From: Amy Hebert <vanguard.nul> Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2004 13:47:06 -0600 Fwd Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2004 07:43:03 -0500 Subject: Re: The Beveridge UFO - Hebert >From: Don Ledger <dledger.nul> >To: ufoupdates.nul >Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2004 01:22:02 -0400 >Subject: Re: The Beveridge UFO >>From: Amy Hebert <vanguard.nul> >>To: <ufoupdates.nul> >>Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2004 10:33:38 >-0600 >>Subject: Re: The Beveridge UFO <snip> >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 List about some of the most innocuous >subjects. I often wonder where Errol finds the patience. My >apologies here now. You're welcome, Don. ;> No rush, Don, I just don't see enough information to do much with this photograph at this time. Maybe if more evidence or relavent information is forthcoming, we can do something more by way of analysis. >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. OK, Don, perhaps this page I just constructed will help demonstrate the Gibbs effect in reference to the Whittlesea UFO. http://a-realitycheck.com/whittleseaufo/GibbsEffect.htm >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. I keep putting out and putting out, Don, but still you are not satisfied (don't tell your wife - joking! ;>). I have provided models and all kinds of images in support of my contentions, all you have provided so far are theories, speculation and words. It's your turn to provide proof of _your_ contentions. ;> I gave you materials to test your theory about the "envelope" around the Whittlesea object yet you totally ignored everything. Please give it a try. ;>You might learn something, we might all learn something. (I will post the actual unaltered images later this week - once you have ventured your guesses.) Here is the URL again: http://a-realitycheck.com/whittleseaufo/atmosphere.htm >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. I'm not "miffed" at all! I've learned so much and continue to learn. >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'm not bored either. I just don't think there is enough evidence for a thorough analysis of this photograph at this time. >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. MPEG compression will only occur when an image is rendered digital. >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. OK, Don, I provided the original images from the Whittlesea UFO photograph with the increased contrast along side. I use various contrast and adjustments to see some details more clearly. The effect is there. >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. I found some color smearing with the light (see the new web page). Does anyone know what causes this? >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. I'll add more on this later. Right now I'm late to work. Waiting for your guesses about the images I posted. Anyone want to guess? >Ain't this fun? Yes, I'm having great fun!! Really! A. Hebert PS - I may have found more shadows to help with analysis. See last photograph on my new web page.
[ Next Message | Previous Message | This Day's Messages ]
This Month's Index |
UFO UpDates - Toronto - Operated by Errol Bruce-Knapp