From: James Easton <voyager@ufoworld.co.uk>
Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2002 17:10:27 +0000 (GMT)
Fwd Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2002 17:56:53 -0500
Subject: The Nashville & Waterbury 'UFO' Photographs



Some recent discussions on the 'UFO Research List' [UFORL] have
highlighted the evident true identity of the object responsible
for those purported 'Nashville' UFO photographs.

There are copies of the photographs and a background story
online, at:

http://www.rense.com/submissions/3ufosday.html

and

http://www.filersfiles.com/features/bethune.htm

Incidentally, this is not the same story of their alleged
origins as published by UFO Magazine (UK), in their front-cover
feature. However, that's very much an aside.

Of more importance is a 1980s magazine article containing
photographs of a 'disco' lighting-rig, which also produced smoke
effects - see:

http://www.ufoworld.co.uk/ftp/nashvlle.jpg

A comparison between this and the 'Nashville UFO' can be seen on
my web site, at:

http://www.ufoworld.co.uk/ftp/nashcomp.jpg

There's another, more revealing, photograph from that magazine
article which I haven't yet uploaded.


An unexpected off-shoot from setting the 'Nashville UFO
encounter' in its true 'flying saucer' context, was that
another, equally celebrated photograph - the Waterbury 'UFO' -
might also owe its origins to the same source.

[According to the 'UFO Magazine' article, there were allegedly
numerous other photographs, never published, from our
'Nashville' portfolio].

The background to an apparent connection with the Waterbury
image has been explained on UFORL and this was a recent update:

Some time ago, I wrote...:

Explaining the true origins of the 'Waterbury' photograph would
not only be an unexpected bonus, it's a more significant
development than resolving the 'Nashville' collection.

This time, the claimed photographer apparently isn't anonymous,
plus the photograph was analysed. I wonder if the negative was
examined.

Mark Cashman's 'MUFON Connecticut' web site states:

Randy Etting, a resident of Newtown, was taking a walk outside
his home. A commercial airline pilot with over 30 years
experience, he always looked at the sky... he saw a number of
orange and red lights... approaching from the west... He... got
his binoculars and called his neighbors to come outside. The
object by this time was a great deal closer and seemed to be
over I-84, just east of Etting's home... the lights were
shimmering like distortion from engine heat, but he could hear
no sound... "As the UFO passed over I-84, cars in both the east
and west bound lanes began pulling over and stopping. The UFO
displayed a semi-circular pattern of very bright multicolored
lights. Five motorists reported that, as the object became
visible, a number of cars lost power and had to pull off the
highway. A State Police officer [who wishes to remain anonymous]
sent to investigate photographed the object.  "... Dr. Bruce
Maccabee... [analysed the photo]. His findings indicate the
object was huge, perhaps over a thousand feet across, and that
the lights showed a definite pattern. He also indicated the
lights seemed to have been flashing very quickly in some sort of
sequence, giving the impression that some were out of focus
while others were sharp."

See:

http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Zone/9047/picindex.htm

[...]


An irony is that the lights depicted in this photograph are
entirely consistent with a saucer-shaped object, not a
'boomerang.

I suppose someone must have thought it could pass for the
latter, and they were obviously correct, although I've always
considered the photograph had no obvious connection with a
boomerang-shaped source.

As we can now appreciate, our Waterbury flying saucer is either
travelling upside down, or was photographed from above!

An illustration of this can be seen at:

http://www.ufoworld.co.uk/ftp/upended.jpg


If the Waterbury photograph is connected to those Nashville
pictures, then the image is 'upside down', intentionally or
otherwise.

It does actually look much more 'convincing' the right way up!
See:

http://www.ufoworld.co.uk/ftp/watrbry2.jpg

A comparison of light placement correlations between the
Waterbury 'UFO' and that 'Nashville' lighting rig can also now
be seen on my web site, at:

http://www.ufoworld.co.uk/ftp/saucers2.jpg

A further comparison of some notable features is shown at:

http://www.ufoworld.co.uk/ftp/saucers3.jpg

Note that the Waterbury image has to be both rotated and
'mirrored' to make this comparison.
[END OF EXTRACT]


It now turns out that Waterbury photograph on MUFON
Connecticut's web site is indeed apparently upside down!

At least according to 'UFO Encounters', by Jerome Clark and
Marcelo Truzzi - see:

http://www.ufoworld.co.uk/ftp/watrbury.jpg

They claim the photograph was taken on May 26, 1988, whilst
MUFON Connecticut date it from May 26, 1987.

Does anyone know more about the background to this purported
photograph of an "enormous, slow-moving structure", especially
when it was supposedly taken and also first published? [END OF
UFORL EXTRACT]


It's not the intent to fragment related discussions, nor does
available time allow that, and I'll leave them on UFORL.

I would however point out some of the further correlations noted
- see:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/UFORL/message/444


The above is simply for information and to clarify why I would
be interested to know if any UpDates subscribers can
straightforwardly answer the questions - is the MUFON image
upside down as originally surmised [any reason why the image
isn't also reversed?] and where/when/how did the Waterbury
photograph first become claimed evidence of a 'UFO' sighting?

How did Bruce Maccabee conclude the lights were from an object,
"perhaps over a thousand feet across"?


Please reply directly if that's preferable.


James Easton.
E-mail: voyager@ufoworld.co.uk
www.ufoworld.co.uk