Aliens On Earth.com Resources for those who are stranded here Navigation UFOs Paranormal People Places Area 51 Random Top 100 Catalog What's New Search... ...for this word in: Page Titles Page Contents Book Title/Author Help New Catalog Items (Random Selection) Lost Cities of Atlantis, Ancient Europe & the Mediterranean (new trpb) /c/childress/ - $16.95 Confessions of a Part-Time Call Girl (used hc) Barbara Ignoto - $8.00 Ghosts of Cleopatra Hill: Men and Legends of Old Jerome (used trpb) Herbert V. Young - $14.00 Morals and Dogma of the Ancient and Accepted Scottish Rite of Freemasonry (used hc) Supreme Council, the - $30.00 Haleakala: A Guide to the Mountain (new trpb) Cameron B. Kepler & Angela Kay Kepler - $9.95 A Beachcomber in the Orient (used hc) Harry L. Foster - $10.00   Other New Items | Main Catalog Page | Subjects   2000+ new & used titles, including hundreds you won't find at Amazon! Log-In Here For Advanced Features Mothership -> UFO -> Updates -> 1998 -> Feb -> Here Our Focus

From: werd@interlog.com [Drew Williamson]
Date: Sun, 8 Feb 1998 19:38:18 -0500 (EST)
Fwd Date: Sun, 08 Feb 1998 21:31:25 -0500
Subject: Re: 'UFO Sphere/Orb' over Brooklyn, NY

>From: XELAUFO@aol.com [Alex Cavallari]
>Date: Sat, 7 Feb 1998 17:42:52 EST
>To: updates@globalserve.net
>Subject: Re: UFO UpDate: Re: 'UFO Sphere/Orb' over Brooklyn, NY


>>From: werd@interlog.com
>>Date: Fri, 6 Feb 1998 12:57:24 -0500 (EST)
>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
>>Subject: Re: UFO UpDate: Re: 'UFO Sphere/Orb' over Brooklyn, NY

>>Alex,

>>Why did you not center the "sphere" in your frame area instead
>>of having it off to the other side of the frame from the sun?
>>(Exactly where one would expect a lens flare).
>>As a professional photographer I would like to state categorically
>>that this is a lens flare. Sorry I can only speak to what I see, not
>>any other references to what you saw before or after taking the picture.

>>Drew Williamson


>HI DREW,

>The image has the orb in that location because as it was moving ,
>while it was doing its "thing" I  was trying to capture it on
>film , I took many pics during this event and never saw any lens
>flare through my camera . It is not like the orb posed or stood
>still for me to film it, as soon as I saw it in the camera I took
>pics, Where it ended up it ended up. I already said that I agree
>it looks like lens flare but I know it was not. There is probably
>no way I could prove this even if I had 100 other witnesses ,

(And therein lies the problem with photographic evidence!)

>it appears that as long as the so called "experts" voice there
>opinions that is the final word, well I think the "experts"
>should start to understand that it is possible for them to make
>an incorrect assesment of something.

(Just as it is for eyewitnesses to make mistakes)

>If I saw any lens flare
>through the camera during this I would say so, I do not want
>false or misleading info to be presented to the ufo community.
>The orb was very much the color in the pic and I guess it is
>possible for lens flare and the orb to be close in colors.

>I am not new to the ufo field and have many years of experience
>and I do not put out what I believe are false reports or
>pictures.

I don't think it's necessary to raise the issue of hoaxing, it's
just that we SHOULD look at more prosaic answers before we resort
to more paranormal ones. All possible earthly explainations need
to be tested FIRST.

>Is it possible for any of the film "experts" to plot the lens in
>the camera to know if the camera is capable of producing lens
>flare at that part of the lens? Is it impossible to get lens
>flare in the middle / center of a image? I do have other pics of
>this ORB and I might consider releasing them if I can be
>convinced that this is lens flare but so far no one in my opinion
>has done that.

The answer is yes to both questions. You may have seen the
multiple "UFOs" over the Whitehouse taken in 1952. These lights
were plotted to the street lights that are also shown in the
photo. Perhaps you could include the make of the camera and
especially the lens make (aperture, focal length etc.). The fact
that the human eye is also has a lens could explain why you saw
this with the naked eye as well.

You have to understand that the photo is "suspect" because the
sun is obviously just out of the frame. It could also be a result
of what is called a sun dog or similar phenomenon, where the
light is refracted off very minute ice crystals in the
atmosphere. The fact that it was transitory could be because of
the clouds passing in front of the sun, acting like a large
blind, allowing the sun dog to appear and disappear. I would be
interested to know what the colour of the orb appeared to be to
the naked eye.

>I have seen many orb pics, some were of orbs of different colors
>some white and most if not all were called lens flare by the
>"experts" at some point in time. So I guess as long as a orb is
>the color and in a possible posiotin to be considered lens flare,
>thats what the "experts" will call it, even if that is
>incorrect.

There have been many people who have taken orb pictures under
different circumstances than yours. It would take too long to go
into them here, however they were obviously a result of lens
flare. Some said they couldn't see them but were able to
photograph them.

>I thank all the people who have emailed with there opinions and
>am not in the least bit bothered by the negative ones, I think
>this is what should be.

It is unfortunate that you use the term "negative" as this leads
one to suspect that you are not open to a more prosaic answer
should it exist. This phenomenon needs more objectivity and less
belief otherwise we run the risk of starting a new religion.
(Maybe it already is! <G>)

>So, I do no know what else I can say about the event except I
>would be glad to take a lie detector test / voice stress analysis
>etc to help support what I claimed happened.

I won't raise the issue of the credibility of these tests. <g>

Drew Williamson