From: Terry Groff <terrygroff.nul>
Date: Sun, 28 Aug 2005 09:27:37 -0700 (PDT)
Fwd Date: Sun, 28 Aug 2005 13:12:21 -0400
Subject: Re: Photo Analysis Requested - Groff


>From: Bob Shell <bob.nul>
>To: ufoupdates.nul
>Date: Sat, 27 Aug 2005 14:11:48 -0400
>Subject: Re: Photo Analysis Requested

>>From: Terry Groff <terrygroff.nul>
>>To: ufoupdates.nul
>>Date: Sat, 27 Aug 2005 07:11:22 -0700 (PDT)
>>Subject: Re: Photo Analysis Requested

>>The first thing I noticed was the object doesn't seem to have
>>picked up the slight jerk of the camera like the other lights
>>did.

>"The object" reflects a prejudice that there is something there.
>Not a sound approach.

>There is a well know optical aberration of lenses called coma.
>It is caused by undercorrected spherical aberration, which is
>quite common in consumer grade lenses.

>The shape in the photo is a textbook example of lens flare in a
>lens suffering from moderate coma.


>Bob Shell

OK, OK, maybe 'object' wasn't the best word. It's just that I
see something there that didn't exhibit the same jerk of the
camera that the other lights did. This, to me, means something
other than a flying object, either a hoax, a lens flare or some
other abberation.


Terry