Reply to John of PRA Australia

from John Velez - Whos comvinced its a UFO

Hello John, & All,

"UFO?" Why that's no "UFO", it's an "IFO!" (Identified Flying Object) I downloaded and carefully scrutinized the photo. The sky is what 'appears to be' a gunmetal grey, metallic, domed disc moving at a very high rate of speed. A 'classic' (as in "The Day The Earth Stood Still") flying saucer! There, see? That wasn't so hard to 'identify' was it? <VBG>

Things to consider... in clear, bright daylight, when this photo was taken, the built-in automatic light meter in the digital
camera would have set a fast shutter speed. (For those unfamiliar with cameras and lenses; there is a light meter built-into modern difital cameras that sets the shutter to open and close quickly when the conditions are bright, or to stay
open fractions of a second longer under dark conditions so that enough light will accumulate to be able to record an image. It is that way for film cameras and for the sensors in a digital camera as well.)

The domed disc really has to be moving at a tremendous speed in order for its image to appear smeared, blurred in the photo. Because of the bright daylight conditions and the speed with which the shutter opened and closed, for that object not be frozen in its tracks, it had to be moving at a fair clip. Fodder for further analysis.

Questions we'll never answer are; Wherezitfrum? Whomaydit? Whoozflyinit? It's a shame really. Those are the questions whose answers hold out the most promise for enlightenment.

As for 'Whatzit?' That one is easy... unless it's a supersonic balloon, it's a 'classic' flying saucer!

:)

Regards, John Velez

*-------------*-----------*

Reply to John Velez from Josh Crockett above -Whos comvinced its a UFO

Josh said : Greetings John Velez & List,

Josh said :Nice observations John. I took the liberty of enlarging the Whittlesea "UFO". I made some slight contrast adjustments to bring out the shape.

Josh said : You can take a look here:

http://www.freewebs.com/ufoscience/whittlesea.htm

>... 'appears to be' a gunmetal grey, metallic, domed disc moving at a very high rate of speed... The domed disc really has > to be moving at a tremendous speed in order for its image to appear smeared, blurred in the photo.

Josh said :Yes, you can clearly see blurring on the left side.

>As for 'Whatzit?' That one is easy... unless it's a supersonic balloon, it's a 'classic' flying saucer!

Josh said : I'll have to agree.

Josh Crockett

*-------------*-----------*

Reply to Steve Seaburg : Whos not so convinced its a UFO

From John Velez - Whos comvinced its a UFO

Hi Steve, All,

The very _first_ thing I checked was to see if that 'thing' in the sky was a 'drop-in.' It's not. I can spot a drop-in right
away*. This happens to be an area I have some expertise in - *see below. The pixels in this picture are all uniform (the
same size) everywhere in the field of view. Consistent for color and lighting too.

There is motion blurring and some distortion in the air surrounding the object. The blurring _away_from_ the direction
the object is traveling is to be expected by any object whose image is captured while it is in motion. If you'll notice, the
front (leading) edge of the 'saucer' is clearly defined and there is no sign that it was cut from another photo/picture and
placed here in this one.

When people do the kind of thing you are suggesting, it is near impossible sometimes to match the color and lighting _exactly_ from elements that were lifted from different images. Color and lighting are a really good way to spot tampering. No sign of it here. I create images for commercial use for a living. I'm very good at spotting 'doctoring' of any kind. I can't find evidence for 'tampering' of any kind in the photo from Oz.

In terms of the distortion in the air _surrounding_ the object, it 'could be' evidence of something else. Maybe of the effects on the atmosphere of whatever propulsion system is being employed. I don't pretend to know much about that kind of thing. People like Ray Sanford will tell you more about that than I can. Ask him about it. It has something to do with the ionization of the air surrounding the object.

Nope, no 'drop-in.' I'll put $ on it. Whatever that object is, it _is_ there and was a part of the scene at the time of the
exposure. The lighting is consistent with everything else. I could detect no sign at all of tampering _anywhere_ in the
photo.

It's a 'goodie' alright. One that will stand up under close professional scrutiny. Already the 'Pelican' (bird) explanation
has reared its ugly beak. I don't care how many 'birds' may have been photographed in Finland... this one from Oz is _no_bird... -whatever else it may be.

Regards, John Velez

*Graphic artist for 20 + years. Sixteen of them creating images for the printing industry using film and photographic
techniques, and eight years creating images for all media using a computer. I was 'certified' in computer graphics by Long Island University (Brooklyn Campus) after completing a comprehensive, full time, two year course in computer graphics. (1995)


*-------------*-----------*

Reply to Diane Harrison from Peter Johnson - Whos comvinced its a UFO

Hi Di, and all.

I have looked at the Whittlesea photo and the object in question seems to be a lot further behind distance wise than the stobbey pole which makes it a heck of a lot bigger than any bird, also it seems to have a flat bottom that is in shadow. The sun shining on the top corresponds to shadows on the ground which was mentioned.

This to me is a good case, I have no other explanation for it than it's a ufo. I know didgital images can be manipulated but as was stated by Mr. Rozario he did not tamper with the picture.

Very interesting indead. I wonder what stupid explanation the authorities come up with on this one.

Peter Johnson

*-------------*-----------*

Reply to Steve Seaburg from Don Ledger - Whos comvinced its a UFO

Steve,

I did the same and did not see the dropped-in frame. And let me ,get this right. This fellow takes some photos and then decides to risk his job by perpetrating a hoax using company equipment?

Many of these objects show up in photos while not seen by the photographer during the taking of the picture. It's the camera that stops the action, like the props of airplanes frozen on video tape or turning backward due to the fast shutter speeds demanded by the light processor/electronic shutter and iris in the camera.

To my mind this is an untapped resource worth looking into.

Maybe we should be using high speed cine-cameras in "trouble" spots in hopes of catching an object in flight. I suspect that some government agencies have.

There's the reverse side as well.

There are objects, video-taped, where they hover then just vanish.

I had the opportunity to catch one off my TV satellite feed from a program that was aired off BetaCam tape, which I recorded on High-8 [a fairly good first-second generation format.

This object was video-taped thru a car window, hovering, then it just vanished. But when it was run thru a video editor frame by frame you could see the object streaking away at high speed. Too fast for the eye but not for the video camera. A rough calculation gave an estimated zero-4,800 mph acceleration in one frame of video.

We should not be so quick to discard these photos-digital or emulsion.


Don Ledger

*-------------*-----------*