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 - Shough

From: Martin Shough <mshough.nul>
Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2004 16:29:56 -0000
Fwd Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2004 14:39:06 -0500
Subject: Re: The Beveridge UFO - Shough

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


>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.


>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

Hello Bruce,

Permit me to paraphrase the argument in your long post: You
point out that there does appear to be a small amount of
blurring top and bottom in addition to the lateral motion blur.
You measure this vertical blur to be, shall we say, several
times as small as the lateral motion blur, and interpret it as
due to either poor focus or a _radial_ distance change. Since
poor focus implies proximity to the lens, and since the implied
_radial_ velocity would be something like twice the maximum
airspeed of a fast bird, your analysis appears to favour an
insect on either interpretation.

However another possibility for image blur on both vertical and
horizontal axes is object motion in both vertical and horizontal
planes. There is no reason why an object having (say) a 20 mph
major component of velocity left to right shouldn't have a minor
component in the up-down direction as well. Arguably, critters
such as insects _and_ birds typically do _not_ move perfectly
horizontally.  Vertical body motion up and down in reaction to
the force exerted by each wingbeat would probably be on the
order of 0.01" in 1/250 sec for a rate of a few beats/sec, and
thus negligible; but the bulk vertical motion required is after
all only a fraction of the acceleration due to gravity. A common
bird such as a pigeon can swoop at well over 40 knots. Therefore
a bird swooping left to right, descending at just a few ft/sec.,
could exhibit exactly such differential blurring.

Do you not agree that this can eliminate or substantially reduce
the radial motion you calculate as being required, and that
therefore your analysis no longer favours - on this ground at
least - an insect as opposed to a bird? As I pointed out in a
reply to Dan Bright there is also the question of the stopping
of 'wing' motion in 1/250 sec which appears to favour a wingbeat
period much longer than the period characteristic of an insect.

Finally, to that person who is reading this with a sigh and
asking "Why does it matter?" my answer is that if facts and
reason do not matter then nothing does. Some people were quite
excited about this 'domed saucer' picture when it first emerged.
There was talk of all that might be learned from it about
propulsion systems and so forth. The facts sure as hell mattered
then. Didn't they?

Martin Shough

[ 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