UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 2004 > Feb > Feb 12

Re: The Beveridge UFO - Ledger

From: Don Ledger <dledger.nul>
Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2004 23:29:28 -0400
Fwd Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2004 10:44:10 -0500
Subject: Re: The Beveridge UFO - Ledger

>From: Ray Stanford <dinotracker.nul>
>To: <ufoupdates.nul>
>Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2004 11:38:05 -0500
>Subject: Re: The Beveridge UFO

>>From: Don Ledger <dledger.nul>
>>To: ufoupdates.nul
>>Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2004 01:22:02 -0400
>>Subject: Re: The Beveridge UFO


>>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.

>Hold it right there, Don. The burden of proof is on anyone who
>alleges that this highly ambiguous image shows something truly
>anomalous, not upon those who propose straight-forward explanations.

Well, is it not anomalous? So far there is no definitive proof either
way. Bruce Maccabee can't determine whether it's near the lens or
hundreds of feet away.

>How so? Well, prosaic events such a bug flights,
>that might have caused the image are quite common. UFO events are, in
>fact, quite rare.

I find that argument a bit weak. We can't be certain that UFO
events are uncommon. Very few bug events are reported but there
are dozens of UFO reports worldwide each day and that's just the
ones that are indeed reported, albeit many are of a prosaic

>And, don't be fooled by thinking that reports by locals who have
>heard of this photo and report seeing things they did not understand
>at different times and not at that place have any relevance. They do
>not. Some instances cases involving fake UFO photos, with people
>hearing about them and thinking they are real, have naturally caused
>the innocent (and not so innocent) to report things to the media they
>might never otherwise have reported.

Yeah, no argument there. And I'm not fooled by the other
reports. They don't concern me - unless of course one is during
the same time-frame and area when the photo was taken.

But, it's my contention this thing was moving too fast to be
seen by the naked-eye and was accidentally trapped by the 250-6
shutter speed. If it's reasonable for a bug, then why not the
so-called "flying saucer", or the better appellation the UAP?

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