From: Don Ledger <dledger.nul>
Date: Sun, 28 Aug 2005 15:02:18 -0300
Fwd Date: Sun, 28 Aug 2005 16:55:24 -0400
Subject: Re: Photo Analysis Requested - Ledger


>From: Larry Hatch <larryhatch.nul>
>To: ufoupdates.nul
>Date: Sat, 27 Aug 2005 16:18:02 -0700
>Subject: Re: Photo Analysis Requested

>>From: Don Ledger <dledger.nul>
>>Date: Sat, 27 Aug 2005 12:05:40 -0300
>>To: ufoupdates.nul
>>Subject: Re: Photo Analysis Requested


>_If_ its a photo/camera artifact (as I arm-chair suspect) then
>camera motion would naturally come out in the wash.

>If its a genuine flying saucer, something out of vogue these
>days (no matter how much I still like them) then yes I would
>expect a little side wash, meaning motion-blur.

>I don't enjoy saying this, but the clarity of the image and
other details, all suggest to me some kind of camera matter.

>Said differently; I would not go into a courtroom claiming

>this was evidence of alien visitation. I wish things could be
>otherwise.



Hi Larry,

Camera matter is probably likely, if not a straight out hoax. I,
personally, lean toward the latter. I've asked Bob if he could
provide some examples of lens coma resulting in similar lens
flare images. The percentage of light in the "flare" doesn't
seem to jib with the brightness of the actual image and the
"object" doesn't seem to be blurred to the degree of the rest of
the image. So I'm in a position here of trying to present a hoax
as an explanation but that would be shot down by a lens flare
explanation.


Best,

Don