From: William Treurniet <wtreurniet.nul> Date: Mon, 21 May 2012 09:11:19 -0400 Archived: Tue, 22 May 2012 08:32:06 -0400 Subject: Re: Unusual Craft Over Reading, England >From: Martin Shough<parcellular.nul> >To:<post.nul> >Date: Mon, 21 May 2012 11:25:58 +0100 >Subject: Re: Unusual Craft Over Reading, England >>From: William Treurniet<wtreurniet.nul> >>To: post.nul >>Date: Sat, 19 May 2012 14:54:52 -0400 >>Subject: Re: Unusual Craft Over Reading, England >>>From: Martin Shough<parcellular.nul> >>>To:<post.nul> >>>Date: Sat, 19 May 2012 16:20:43 +0100 >>>Subject: Re: Unusual Craft Over Reading, England ><snip> >>Thank you Martin, for mentioning that possible explanation. >>Maybe not a soap bubble, but a mylar balloon? >Also possible. >>A problem with it >>though is that the black band in the object has a vertical >>orientation. Presumably the horizon is horizontal in England. >It is the camera axis that has a (near)vertical orientation, >pointed "at the sky". The up/down of this frame orientation is >arbitrary in relation to gravity. The orientation of the band on >this apparently shiny spheroid is unknown. A camera on a tripod tilted upward as far as it will go has an angle to the ground of about 60 degrees. Up/down relative to the object is not arbitrary, so the band's orientation appears to be vertical. >>Also, towards the end of the clip, the object turns so that the >>band disappears. The band appears to go behind the object, >>suggesting it is a semicircle rather than a full circle. A >>spherical reflection would not disappear. >>The object also seems to flash briefly occasionally, which would >>be odd if the light source were the sun. Judging from the way >>the cloud is illuminated, the sun is approximately behind the >>camera location. The flashes suggest to me that the light source >>is the object itself. >The changing reflection geometry of a bubble (or, differently, >an aspherical mylar balloon) moving in relation to the >landscape, the sun and a fixed camera is complex and the direct >illumination need not even be constant because the ray path >between it and a low sun "behind the camera" (whatever that >means) can easily be interrupted by trees, poles, buildings etc. >There're really no grounds for assuming this thing is self >luminous or is anything other than a mundane object (bubble, >balloon etc) until you have started to do some of the type of >investigation of angular relationships and camera >orientation/surroundings and local winds etc that I suggested >already, to try to put at least approximate bounds on possible >size and rate and altitude (coupled variables) and direction, >for testing predictions of bubble/balloon theories. There are insufficient data for meaningful calculations of that nature. The possible distance and size of the object covers too wide a range. Besides, in another case where I showed that an object's motion was not consistent with a balloon, critics here refused to allow mere calculations to override their own preferences. I wouldn't expect this case to be any different in that regard. >You may be able to prove yourself right. Until then this is not >very interesting for the rest of us. You are presuming a lot, Martin, saying you speak for everyone on the List. The appearance and behavior of the object is sufficiently unusual that it deserves a second look. It is still a UFO, in spite of your suppositions and predilections. William 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