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 - Toronto - Operated by Errol Bruce-Knapp