UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 2004 > Feb > Feb 20

Re: BLURFOs - Velez

From: John Velez <johnvelez.aic.nul>
Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2004 12:51:48 -0500
Fwd Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2004 13:09:17 -0500
Subject: Re: BLURFOs - Velez


>From: Bill Hamilton <skyman22.nul>
>To: "UFO UpDates - Toronto" <ufoupdates.nul>
>Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2004 05:29:14 -0800
>Subject: BLURFOs

>We have a real problem. Lately, anything that streaks across a
>digital camera lens or video cam is being hailed as a flying
>saucer or UFO photo....

>Read more about it and see the illustrations at:

>http://www.rense.com/general49/blurfo.htm


Hi Bill, All,

Thank you Bill for posting this and thank you to James Neff for
some really classy graphics work.

Albeit inadvertently, James Neff has proven a point I have been
trying to make about the 'object' in the Whittlesea photo. If
you study James's graphics carefully you'll note that he has
taken the image of a bird in flight and blurred it. As you can
see from the final product, it does not even remotely resemble
the object can be seen in the sky of the Whittlesea photo.

In fact, James had to blur the bird so much in order to get it
to resemble a 'disc' shaped object, that absolutely _no_
discernable_detail_ remains at all of the bird shape. It no
longer resembles a 'bird' or the object in the Whittlesea photo.

James's creation ends up being something new, something we
haven't seen yet. I have been saying all along that if those who
claim to see a 'bird' or a 'fly' in the Whittlesea photo would
take the 'actual' shape of a bird or a fly (in full flight) and
reproduce a convincing look-alike to the object in the Oz photo,
that it would lend much weight to their theory. None of them has
been able to do it. I give James extra credit for using the
'actual' shape of a bird.

Also take careful note that in _all_ of his graphics that the
blur he added is _uniform_ in front of, and behind, his objects.
There is a heavy blur in front _and_ back. Not so in the
Whittlesea photo.

The 'front' (leading) edge of the Oz object is pretty
sharp/clear while the back end of the 'object' (whatever it is)
shows the kind of blur or trailing that is common to, and
consistent with, motion.

Again, at least James took the actual shape of a 'bird' and
blurred it. Not some random, bastardized-shape that is being
pawned off as an acceptable substitute or image of a bird. (As
has been done with a so-called 'fly'.) The proof is in the
pudding. Jeff took a bird, blurred it as best he could, and
failed to come up with anything that resembles the object in the
Whittlesea photo. That says something.

Now if we can get someone to do the same thing with the shape of
a 'real fly' in flight, we can dismiss that too as a 'possible'
or even 'probable' cause for the image recorded at Whittlesea.

Consider this:

Please don't forget that the photographer and the good people on
the city council down there are _not_ 'UFO buffs'. It's tough to
blame 'predisposition' or 'prejudgment' on folks who know little
or nothing of UFO phenomena. Yet they see something unusual
enough to submit to experts for analysis. Those of us who see a
'domed disc' shaped object in the sky of the Oz photo are not
alone.

I seriously doubt the council as a whole would have asked for
help with a photo of what they thought (or perceived) was a
common 'bird' or a 'fly'. It is my contention that those who see
a 'fly' or a 'bird' in the sky of the Whittlesea photo are not
only in the minority, some of them (not all) have a personal
theory or 'agenda' that requires this photo and others to be
dismissed as a misidentified 'fly' or 'bird.'

Show me da money! Show me a picture of a fly or bird in flight
that resembles the classic flying saucer shaped object in the
Whittlesea photo. So far, nobody has been able to even get
close.

I did. All I had to do was make a domed disc, add a little light
from the right and above, throw in a touch of motion blur and
viola! Whittlesea object!

Again, thanks to Bill for the post and Neff for proving a point
I've been trying to make. Nice work James.  ;)


Regards,

John Velez




[ 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