UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 2007 > Oct > Oct 10

Re: Diversity Of UFO Morphology

From: Bruce Maccabee <brumac.nul>
Date: Tue, 9 Oct 2007 11:44:52 -0400
Archived: Wed, 10 Oct 2007 10:53:37 -0400
Subject: Re: Diversity Of UFO Morphology


>From: Lan Fleming <lfleming5.nul>
>To: UFO UpDates <ufoupdates.nul>
>Date: Mon, 08 Oct 2007 16:38:41 -0500
>Subject: Re: Diversity Of UFO Morphology

>>From: Joe Faccenda <Uforth.nul>
>>To: ufoupdates.nul
>>Date: Sun, 7 Oct 2007 18:16:08 EDT
>>Subject: Re: Diversity Of UFO Morphology

>>>From: Richard Hall <dh12.nul>
>>>To: ufoupdates.nul
>>>Date: Sun, 07 Oct 2007 09:45:25 -0400
>>>Subject: Re: Diversity Of UFO Morphology

>>>If we restrict the question to the photographic evidence alone,
>>>and even to 'saucer-like' objects, can anyone cite a pair of
>>>photos from independent sightings that depict objects that are a
>>>clear geometric match? If indeed there are none, is this not
>>>puzzling?

>>Even though my Website is dedicated to UFO shapes and
>>configurations:

>>www.uforth.com

>>I have to admit trying to find identical photos of the same type
>>of craft is very difficult.

>>There are strong similarity's in many reports, and even a few
>>very close matches with photos/drawings:

>>The Heflin/Ure Idaho,Aug 15th 1947 for instance.

The name is Urie.

>>In my own case the UFO I saw and drew, was seen and photographed
>>two months later, but I have yet to see another photo of this
>>craft taken in a different location.

>>At best all that could be said is that there are 'types' be it
>>Cylinder, Flat top, Triangular, etc.

>>And while reports can be consistent from type to type, photo
>>images leave a lot to be desired.

>Of course the skeptical argument for this would be that hoaxers
>like to add their own personal touches to their flying saucer
>models and photoshopped images. But there is at least one good
>match: the Trent photos and a photo allegedly taken in Rouen,
>France in 1957. Unfortunately, the provenance of the Rouen photo
>is unknown and some people think it's even a retouched copy of
>the Trent photo. There's a good recap of the debate about the
>Rouen photo at:

>http://www.nicap.org/france57rep.htm

>Whether or not the Rouen photo is real, it seems to me that even
>if photographs of two identical objects were taken, it's
>unlikely that the photos could be used to prove the objects
>were identical. Two identical objects would almost always be
>photographed at different angles and under different lighting
>conditions. Even if there were multiple photos taken during both
>sightings showing the two objects at different angles,
>(something that rarely happens), it would be unlikely that the
>two sets of photos would be sufficient to infer that the 3-
.>dimensional shapes of both objects were identical.

The Rouen photo is not just a copy of the Trent #2 photo. The
perspective is slightly different (the "tilt" is different).
However, it is true that the provenance is unknown. A search was
made by Claude Poher at my request over 20 years ago. I also
communicated with the editors of Flying Saucer Review and the
Royal Air Force Flying Review. Neither could say exactly how the
photo was obtained.

I have watched this "diversity" discussion. Apparently few are
aware of Special Report #14 and the "12 good unknowns" which
were so well described and so clearly reported that they were
selected out of about 3200 total between 1047 and Dec. 1952 for
"special treatment." Although there were several that could have
been different views of the same type of object, the analysts
used the diversity to argue that, becuase they were all (in some
way) different it was impossible to construct from the reports a
"model saucer" and, hence, there was no such thing. IN other
words, because there were many (types) there were none.

See:

http://brumac.8k.com/SSUFOs

and download the Power Point file for discussion of UFO Science
(or where is there science in ufology) and the most complete
discussion of Special Report #14. Sorry some of the pages may
not be perfectly clear unless you magnify them.

Also, there is a discussion in the September issue of UFO
Magazine: Prosaic Explanations - the failure of UFO skepticism
is a failure to be scientific about proposed explanations.



Listen to 'Strange Days... Indeed' - The PodCast

See:

http://www.virtuallystrange.net/ufo/sdi/program/subscribers/


[ 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