From: Bruce Maccabee <brumac.nul>
Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2004 19:16:26 -0500
Fwd Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2004 10:36:00 -0500
Subject: Re: The Beveridge UFO - Maccabee


>From: Don Ledger <dledger.nul>
>To: ufoupdates.nul
>Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2004 12:25:13 -0400
>Subject: Re: The Beveridge UFO

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

<snip>

>>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!!

>Hi Bruce,

>That's the problem isn't it? We are missing some information to
>make a final determination-distance. It can be argued either
>way - bug or craft.

>Is there any way to make a determination of distance by using
>focal length. I haven't looked yet [and I don't expect to find
>it either] but perhaps a shadow on the ground might be in the
>picture. The terrain doesn't leave much to be desired. It's a
>grassy field, but not impossible.

The f-stop was listed as about 9, as I recall, implying a
reasonable depth of field. If focused at infinity then I would
expect to get reasonable focus as close as several feet. Thus
only objects really close to the camera would appear out of
focus (e.g., bug).

As I pointed out, defocus de to closeness is not the only
possible explanation for fuzzy or "soft" edges of an image.
Motion toward or away from the camera can also fuzz the edges(as
can lateral motion smear). Then there always is the quality...
or lack of same.. just due to the photographic medium.

Bottom line: I don't think we can use focal length to determine
the distance.

As for a shadow... I thought of that. If real and a few
hundred(?) feet away, the shadow would be behind the sign at the
right side of the tracks (I think)

If small and close the shadow would be below the field of view.
No doubt there is some assumed distance where the shadow would
appear between the camera and the sign...but I don't see any.
That argues for close (small) or far away (big).