UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 2011 > Oct > Oct 18

Re: Was 'First Photographed UFO' A Comet?

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?


>But that's not quite accurate. Here's that part of Bonilla's

>"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."



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



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 Main Index

UFO UpDates - Toronto - Operated by Errol Bruce-Knapp

Archive programming by Glenn Campbell at Glenn-Campbell.com