From: Nick Balaskas <nikolaos.nul> Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2011 22:59:32 -0400 Archived: Tue, 18 Oct 2011 07:05:49 -0400 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> >But that's not quite accurate. Here's that part of Bonilla's >report: >"I said that, in the field of projection lens, the bodies >appeared bright and left a bright trail, but across the solar >disc they seemed opaque. Examining carefully the photographs and >the negatives, one sees each is surrounded by a body like a dark >cloudiness and a track (trail) out in the field of the lens, >and, on going outside of the solar-disc, they are bright. That >would make me believe that the bright trails of the bodies >crossing the solar-disk absorb sunlight radiation or diminish >its power, photographically." >www.perceptions.couk.com/bonilla.html#trail <snip> Hi Everyone! Reading the comments posted for this article in Universe Today, including one from me (see below), one can see why the UFO(s) crossing the solar disk could not be sunspots or a comet. "The silhouette of a typical comet nucleus in front of the bright solar disk would have been much too small to be seen even through a telescope let alone be noticeable in old photographic plates. So it cannot be a comet either. The original explanation of migratory birds is still the best." If these mystery bodies were indeed bright when "outside of the solar disc" but "across the solar disc they seemed opaque" then this would rule out all explanations of space objects very close to the Sun as well as stars, planets, etc. in the same line of sight. This would not rule out high flying birds well within the Earth's atmosphere. Try photographing a bright star or a planet in the same part of the bright daylit sky as the Sun. You cannot. Try photographing a flying bird, such as a white seagull, or even an airplane, in the same part of the bright daylit sky as the Sun. It would appear "bright" and leave a short "bright trail", especially with the much slower shutter speeds for 19th century cameras. Now try photographing this same white bird or airplane as it crosses the solar disk. It would now appear "opaque" or "dark" relative to the overwhelming surface brightness of the Sun. Was the "First Photographed UFO" a Comet? Considering that these mystery bodies must have been very close to the observer and not deep in space, the only reasonable answer that fits all the facts (assuming no processing defects on the photographic plates or a hoax - either intentional or otherwise) to this question is that these were most likely birds or some other aerial objects or UFOs, not a comet or fragments of one. Nick Balaskas 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