From: Ray Dickenson <r.dickenson.nul> Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2011 01:58:58 +0100 Archived: Tue, 18 Oct 2011 07:04:25 -0400 Subject: Re: Was 'First Photographed UFO' A Comet? >From: Kentaro Mori <kentaro.mori.nul> >To: post.nul >Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2011 10:47:38 -0200 >Subject: Re: Was 'First Photographed UFO' A Comet? >>From: Ray Dickenson <r.dickenson.nul> >>To: <post.nul> >>Date: Sun, 16 Oct 2011 22:54:26 +0100 >>Subject: Re: Was 'First Photographed UFO' A Comet? <snip> >>www.perceptions.couk.com/bonilla.html#trail >>original Spanish text version >>www.perceptions.couk.com/bonilla2.txt <snip> >Mexican researcher Luis Ruiz Noguez wrote an excellent summary >of Bonilla's photos, available in Spanish: >http://www.anomalia.org/perspectivas/in/ovnisbonilla.htm >http://www.anomalia.org/perspectivas/in/ovnisbonilla2.htm >Noguez quotes that even Fort speculated the objects could have >been birds or insects. The idea of a comet, I think we can all >agree, is highly unlikely, least of all because it doesn't fit >the recorded and reported evidence, one of the points which Ray >mentioned. >Bottomline is, we don't know for certain what the objects were, >but it's not unreasonable to suggest they were prosaic objects, >as we have several other instances of such in contemporary >observations and records. <snip> Hello Kentaro I took the trouble to read that Noguez piece. Those two really should have done the same with Bonilla's report. Bonilla seems to have been a careful chap and took "certain measures" after the first day's sightings and again after the second day's, so as to establish some basic facts: i) he'd carefully focussed his set-up (based on the `equatorial' telescope) on the moving objects and not on the Sun. Then, in the evening / night he steered that pre-focussed `equatorial' scope to the visible planets in turn and then to the Moon. The views so gathered told him that the objects had been at a distance much less than any planet but only a little less than the Moon. He then apparently checked the calibration of his focus set-up, because he was able to refine his estimate of about 3/4s of the Moon's distance, down to about 2/3s - i.e. approx. 242,000 kms; ii) he'd measured the time the objects took to cross the Sun's face to be a minimum of 1/3 of a second and a maximum of one second (to move 1/2 degree angular). Recall they were travelling across the Sun in a straight line from West to East; also that they mostly appeared to be either "perfectly circular" or "elongated" (elliptical?) to the naked eye. Think we can discount any elongation in the photos since those `wet-plates' must have been exceedingly `slow', while from the distance and angular motion you can work out they were moving at quite a pace (in addition to being quite a size); iii) he had also contacted the observatories at Mexico (City?) and Puebla asking them to look towards the Sun for objects of some kind the following day. When they reported that nothing was visible to them at the time he _was_ observing objects, he then had some idea of their minimum parallax. All that information, and the fact that the objects were bright with a bright trail (or exhaust?), both changing to dark when seen against the Sun - which rules out reflections or optical effects around the objects since photons do not interfere with other photons, seems to place some strong limits on the objects' possible identities. Cheers Ray D Listen to 'Strange Days... Indeed' - The PodCast At: http://www.virtuallystrange.net/ufo/sdi/program/ These contents above are copyright of the author and UFO UpDates - Toronto. They may not be reproduced without the express permission of both parties and are intended for educational use only.
[ Next Message | Previous Message | This Day's Messages ]
This Month's Index |
UFO UpDates - Toronto - Operated by Errol Bruce-Knapp