From: Edward Gehrman <egehrman.nul> Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2013 07:27:21 -0700 Archived: Mon, 29 Jul 2013 19:05:53 -0400 Subject: Re: 1971 Costa Rican Photo Is Prosaic Object >From: Ray Stanford <dinosaurtracker.nul> >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <post.nul> >Date: Sun, 30 Jun 2013 03:16:05 -0400 >Subject: 1971 Costa Rican Photo Is Prosaic Object >The much-touted 1971 Photo Of An Alleged UFO Over A Lake In >Costa Rica Actually Shows A Prosaic Object. See For Yourself <snip> >Well, there you have it. I trust that if you don't have greatly >impaired, uncorrected vision, now that you are being shown the >object image 'upside-down', you should be able to see for >yourself that the object in the Costa Rica 1971 photo was >amusingly prosaic. Hi Ray, I examined your evidence and it didn't convince me. I had never seen this photo before so I didn't have an opinion. But after closely reading both articles, I have to say that Vallee does the better job of sorting out the facts. <snip> >If you are offended, instead of appreciative, because of my >explanation of the photo as showing a common object, and are >thinking I'm just anti-UFO, you simply don't know me. I am very >positive concerning the existence of truly anomalous aerial >objects, which I prefer to call AAOs, and certainly one can >photograph them. I'm confident of that because various persons, >including personnel in my AAO hard-evidence project and I, have >done so. This is the same empty claim Ray has been making for many years: He alone, through a secret formula or application he has discovered, can know the difference between a "real" aerial object photo and those that are frauds. <snip> >Indeed, quite aside from what one can recognize as a the prosaic >object in the photo under discussion, there are still an >abundance of other things about the photo that inform certain >colleagues, and me, that the object is not an AAO. I refer to >the total absence of specific sets of physical phenomena >(including propulsion-related effects) which are >photographically recorded in association with genuine AAOs in >flight. If the craft are surrounded by an electromagnetic vortex, and they ride, as in the eye of a storm, then an aura might be seen or recorded on film. Is that what you mean? Since you've never shown any examples for us to study, it is hard to know what you mean. Also I just saw a video of a witness describe a UFO going into the water and he stated that there wasn't even a ripple of disturbance. <snip> >Concerning the AAO subject more generally: In my opinion, the >study of AAOs has been hampered by its own all-to-heavy reliance >upon anecdote (even with witnesses of high reliability), instead >of the search for, and analysis of, diagnostic hard evidence. Of >course, that approach wouldn't sell as many books, but >credibility among physical scientists and aerospace engineers >would likely result. I think the Vallee photo analysis is excellent circumstantial evidence. <snip> >Scientific credibility and insight concerning AAOs will likely >come only from physical hard-data such as Trumbull is seeking >(as contrasts with the purely observational) and via the science >that examines it, not from politics. One might reasonably >conclude that a Bassett has for years now been barking up the >wrong tree. Not only does this not make any sense, it's not funny. You must know, through your own experience that hard data (ex: your missing metal fragments from Socorro)can often be overlooked, ignored, or suppressed by both government officials and the UFO community. As soon as I read your photo analysis, I knew it was something that Bob Shell would like to examine. Bob and I have exchanged letters for the last six years, covering a variety of topics including UFO, evolution, and anthropology. Below is my request and Bob's reply: Bob, You'll be surprised when you see my mailings to you this time. I'd thought you might find this photo case to your liking. I had never seen it before, until Ray Stanford brought it to the attention on the Updates list. I've enclosed his posting to updates and his explanation of the photos that Vallee analyzed. I also enclosed Vallee's analysis and discussion of the photos which I found very interesting. I thought you would too. I think they show a disc either entering or leaving the water. I'd like to know what you think of the photos and Ray's debunking attempt. I'll send your thoughts to the list if you wish. Ed, I don't like Ray Stanford's AAO. It makes the same wrong assumption that "UFO" does - that what's seen is an "object" in the common sense of that word. Something you can knock up against. Myself, I have had three clear sightings of UAP (Unidentified Aerial Phenomena) in my life, and I would not swear that any of them was an "object" in the common sense of the term. One could not have been. I can detail my sightings in a later letter if you like. Anyway, Ray Stanford commits the most common fallacy in photo analysis. Simply because a photo looks like something, that must be what it is. Not so. I well remember when experts proved that the famous "surgeon's photo" from Lock Ness was the tail and rump of a submerging otter! Yes, it looks exactly like that, but that wasn't what it was. It turned out to be a carved wooden head and neck attached to a toy submarine. Yes, the photo was a fake, but it was not an otter. Mr. Stanford has shown convincingly that the UAP in this photo looks like the front of a common flashlight, but he has not proved that's what it is. There are many questions not answered. Most of all, how did the image get on that negative? Aerial camera lenses, like the one used, do not focus. They are factory-set at infinity focus. Such a lens could not image a flashlight close to the camera with anywhere near the sharpness seen in this image. It would be rendered as a blur. Many photographers, myself included, have bought military surplus aerial cameras/lenses with dreams of using these super- sharp lenses in regular photography, only to discover that they produce truly mediocre images at closer distances. This is because the lenses are not only fixed at infinity focus, but their optical design is optimized for use at a distance. So, if this UAP was close to the camera and small, how come it's as sharp as it is? What is it? I don't have a clue. But I'm skeptical that it's a flashlight. FWIW, there are many UAP photos in which the photographer saw nothing when taking the picture. In aerial survey photography like this the pilot and flight crew are generally looking around the plane, not straight down where the camera is pointing, usually through an opening in the belly of the plane. So the fact that they saw nothing is meaningless. Years ago an old friend of mine who wrote for the photo magazines under the pen name Leif Erickson showed me a photo taken somewhere in Montana, as I recall. A cone shaped UAP was in the photo, not seen by the photographer as I recall. We had the original negative and examined it under a microscope. Everything in the photo was normal, rocks, trees, sky, but the UAP was a multiple exposure. There was no indication of fakery. The photographer didn't want publicity. All we could figure out was that the UAP was flashing "on and off" rapidly while moving, so it registered several times on the film during the exposure. This was a daylight photo, so we thought the UAP was flashing rapidly in and out of this reality. All in all a very puzzling photo. What was this "thing" accidentally captured on film? We had no idea except that it was very strange. We guesstimated that it was about six feet tall, so not really large. Feel free to put the above up on the list. I'll answer any questions the List members may have on photo analysis. Bob Shell #1201280 Pocahontas State Correctional Center PO Box 518 Pocahontas VA 24635-0518 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 | This Day's Messages ]
This Month's Index |
UFO UpDates - Toronto - Operated by Errol Bruce-Knapp