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 - Hebert

From: Amy Hebert <vanguard.nul>
Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2004 09:38:36 -0600
Fwd Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2004 14:30:12 -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>

Hi, Don:

I will pick up where I left off yesterday when I ran out of time
(if that's OK with you). Sorry.

>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.

Can you see it now? (Can you hear me now? ;>)

http://a-realitycheck.com/whittleseaufo/GibbsEffect.htm

The Gibbs effect is in many places in the photograph and it is
clearest around objects contrasted against the sky.

>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.

Don, I don't think anyone is 'showing off' their expertise any
more than you and many others are 'showing off' when drawing on
a vast knowledge base of information in other discussions. Do
you call using information and tools to support one's
contentions "ego stroking" when you or Dick or Bruce Maccabee do
it? And as for it not doing much for the study of the image,
many people have written to me via private E-mail as well as on
this list thanking me for my input as well as the input of
others along these lines.

I think everyone helps in analyses by bringing whatever talents
or skills they have to the table.

<snip>

>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.

This is true, Don, but what you said was:

"One of the reasons I don't like to blow this shot off is due to
the very nature of the "gaseous appearing" envelope surrounding
the object. Much can be learned from ordinary jet's exhausts of
the aircraft's performance and I believe that there is something
to the aura surrounding some UFO photos. Rather than being out
of focus perhaps this is some by- product of it's power source.
I made mention of this to Errol on SDI Saturday evening. I'm
sure there are some out there that can make much of that aura by
measuring light intensity, spectrum and what have you. What does
it look like in infrared for example? How is the envelope
refracting or filtering light passing through it?"

Perhaps you did not mean you could determine the power source
but you were referring to some kinds of analyses using the
'gaseous appearing' envelope surrounding the object in the
Whittlesea UFO photograph. I was responding to your reference by
pointing out the Gibbs effect involved and asked you how you
would separate the 'envelope' or "aura" from the digital noise
that surrounds the object to determine if any "by-products of
it's power source" were actually present.

I thought your suggestions of using light intensity, spectrum,
infrared, refraction, etc. were excellent ideas. I just don't
know how you would separate a possible envelope surrounding the
object from the mosquito noise (Gibbs effect) which also
surrounds the object. Wouldn't you want to do that before
measuring light intensity, spectrum, infrared, refraction, etc.?
I mean, if you don't separate the noise from the signal
(envelope in this case), how will you know you are not measuring
both the noise _and_ the signal (envelope) at the same time? How
accurate would the analysis be if at least some attempt is not
made to determine what is truly visible in the image and what is
merely distortion?

I'd really like to know how one would separate the digital noise
from the true image beneath or within of an unknown flying
object. Can anyone explain how this can be done? If we do this
first, then we could apply the various experiments/tests you
suggested, Don.

>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.

I doubt negatives have many problems with the Gibbs effect or
mosquito noise since they are not digital. I have found there is
less Gibbs effect in the video stills and regular photographs I
have captured for the IFO Database than the images I captured
using my digital cameras (although these do have some noise due
to being compressed when scanned and converted to jpgs).

>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.


 (I forgot to indicate that I also decreased the brightness of
these images.) I did this, Don, to help designate the area of
Gibbs effect that _surrounds_ the object in the Whittlesea
photograph. Decreasing the brightness and increasing the
contrast makes the amount of Gibbs effect easier to see and
perhaps easier to measure. I would think this process would be a
useful tool now and in the future especially with all the
digital photographs and video footage of alleged UFO's we will
be analyzing due to the growing proliferation of digital
cameras. Of course you would not use this tool for analyzing any
blurring that may be present. But you would need to distinguish
between how much is actual blurring and what just looks like
blurring due to Gibbs effect and other digital noise.

There also appears to be an effect in this image that I've come
to recognize in many images I have acquired for the IFO Database
that involves a kind of "shadow" or dark base below an object
that is not really part of the object. I have found this "false
base" in images I have of IFO's so I know it is not part of
their original structure. It appears to be some sort of lens
flare but not necessarily the regular kinds of lens flare. I am
studying this effect and will let you know what I learn when I
have more information.

>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.

Uh, Don, take another look. Even the signals lights, as well as
many other objects in the photograph, display the Gibbs effect.

And please note that I have indicated the object could be many
things from a UFO to a flying insect (never said it looked like
a fly either - I tend to lean toward it possibly being a large
type of bee). The point is...we do not know what it is or is
not.

I never said motion does not count. I simply asked how you will
determine the difference between what's really going on and what
may be due to the gibbs effect/digital noise.

>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.

Yes, if we look for details we know should exist if it were a
flying insect or airplane, etc. but are not entirely visible, we
might assume these details are not there. Again, I refer you to
the images of IFO's I asked you to analyze and tell me what you
thought they were from the photographs alone.

There are images of flying insects on that page. Can you see
the wings? The wings are visible if you know what you're
looking at. And...the wings seem much too small to sustain lift
for such a large body but they must work because it was flying
(it was quite close to the camera). I have found that images of
many ordinary flying objects become quite distorted (almost
beyond recognition) when frozen in time in a photograph or in
video stills. In photographs and in video footage the least
visible aspect on many flying insects are their wings - same for
airplanes, helicopter rotors, kite tails, strings on balloons,
bird wings, etc.

Welcome to my world, Don. <g>

A. Hebert




[ 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