Aliens On Earth.com Resources for those who are stranded here Our Bookstore is OPEN Over 5000 new & used titles, competitively priced! Topics: UFOs - Paranormal - Area 51 - Ghosts - Forteana - Conspiracy - History - Biography - Psychology - Religion - Crime - Health - Geography - Maps - Science - Money - Language - Recreation - Technology - Fiction - Other - New Search... for keyword(s)   in Page Titles in Book Title/Author in Contents of Pages ---other searches--- Metacrawler Yahoo FAST Search Google Altavista Dogpile Inference Find Northern Light IWon.com MSN Search Las Vegas Sun Location: Mothership -> UFO -> Updates -> 1996 -> Dec -> Re: A Fake 'Whitley Strieber'.....

UFO UpDates Mailing List

From: magnus@io.com (Bruce Lanier Wright)
Date: Sun, 22 Dec 1996 16:07:54 -0600
Fwd Date: Sun, 22 Dec 1996 17:23:49 -0500
Subject: Re: A Fake 'Whitley Strieber'.....

An astronomer on the forteana list discusses H-B...  Bruce W.


>Whitley Strieber insisted:

>> >My position has not changed regarding this matter. In the Japanese
>> >photograph, the star field behind both the comet and the object is
>> >streaking. This because the 'scope is following the comet. It is also
>> >following the object, which is not streaking either.

>> >For all the shrill denials, the physics of the photograph remain clear:
>> >object and comet must be traveling together. No amount of clever
>> >"debunking" can change this elementary reality. Whether the object will
>> >still be visible when the comet returns from its journey behind the sun
>> >is anybody's guess. But it was there when that photograph was taken.

>After reading this I went back to Art Bell's web page and took a closer look
>at the Japanese photo that Strieber is referring to.  First off, the comet
>and the object, the two brightest objects in the photo, are over-exposed.
>This would have been obvious right after the CCD image was taken, so who-
>ever took this image should have gone right back and made a better image
>right then.  That we've only got this lousy image tells us something, I
>think.

>Second, either the object is eliptical or it's streaking.  It looks
>like it's extended in a slightly different direction than the starstreaks,
>but it's overlapping the comet's coma which could effect the image that way,
>particularly with the over-exposure.  Starstreaks in each image are all the
>same shape.  The brighter the star, the larger the streak, but it's an
>exact scale-up.  The object isn't quite the right shape, but the ratio of
>length in the streaking direction to width in the perpendicular direction
>is just about right.  An unfortunate coincidence if the object is real and
>not a distorted star image.

>So, I think this image is probably showing a distorted star image next to
>the comet....