object.
Edges bounding wider portions will be smeared more than edges
bounding narrow portions. Suppose an object was a rectangle of
length L and width W. IF the rectangular object increased its
distance from the camera by 5% then the width dimension of the
image would decrease by 5% and the length dimension of the image
would also decreased by 5%. If the Length and width are not
equal, then the absolute amounts of edge blur will be different.
It is the absolute edge shift in position that causes the
blurred edge, so if L (horizontal dimension)> W (vertical
dimension) then the blur of the edges perpendicular to L, i.e.,
the vertical (left and right) edges, will be blurred more than
the horizontal edges (top and bottom). Thus, to get an image
which is blurred all around but is more blurred at the left and
right sides than at the top and bottom without assuming lateral
motion one needs only to assume that the object is wider (left
right) than it is high and also assume a motion either toward or
away from the lens,

In the present photo, the least fuzzy horizontal boundary (edge)
seems to be where the "white dome" meets the darker bottom.
Measuring downward (on a blowup) from the body-dome junction to
the bottom of the dark area I get a distance which seems to be
about 1/3 of the maximum left-right width I could imagine for
the object. In other words, if any radial motion occurred I
would expect the blur of the (nearly) vertical edges (left and
right) to be about 3 times greater than the blur of the
horizontal edges (bottom and dome-body junction). But it doesn't
look that way. It looks as is the left-right edges are blurred
more than 3 times the amount of the horizontal edges. If this is
so, one can imagine adding lateral motion to the toward-or-away
(radial) motion to create a resulting smear that has more left-
right smear than expected from radial motion alone.

[Sound of loud snore!]

I know, You're falling asleep. You want to know what this has to
do with about bugs and birds.
See below.

To "concretize" this discussion assume a saucer at 3000 ft.
Assume, as I did in my previous message, that the angular size
of the UO (unknown object) image is 1 ft / 50 ft = 1/50 of a
radian. That makes the saucer (1/50)3000 = 60 ft wide. With the
apparent width to height (excluding the dome) ratio of 3:1, that
makes it 20 ft thick (excluding the dome where the
extraterrestronauts were standing and watching their picture
being taken). Clearly this is the Zeta Reticulan model without
the optional Bird of Prey Klingon Cloaking Device.

Assume a 5% change in distance (moving away, for example) and a
5% change in lateral position. That is, the distance changed by
0.05 x 3000 = 150 ft and the lateral position changed by 0.05 x
60 = 3 ft. This would "fuzz" the horizontal top-bottom edges by
0.05 x 20 = 1 ft from radial motion (angular smear 1 ft/3000 ft)
and the vertical left right edges would be smeared by the
combination of .05 x 60 ft = 3 ft due to radial motion and 0.05
x 60 ft = 3 ft due to lateral motion for a total of 6 ft
(angular smear 6/3000). In other words, the vertical edges
(left-right) would appear about 6 times "fuzzier" than the
horizontal edges. Looking at the picture... who's to say? (If
you don't like this "fuzziness ratio" pick your own distance and
lateral position changes.)

OK. Now we come to the interesting part that results from the
assumption that some blur is a result of radial motion. In the
above I calculated the distance change at 150 ft for 5% edge
blur (5% of 3000 ft). This distance would have been covered in
1/250 sec. Velocity? 150 ft/(1/250 sec) = (gulp) 37,500 ft/sec
(speed of sound in air is about 1100 ft/sec). The lateral motion
of only 3 ft in 1/250 sec corresponds to a measely 750 ft/sec.
Clearly the inclusion of blur caused by radial distance change
introduces a new feature to the analysis, namely very high
speed!!!

Now cut the assumed distance to 30 ft, 1/100 of the previous.
Now, instead of a 60 ft Reticulan craft we now have a chubby 0.6
ft tweety bird, 7 " long by about 2.4 " high. All distances are
proportional so 5% changes are now 1.5 ft radial and 0.03 ft
lateral in 1/250 of a second corresponding to a mere 375 ft/sec
radial and 7.5 ft/sec lateral.

Wait a minute! 375 ft/sec for a bird? (88 ft/sec = 60 mph)
I think not! Not even high flying pelicans!

OK, cut the distance to 3 ft. This is "buggy" distance. The
length is about 0.7" and the height about 0.2". Fat beetle size?
Again distances and speeds are proportional so the distance
moved is 0.15 ft radial and 0.003 ft lateral. The speeds are
37.5 ft/sec radial and 0.75 ft/sec lateral. Now, 37.5 ft/sec
sounds a bit high for a bug... but maybe not! Also: if you allow
that the object was only several ft from the camera, then it is
possible to "share" the overall blur between the defocus due to
short distance and the blur dur t motion toward or away from. In
other words, if I assume a bug close to the lens which was
flying toward or away from the camera at the time of the photo I
may be able to deduce a combination of defocus and radial motion
that would result in a reasonable bug speed (what is that?) and
still get the smear/blur shown in the photo.

Of course, if this were an insect or a bird there could be other
dynamic conditions changing (wings flapping) that could produce
blurriness of portions of the image that would be superimposed
on any blurriness caused motion.

What does this all prove?

Well, at the very least we now know that things aren't as simple
as we thought!

Looking at the photo, with its juicy shape and bright and dark
"surfaces" (well, the LOOK like surfaces) one can be "seduced"
into saying, perhaps in a low voice, even a whisper... "saucer,
saucer, saucer...."

But now we know, if a saucer its the speed model.

I'mnot afraid of speed (in a saucer). Read my paper on
acceleration to find that out:

http://www.nidsci.org/articles/maccabee/acceleration.html

But, let's face it, that is the Xtreme Xplanation. Before we
make the flying ET leap we must be certain that neither bug nor
bird not film flaw - nor a chance combination of all three(?)
figure that one out(!) - could explain the image

And, by the way, I'm not convinced its a bird or a bug! But I
have yet to take the flying leap!!




[ 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