PDA

View Full Version : Did UFOs buzz the white house 1952?



Infinitenight2093
2010-Aug-09, 01:20 AM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1952_Washington_D.C._UFO_incident

I would like to know what your thoughts are on this incident, thank you.

astrophotographer
2010-Aug-09, 02:06 AM
http://files.ncas.org/condon/text/s3chap05.htm#s3

Go to pages 227-236. In the end, they concluded:

In summary, the following statements appear to be correct:


The atmospheric conditions during the period 19-20 and 25-27 July, 1952, in the Washington, D. C., area, were conducive to anomalous propagation of radar signals;

The unidentified radar returns obtained during these incidents were most likely the result of anomalous propagation (AP);

The visual objects were, with one or two possible exceptions, identifiable as most probably meteors and scintillating stars.

I notice the wikipedia link refuses to list this as a source (with only brief mention of the study) or the Bordon-Vickers study (http://www.cufon.org/cufon/wash_nat/CAA_Radar_Study.pdf). It seems the person who wrote the article was interested in only presenting one side of the story.

eburacum45
2010-Aug-09, 05:03 PM
Here's an interesting theory from the Fortean Times
http://www.forteantimes.com/features/fbi/4027/weapons_of_mass_deception.html
It doesn't entirely convince me, but it does highlight two relevant facts; firstly there were many radar/UFO cases in the Fifties, despite the fact that radar systems were relatively poor in those days compared to today's; and there were a number of devices around that could 'spoof' the radar systems available at that time. It seems entirely possible that some of the radar/UFO cases of that time may have been caused by deliberate spoofing, even if the Washington ones were not.

dirty_g
2010-Aug-10, 12:42 AM
I just posted an article on this section of the forums 5 UFO sightings which has thhese sightings in it. Look it up if you like, It's not that detailed mind you.

HenrikOlsen
2010-Aug-18, 01:08 PM
Here's an interesting theory from the Fortean Times
http://www.forteantimes.com/features/fbi/4027/weapons_of_mass_deception.html
It doesn't entirely convince me, but it does highlight two relevant facts; firstly there were many radar/UFO cases in the Fifties, despite the fact that radar systems were relatively poor in those days compared to today's;...
That's not actually surprising, I expect a lot of the development of radars have been about eliminating false returns, it's actually the poor system I'd expect to have most clutter since it doesn't have any way of identifying it as irrelevant.

John Mendenhall
2010-Aug-18, 04:18 PM
A good point. Certainly we would expect UFO's to have good ECM.

kamaz
2010-Aug-28, 07:29 PM
It seems entirely possible that some of the radar/UFO cases of that time may have been caused by deliberate spoofing, even if the Washington ones were not.

If you have a device producing "ghost" airplanes, it is completely logical to try it in your own airspace to test the readiness of your defenses. And what better place to test than near all these top priority target(s) in DC?

captain swoop
2010-Aug-28, 09:38 PM
Here's an interesting theory from the Fortean Times
http://www.forteantimes.com/features/fbi/4027/weapons_of_mass_deception.html
It doesn't entirely convince me, but it does highlight two relevant facts; firstly there were many radar/UFO cases in the Fifties, despite the fact that radar systems were relatively poor in those days compared to today's; and there were a number of devices around that could 'spoof' the radar systems available at that time. It seems entirely possible that some of the radar/UFO cases of that time may have been caused by deliberate spoofing, even if the Washington ones were not.

How poor was the Radar? When I was in the Navy in the 1980s the Long Range Air Warning set and the Target set we had were both versions of sets that were designed in the 50s. All that was different is the valves had been replaced with solid state boards. I don't think the sets they had in the 50s were any less capable than anything that was available up into the 90s when some of the new digital phased array sets came along.


What were these devices that could 'spoof' radars in the 50s that couldn't do the same to a radar today? there are various ways of 'jamming' radar sets and various ways of avoiding jamming, they are the same now as they always were. It was known at the time radar was developed that it could be jammed with simple strips of aluminium foil cut to the right length, it was used on D-Day to cause the Germans to think a fleet was moving where it wasn't and it was used by allied bombers to blind German night fighters and air warning radar.
More sophisticated electronic methods have been developed and countermeasures but as far as I know there is no way of making a radar give a return like a legitimate contact other than putting a contact up for it to return. Little black boxes with buttons on that make a contact appear on your PPI only exist in movies.

HenrikOlsen
2010-Aug-28, 11:09 PM
Now that we have someone with knowledge participating, would I be wrong in assuming that more false returns were likely observer by the earlier radars as they were less capable of distinguishing false from true returns?
So the greater frequency of radar cases then vs. now isn't really a surprise as modern radar systems are better at distinguishing real returns from clutter?

kleindoofy
2010-Aug-28, 11:14 PM
... So the greater frequency of radar cases then vs. now isn't really a surprise as modern radar systems are better at distinguishing real returns from clutter?
No, no surprise.

It's because the aliens know that radar has improved and are more careful now.

Them thar alien folk ain't all dumb like.

kamaz
2010-Aug-29, 10:59 AM
Little black boxes with buttons on that make a contact appear on your PPI only exist in movies.

They never gave you the mathematical background on how a radar works, did they? :)

A radar works by transmitting a radio pulse and measuring return (i.e. the signal reflected from the target). The return signal contains three informations:

1. Amplitude (k), dependent on the target cross-section (A) and distance (R): k=A/R^4

2. Doppler frequency shift (fD) of the return signal with respect to the emited signal f0, dependant on the radial velocity of the target (i.e. velocity towards the radar): fD = -2*v/lambda, where lambda is the carrier wavelength

3. Delay (tau), which is dependent on the target distance (R): tau=2*R/c, where c is propagation speed (speed of light, practically speaking).

A radar receiver measures k, fD, and tau of the return signal and calculates A, v, and R.

Now, imagine a device made of: a receiver, a demodulator, an amplifier, a delay line, a modulator and a transmitter. An incoming radar pulse is received by a receiver, and demodulated, processed, modulated and transmitted back towards the radar station. Now, we can produce a wide range of ghost targets, by simply processing the original signal:

1. We can simulate the target cross-section by setting the signal level

2. We can simulate the radial velocity by frequency-shifting the signal, producing a fake Doppler shift

3. We can simulate the distance by simply delaying the response signal

Working out how to simulate tangential movement is left as an exercise to the reader.

Also note, that we are not bound by any physical constraints when setting the parameters. It's not a problem to make a ghost that moves at 2 km/s and then instantly stops. Sounds familiar? :)

We must keep in mind that in 1952 a lot of first-generation 1940s equipment was still used, which was very primitive and thus probably susceptible to such games. A quick look at the formulas shows that the simplest anti-ghost measure is to note that:

v = dR/dt

and derive relationships between fD, k, and tau which must be true for a real target.

Now, a modern radar also uses a variety of techniques based on analyzing coherence of the return signal. This is done to reduce clutter and increase resolution, but it's completely logical that similar techniques could be used to eliminate intentional jamming.
So I think it's safe to say that since 1940s radar designers have figured out even more sophisticated ways of dealing with ghosts :) which is why you were never told that they can be a problem.

Bibliography: Levanon & Mozeson. Radar signals (2004). Google books link (http://books.google.com/books?id=l_2lHI9fVHUC&lpg=PP1&ots=N2I_MbmfbC&dq=levanon%20radar%20signals&hl=pl&pg=PP1#v=onepage&q&f=false)

captain swoop
2010-Aug-29, 11:50 AM
Type 965 that was the Air Warning on the Leanders and Tribal class Frigates I served on
Frequency: 216-224 MHz
Wavelength: 1.4 metres
Pulse Length: 3.8 and 10 microseconds
Pulse rate 200 or 400 per second
Aerial Rotation: 7-10 rpm
Horizontal Beam: 12 deg
Vertical Beam: 40 deg
Aerial Weight: Single: 2,425 lb Double: 3,390 lb
Aerial Width: 26 ft
Aerial Heigh: single: 8 ft 11" Double: 16 ft 9"
Aerial Depth: 6 ft 1"

Detection range is a combination of the power, frequency, wavelength, pulse rate. aerial size and rotation speed.

Air warning radars trade off bearing accuracy against range, operating at lower frequencies than other radars they require large heavy aerials to produce a narrow beam, aerials which are impractical on ships or aircraft. A contact on a 965 warning radar is painted as an arc on a PPI screen, the arc width being the same as the beam width of the radar, this would be about 12 degrees, the actual contact could be anywhere within that arc and the contact is updated every 7 to 10 seconds depending on the rotation speed..

965 was fitted with a Moving Target Indicator. That is a computer that can remove anything from the screen that doesn't show 'doppler'. Anything moving at a speed below a preset threshold was removed from the plot. It helps to bring things out of the clutter and is one of the main 'anti jamming' devices agains the use of metal 'chaff' strips or static electronic jamming.
To 'spoof' an actual moving target you need something that is moving.

eburacum45
2010-Aug-29, 01:39 PM
Here is a .pdf page which mentions 'Palladium', the radar spoofing technology Dr David Clarke of Sheffield Hallam university suspects was used in some of these early cases.
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB54/st08.pdf Note that it could apparently be used to simulate a moving craft.

I'd welcome some informed input on this possibility, as I'm not completely sure it is relevant.
I think that the 1952 case might have other explanations; one being that the 1940's equipment was slowly being replaced with 1950's equipment, and few operators were fully au fait with it yet.

baric
2010-Aug-29, 03:05 PM
A good point. Certainly we would expect UFO's to have good ECM.

No, we would expect a UFO invasion fleet to have good ECM.

Trakar
2010-Aug-29, 03:45 PM
No, we would expect a UFO invasion fleet to have good ECM.

LOL, seems like what we can expect, is that people will continue to conflate lights in the sky/blips on the screen for alien spacecraft.

baric
2010-Aug-29, 03:53 PM
LOL, seems like what we can expect, is that people will continue to conflate lights in the sky/blips on the screen for alien spacecraft.

Yes, we all know that they are really angels! :P

Trakar
2010-Aug-29, 05:25 PM
Yes, we all know that they are really angels! :P

Both perceptions/assumptions are equally absurd.

kamaz
2010-Aug-29, 06:08 PM
To 'spoof' an actual moving target you need something that is moving.

No, you don't.

The trick is based on the very principle of radar ranging. The target range is estimated based on the time delay between when the pulse emission and the echo reception. The target speed (its radial component, to be exact) is estimated based on the Doppler frequency shift between the transmitted pulse and the received pulse.

Assume I want to foil that ship radar of yours. Assume that I am located directly 20km north of your ship. Assuming you work at f=220MHz, we have lambda=1.36 m.

A hypothetical target at R=10 km will return a pulse with the delay time of tau=2*R/c=66 us. So, if I use a radio transmitter to send a signal that looks like a radar echo (a 220MHz pulse 3.8 us long), and I can time it so that it will hit you receiver precisely 66 us after your radar sends the pulse, your receiver WILL pick that signal up and a stationary target will paint on your screen. The timing is the tricky part here, as you see that I have to generate the fake echo before your pulse reaches my position. However, if your radar rotates at a constant speed and sends up pulses at a constant rate, I can calculate the precision transmission time in advance. [Actually, I have to send a train of pulses with the spacing matching your transmission, but that paradoxically makes synchronizing easier].

Now, I want to make the target appear that it moves at 100m/s in your direction. All I have to do is shift my transmission frequency by fD=2*v*lambda=272 Hz, from your 220'000'000Hz to 220'000'272Hz. You will now see a target at R=10km, moving towards you at the speed of 100m/s.

Your antenna rotates at 10 rpm, so I have to time to time the next pulse (train) to transmit in approximately 6 seconds. The range will be now R=9.4km, so the new pulse delay is 62us. And so on. You will see my ghost flying towards your ship.

I can even simulate a tangential movement, although with limitations. The trick is that your antenna has a beam width of 12 degrees, so it will pick up my signal at any bearing between 354 and 006 degrees. However, the target will paint on your screen at the bearing corresponding to the antenna position at the time the pulse was received. (This is based on the assumption that the pulse propagation time is much shorter than the antenna rotation time). So, again, by timing my fake echoes correctly I can fly my ghost in zigzags between my position and your position, anywhere between the bearings 354 and 006.

Now: radar designers are not stupid. I have a problem here, because I have to guess your pulse transmission time to time my echoes correctly. So the obvious thing to do is to build a radar sending out pulses at randomized intervals. The result will be that my ghost will be jumping chaotically all over your screen. Even more prudent thing to do would be to put some kind of changing code on the pulses (i.e. varying shape) and see if the echo exhibits the same code. If it doesn't it's a fake.

With the above in mind, it logically follows that:

1. (At least some of the) radar sightings of UFOs were the result of radar spoofing. Abnormal flight patterns (abrupt stops, acceleration, turns) can be attributed to timing errors (i.e. bad job).

2. These sightings stopped when a new generation of radars was deployed, which was immune to this technique (after ca. 1960).

kamaz
2010-Aug-29, 06:18 PM
Here is a .pdf page which mentions 'Palladium', the radar spoofing technology Dr David Clarke of Sheffield Hallam university suspects was used in some of these early cases.
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB54/st08.pdf Note that it could apparently be used to simulate a moving craft.


From this PDF:



Basically, we received the radar's signal and fed it into a variable delay line, before transmitting it back to the radar. By smoothly varying the length of the delay line, we could simulate the false target's range and speed.


And I wrote:



Now, imagine a device made of: a receiver, a demodulator, an amplifier, a delay line, a modulator and a transmitter. An incoming radar pulse is received by a receiver, and demodulated, processed, modulated and transmitted back towards the radar station. Now, we can produce a wide range of ghost targets, by simply processing the original signal:


Hah! :)

captain swoop
2010-Aug-29, 08:57 PM
Our antenna varies its speed between 7 and 10, frequency between 216-224 MHz, pulse Length between 3.8 and 10 microseconds and
pulse rate is 200 or 400 per second. Plus there are a number of other measures to filter out spoofing like the MTI which ignores anything that doesn't have doppler on its return. Your ghost will only be seen to move directly towards the ship. How about the other ships in the group? what will their radar see?
This is on a system first put into service in the 50s based on a WW2 transmitter.

kamaz
2010-Aug-29, 09:41 PM
Our antenna varies its speed between 7 and 10, frequency between 216-224 MHz, pulse Length between 3.8 and 10 microseconds and
pulse rate is 200 or 400 per second.


So there is good reason to believe that your system from 1950s was already immune to spoofing. I propose that the UFO incidents were observed on systems developed in 1940s which were still in service in 1950s. These systems would be very primitive and thus easily spoofable.



Plus there are a number of other measures to filter out spoofing like the MTI which ignores anything that doesn't have doppler on its return.


You can fake Doppler...



How about the other ships in the group? what will their radar see?


Either nothing (if they used a different frequency) or a ghost jumping chaotically around. Question: was there ever a radar UFO incident, where the UFO was tracked with multiple radars? I don't think you can consistently spoof several radars at the same time, so that explanation wouldn't hold there.

Fooglmog
2010-Sep-28, 09:22 AM
Kamaz, your knowledge of radar systems certainly exceeds my own... but you've failed to convince me for two reasons. You've made too many assumptions, and you've failed to explain all the phenomenon.

You assume that all three radar sites in question used antiquated technology.
You assume that older radar systems are easily spoofed.
You assume that each individual UFO stayed within a limited vector range.

You fail to explain how multiple spoof returns could be generated along one heading.
You fail to explain how multiple spoof returns could be generated from multiple headings.
You fail to explain how multiple radar sites could all be fooled by this technology.
You fail to explain how spoof radar returns could be generated without the device generating them providing a return of its own.
You fail to explain why there's no documentation of reports of this type of technology being used in its obvious war-time applications.

I have no idea what these radar returns might have been. Frankly, I haven't done enough research to know for a fact that this incident actually took place and isn't just an entirely fictitious story that found its way onto the internet. But your explanation fails to explain the incident and fails to be supported by evidence. In my opinion, any explanation that can't satisfy both of those criteria (let alone one) lacks any serious credibility.

Garrison
2010-Sep-28, 06:16 PM
Kamaz, your knowledge of radar systems certainly exceeds my own... but you've failed to convince me for two reasons. You've made too many assumptions, and you've failed to explain all the phenomenon.

You assume that all three radar sites in question used antiquated technology.
You assume that older radar systems are easily spoofed.
You assume that each individual UFO stayed within a limited vector range.

You fail to explain how multiple spoof returns could be generated along one heading.
You fail to explain how multiple spoof returns could be generated from multiple headings.
You fail to explain how multiple radar sites could all be fooled by this technology.
You fail to explain how spoof radar returns could be generated without the device generating them providing a return of its own.
You fail to explain why there's no documentation of reports of this type of technology being used in its obvious war-time applications.

I have no idea what these radar returns might have been. Frankly, I haven't done enough research to know for a fact that this incident actually took place and isn't just an entirely fictitious story that found its way onto the internet. But your explanation fails to explain the incident and fails to be supported by evidence. In my opinion, any explanation that can't satisfy both of those criteria (let alone one) lacks any serious credibility.

So you haven't ascertained whether the incident is even real but you are quite confident the explanation offered isn't correct? The originators of the story could have made it up out of whole cloth, have you attempted to contact them and subject their responses to the same scrutiny you're applying to Kamaz's suggestion?

JayUtah
2010-Sep-28, 07:02 PM
...

I have no idea what these radar returns might have been.

So, in other words, you can't explain any of it, but you propose to take someone else to task for doing a demonstrably far better job of trying. How does that work?

Frankly, I haven't done enough research to know for a fact that this incident actually took place...

So, in other words, you don't know whether these "inexplicable" occurrences actually happened, and thus whether it matters if they don't currently have a prosaic explanation. Some of the criteria such as, "Older radar systems are easily spoofed," have indeed been established by Kamaz' expalanation. Others such as, "Multiple spoof returns generated along one heading," don't seem difficult to achieve based on his description. Still others such as "Spoof radar returns generated without the generator providing its own return," have already been factually dismissed based on practical experimentation with spoofing technology. Methinks you're padding the list. If we leave out the padding, how close does Kamaz' explanation get?

Fooglmog
2010-Sep-28, 09:20 PM
So you haven't ascertained whether the incident is even real but you are quite confident the explanation offered isn't correct?
Yes. I also don't know for a fact that the Vela Incident took place. I don't know because I've never done enough independent research to prove it. I still dismiss the possibility that it was caused by a guy in a raft striking a flint. Why do I feel confident that this wasn't the cause? Because there's no evidence to support it and it doesn't fully explain the phenomenon.

There is a difference between "knowing" and "accepting". I accept that both the Vela Incident and the 1952 Washington buzz took place because I've never seen anyone who seemed remotely credible claiming that they didn't.


I have no idea what these radar returns might have been.

So, in other words, you can't explain any of it, but you propose to take someone else to task for doing a demonstrably far better job of trying. How does that work?

Perhaps I overstated my ignorance. I shouldn't say that I have "no idea" in the sense of not having an opinion. I currently accept the official explanation. However, I don't have the expertise necessary to explain the physics behind the official explanation. In other words, if you presented me with the data set and no explanation, I would not be able to put forward an evidentiary explanation. However, this does not diminish my facility for dismissing explanations that do not explain the phenomenon and are not supported by evidence.


Some of the criteria such as, "Older radar systems are easily spoofed," have indeed been established by Kamaz' expalanation.
Where did he establish this? I see some talk about jamming being attempted during WWII by use of an entirely different method. I find this statement by kamaz especially telling: "We must keep in mind that in 1952 a lot of first-generation 1940s equipment was still used, which was very primitive and thus probably susceptible to such games."

You've jumped down my throat of openly admitting the areas of my ignorance. Yet you argue that Kamaz has established these radars to be easily spoofed when he himself merely states that it is "probably" the case.


Others such as, "Multiple spoof returns generated along one heading," don't seem difficult to achieve based on his description.

Please explain how. Here's why I don't think it works: His explanation for how to give lateral movement to an object requires a rotating radar receiver which has no ability to determine the direction from which a return was generated except the time at which it was received. This kind of radar doesn't make sense to me to begin with, because it gives you multiple possible origins (a large object far away at an early point in the sweep could provide the same size return at the same moment as a small object near by later in the sweep -- it's impossible to determine which is correct). The earliest radars which simply relied on time of return required multiple sites to triangulate the position of an object. However, because these sites don't rotate they could not be spoofed into accepting lateral movement in the manner described.

Now, if such a radar (a single site rotating radar with no ability to determine direction other than time of return) did exist despite this problem, multiple contacts along a single vector range could only be produced in a diagonal line across the screen. The first returns closest to the radar site and the last returns furthest away. It's not impossible, but it would create a suspiciously uniform pattern.


Still others such as "Spoof radar returns generated without the generator providing its own return," have already been factually dismissed based on practical experimentation with spoofing technology.
Please explain. I don't know what experimentation you're referring to.

I stand by my statement that there is no evidence to support Kamaz's claims. I also stand by my statement that his claims to not satisfactorily account for the phenomenon. I still confess to a lack of expertise, and will accept that the issues I have with his theory may be explainable. However, thus far, the explanation offered does not satisfy.

If you're still of the opinion that my rebuttals are illegitimate because I can't demonstrate the truth of another explanation, I'd like to refer you to the comments of a poster on these forums with a far better reputation than I have:


when dealing with historical records and evidence, the presumption is that they are authentic. Any who argue that they are false have the burden of proof to demonstrate as such. ((Kamaz)) tried and failed, and ((I)) did the limited rebuttal to disprove his specific claims. ((I)) don't have to keep going and prove the authenticity beyond the scope of the challenges that have been given. The generalization of the proposition in the previous paragraph is that it will always be impossible to prove that something is authentic; you will ever only be able to prove that something is fake. So as long as attempts to prove fakery can always be shown untenable, authenticity is upheld.

Paraphrased slightly.

-Fooglmog
Guy with no clue.

captain swoop
2010-Sep-28, 10:16 PM
Please explain how. Here's why I don't think it works: His explanation for how to give lateral movement to an object requires a rotating radar receiver which has no ability to determine the direction from which a return was generated except the time at which it was received. This kind of radar doesn't make sense to me to begin with, because it gives you multiple possible origins (a large object far away at an early point in the sweep could provide the same size return at the same moment as a small object near by later in the sweep -- it's impossible to determine which is correct). The earliest radars which simply relied on time of return required multiple sites to triangulate the position of an object. However, because these sites don't rotate they could not be spoofed into accepting lateral movement in the manner described.

Now, if such a radar (a single site rotating radar with no ability to determine direction other than time of return) did exist despite this problem, multiple contacts along a single vector range could only be produced in a diagonal line across the screen. The first returns closest to the radar site and the last returns furthest away. It's not impossible, but it would create a suspiciously uniform pattern.

Early radar did not use multiple sites to 'triangulate' a direction. Chain Home used 4 masts with arrays of dipoles to 'floodlight' the sky with a pulsed signal. This was returned a set of crossed horizontal dipoles . The output of the dipoles is fed into a device called a 'Goniometer'. Here the two signals are com-pared by 'tuning' for a minimum deflection of the 'echo' on the CRT display.
http://www.radarpages.co.uk/mob/ch/chainhome.htm
More than you would ever want to knbow about Chain Home Radar.

FWIW I don't think Kamaz is right about the Radars being 'spoofed' in this instance. I think that unconnected returns are being conflated and false tracks are being produced. It all looks like the kind of thing that happens at HMS Dryad Radar Training School with inexperienced operators mixed with inexperienced OPs feeding the Plot. If you came up with this aboard ship in a live fire exercise or heaven forbid in a real air attack you would get your behind cicked around the Ops room.

Garrison
2010-Sep-28, 10:29 PM
Yes. I also don't know for a fact that the Vela Incident took place. I don't know because I've never done enough independent research to prove it. I still dismiss the possibility that it was caused by a guy in a raft striking a flint. Why do I feel confident that this wasn't the cause? Because there's no evidence to support it and it doesn't fully explain the phenomenon.

What phenomenon? You've admitted you don't know if this story is even factual, until you do that research you are in no position to evaluate any explanation offered.


Perhaps I overstated my ignorance. I shouldn't say that I have "no idea" in the sense of not having an opinion. I currently accept the official explanation. However, I don't have the expertise necessary to explain the physics behind the official explanation. In other words, if you presented me with the data set and no explanation, I would not be able to put forward an evidentiary explanation. However, this does not diminish my facility for dismissing explanations that do not explain the phenomenon and are not supported by evidence.

Actually I think you will find your lack of evidence and expertise does diminish your facility since you have no basis on which to judge the explanations without any hard evidence as to what these phenomenon were, or whether they really existed.

To put it simply you need to subject the story being told to the same rigorous scrutiny you want to apply to the possible explanations, preferably before you start trying to evaluate the explanations.

Fooglmog
2010-Sep-29, 04:01 AM
Captain Swoop: I'll acquiesce to your superior experience. At least, until I've read through the site you offered and read through some additional source material.

Garrison: You're making a logical jump which isn't supported. There is no reason why knowledge that a story is true is a necessary prerequisite to rejecting explanations to that story. Let me give you an (in fact, another) example of this.

Say I told a story which stated "A nuclear explosion took place on a railway track outside Boston", then asked if anyone could explain how it happened.
Then, someone offers the explanation "Well, obviously a train carrying nuclear waste crashed into a train carrying petroleum. The petroleum exploded, and was a large enough explosion to make the nuclear waste explode too".

Now, my question to you is this: do you need to know for a fact that the Nuclear Explosion took place in order to point out that the proffered explanation does not actually explain the incident? I think that the obvious answer is no.

This is a direct parallel to what I've done. I may be wrong, and you're free to point out any errors you believe I've made, but to suggest that I can't put forward rebuttals because I don't have enough information in my hands to know for a fact that this incident took place is ridiculous.

Perhaps I should mention that I have no issue with accepting that this incident took place. However, I hold relatively high standards when it comes to making statements about what I know to have taken place. I've read the Wikipedia article as well as a couple other websites which contain information about this event before I originally posted in this thread. I also remember hearing this incident referred to in a television show and reading about this incident in a book of reported UFO sightings at some point in the last couple years. I suspect that this is reasonably equivalent to the level of research most people here have on this event. I simply do not believe that this is enough research for me to stake my reputation on the fact that this incident took place and so I leave room for the possibility that it's entirely fictitious.

Now, having (hopefully) put that side issue to rest I'd like to ask you Garrison: Has Kamaz convinced you that the radar returns reported are likely to have been generated by a secret government operation in which they were testing some form of radar spoofing gear?

All I've really said is that he has some holes to fill in before he can convince me of that.

-Fooglmog
Guy with no clue.

eburacum45
2010-Sep-29, 10:06 AM
I currently accept the official explanation.
I agree with Fooglmog; after nearly sixty years, the official explanation seems most convincing.

Trouble is, James McDonald interviewed a number of the witnesses, and came to the conclusion that ordinary AP couldn't explain the radar data. Once again, I tend to think that he may have been mistaken, and that he placed too much faith in the reliability of witnesses, in the absence (in this case) of any electronic recordings of the data.

Strange
2010-Sep-29, 10:15 AM
I currently accept the official explanation.

Just to be clear, then: you accept that these may remain unidentified with any certainty, but probably have a mundane explanation?

JayUtah
2010-Sep-29, 05:10 PM
...

Perhaps I overstated my ignorance. I shouldn't say that I have "no idea" in the sense of not having an opinion. I currently accept the official explanation.

I do too, which is to say I think the combination of anomalous propagation and inexperienced interpretation is a more likely explanation than intentional spoofing. But there are holes in that theory too, just as there will always be holes in any theory we come up with to explain a happenstance occurrence. We generally cannot explain everything that we can observe about the aftermath of some occurrence. I think what you're saying is that you've overstated your indifference, which is understandable. We probably agree more than we suspect.

The largest hole, in my opinion, in the spoofing hypothesis is the one Kamaz himself raised early in the thread: even if you have technology to do it, why would you deploy it over busy civilian airspace? That is extraordinarily dangerous.

Where did he establish this?

In the series of posts that explain his method. As for "probably," I think you're reading too much into a natural statement of caution. I rarely express any proposition in absolute terms, and neither do many others here.

You can create different targets along the same bearing, in his method, by simply adding modulators and delay lines. If you're sending out a simulated train of pulses, you can send out more than one to generate false targets at different ranges.

Please explain how. Here's why I don't think it works: His explanation for how to give lateral movement to an object requires a rotating radar receiver...

I see what you're getting at. You may be onto something.

Please explain. I don't know what experimentation you're referring to.

Project PALLADIUM, in the link provided. Of course it requires you to believe what the link alleges. If you don't find that claim credible, then the spoof hypothesis becomes less credible as you say.

If you're still of the opinion that my rebuttals are illegitimate because I can't demonstrate the truth of another explanation...

No, that's not my opinion. But I did a poor job of explaining my opinion, so I can understand why you would think this. I'm not requiring an affirmative rebuttal.

To say confidently that a certain explanation fails to explain the observations requires you to know, among other things, what the observations are. That means you not only have to research the case, but you must very carefully separate sensory observation from interpretive explanation.

So, for example, if you say, "That hypothesis fails because it doesn't explain why the spoof-emitter wasn't seen also on radar," that presupposes this is what the observations bear out. In fact the emitter may indeed have been seen on radar. A lack of research into the case would lead you in this instance to "create" a criterion that need not be satisifed by the explanation. This would be a factual failure of expectations.

Similarly, you may say, "That hypothesis doesn't explain how lateral motion appeared on the radar scopes." You may, after some research, discover that "lateral motion" turned out to be the operator's interpretation of targets on different sweeps. We get this interpretational failure of expectations all the time, along the lines of, "Your weather-balloon theory doesn't explain how the UFO sped off at 10,000 mph." The answer, of course, is that it really didn't do that, but the witness just thought it did. If we accept that perceptual difficulty allows a much slower speed, then certain explanations become more applicable.

The bottom line is that after you burn away all the dross of interpretation and exaggeration in a UFO report, the set of observations that any one scenario (or set of concurrent scenarios) has to explain may turn out to be small and reasonable. So I was saying that by not having done much research into the case, you may not have a good enough idea of what is to be explained to know for certain that a candidate explanation can be ruled out. That was the main point I had hoped to make, and which I utterly failed to make coherently.

You don't need a better explanation at hand in order to point out the flaws in some particular theory. It helps, but the flaws exist regardless. Whether those flaws completely rule out the hypothesis, varies from instance to instance. At the happy end of the spectrum you have a hypothesis that is empirically confirmed and explains a great many observations, such that the remaining ones are immaterial to the outcome of the occurrence. At the sad end you have hypotheses that fail miserably to explain the key observations, unparsimoniously require untestable premises, and may in fact suffer from gross internal inconsistency or absurdity. Most of our forensic hypotheses live somewhere in the middle.

Fooglmog
2010-Sep-30, 06:41 AM
I'm pleased to see that we mostly agree JayUtah, but there's a couple things you just wrote which I'd like to respond to.


As for "probably," I think you're reading too much into a natural statement of caution. I rarely express any proposition in absolute terms, and neither do many others here.
That's not how I read it. It still strikes me as a clear indicator of an unfounded assumption. Obviously this is something that neither you are I can determine definitively, however, if Kamaz comes back and states that it was indeed a "natural statement of caution" I will happily give him the benefit of the doubt.

Of course, I am in a position to definitively state that when I commented that "I haven't done enough research to know for a fact that this incident actually took place" it was a natural statement of caution because, like many here, I rarely express any proposition in absolute terms. Perhaps in the future, as my post count rises, I will not have to contend with people jumping down my throat regarding such caveats but will instead be extended the same benefit of the doubt you've given to Kamaz.


To say confidently that a certain explanation fails to explain the observations requires you to know, among other things, what the observations are.
Normally I would agree. However, this case is an exception. The original poster asked for comments based upon the content of a single Wikipedia article. Therefore, for the sake of analysis, the information there can be treated as canon. I do not believe that the explanation put forward by Kamaz satisfactorily explains the events are recorded there. Of course, if that record differs from the actual event, the analysis I've put forward is entirely moot.
My argument is not that "There was no government organized test of radar systems in proximity to Washington DC in July of 1952" rather, it's that "Radar spoofing, as Kamaz describes, does not account for the radar anomalies reported in the proffered Wikipedia article". The difference is somewhat subtle, but it's also important.


Similarly, you may say, "That hypothesis doesn't explain how lateral motion appeared on the radar scopes." You may, after some research, discover that "lateral motion" turned out to be the operator's interpretation of targets on different sweeps.
This is a great point. But it doesn't actually address anything that I said. My argument was that a radar system is unlikely perceive its returns to be moving laterally as a result of the theory that Kamaz proposed. As an alternate to that theory, I am perfectly content to consider operator error. The assumption that the returns on the displays were in fact moving laterally was not mine. However, I did not need to challenge that assumption in order to challenge the proposed theory. In other words, I took the approach of "Even if your assumption is correct, your theory doesn't make sense" instead of the weaker argument that "You can't prove that, because you've made an assumption".

In all honesty, I'm not sure why everyone is spending so much time challenging me. Kamaz proposed a conspiracy theory (ie. The government was testing a secret technology for creating spoof returns in radar) and I challenged his a number of his assumptions and the practical realities of what he proposed. Since when was this a forum where the conspiracy theorist did not need to defend his assertions, while the person challenging that theory gets shouted down at every turn? My impression, after reading the rules and the "Advice for Conspiracy Theorist" thread was that the opposite was likely.

Tensor
2010-Oct-01, 02:37 AM
In all honesty, I'm not sure why everyone is spending so much time challenging me. Kamaz proposed a conspiracy theory (ie. The government was testing a secret technology for creating spoof returns in radar) and I challenged his a number of his assumptions and the practical realities of what he proposed. Since when was this a forum where the conspiracy theorist did not need to defend his assertions, while the person challenging that theory gets shouted down at every turn? My impression, after reading the rules and the "Advice for Conspiracy Theorist" thread was that the opposite was likely.

Actually, if you read through the ATM threads, more than the conspiracy, (or even Questions and Answers), you will see questionable statements, no matter who makes them, will either be challenged or corrected. I know I've been corrected numerous times, a couple of times, for some whoppers. You either acknowledge the challenge or correction, or provide more evidence to support your position. I've not read this whole thread, so I can't comment on whose statements here are correct or not, but I thought I might point out an explanation for your question.

Don J
2010-Oct-01, 03:43 AM
http://files.ncas.org/condon/text/s3chap05.htm#s3

Go to pages 227-236. In the end, they concluded:

[I]In summary, the following statements appear to be correct:


The atmospheric conditions during the period 19-20 and 25-27 July, 1952, in the Washington, D. C., area, were conducive to anomalous propagation of radar signals;

The unidentified radar returns obtained during these incidents were most likely the result of anomalous propagation (AP);

The visual objects were, with one or two possible exceptions, identifiable as most probably meteors and scintillating stars.

From the wiki link
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1952_Washington_D.C._UFO_incident


At 3 a.m., shortly before two jet fighters from Newcastle AFB in Delaware arrived over Washington, all of the objects vanished from the radar at National Airport. However, when the jets ran low on fuel and left, the objects returned ....

The objects were last detected by radar at 5:30 a.m. Around sunrise, E.W. Chambers, a civilian radio engineer in Washington's suburbs, observed "five huge disks circling in a loose formation. They tilted upward and left on a steep ascent."

Questions ,why the arrival of the two jet fighters suddently make all the unidentified targets to disappear from the radar?
Why the unidentified targets on the radar reappeared when the jets fighter left the aera ?

How the theory about anomalous propagation of radar signals may explain that ?

Fooglmog
2010-Oct-01, 03:55 AM
Actually, if you read through the ATM threads, more than the conspiracy, (or even Questions and Answers), you will see questionable statements, no matter who makes them, will either be challenged or corrected. I know I've been corrected numerous times, a couple of times, for some whoppers. You either acknowledge the challenge or correction, or provide more evidence to support your position. I've not read this whole thread, so I can't comment on whose statements here are correct or not, but I thought I might point out an explanation for your question.

I have no problem with that. I'm happy to critically examine the views I hold and express. My frustration is with the fact that no attempt (excepting my own) seems to have been made to challenge the conspiracy theory Kamaz put forward... and the challenges posed to what I wrote tended to be based on whether or not I have a thorough enough background to express an opinion, rather than if my point of view actually has merit.

JayUtah
2010-Oct-01, 06:29 AM
...

That's not how I read it. It still strikes me as a clear indicator of an unfounded assumption.

Read it as you will. I'm inclined to take in all of what Kamaz offered and not to interpret him based on my individual understanding of a single word. Clearly we are at an impasse until Kamaz returns.

Perhaps in the future, as my post count rises, I will not have to contend with people jumping down my throat regarding such caveats but will instead be extended the same benefit of the doubt you've given to Kamaz.

Yes, when you have written enough to allow the regular posters to calibrate to your particular lines of reasoning, idiosyncrasies, and demeanor, you will get the same benefit of the doubt as Kamaz. Until then, I recommend you proceed cautiously.

Normally I would agree. However, this case is an exception. The original poster asked for comments based upon the content of a single Wikipedia article.

No. The original poster asked for comments on the incident. There is nothing in his post that suggested respondents were bound to accept the Wikipedia article as an accurate account without question. Therefore I don't consider this an exception. And since I don't, the validity of the specific claims remains, in my opinion, very much on the table.

Therefore, for the sake of analysis, the information there can be treated as canon.

Hogwash.

First, I find Wikipedia articles regarding UFO events to be, on the whole, entirely too sympathetic to the UFO proponents' point of view: in their reporting of fact, their handling of the skeptical viewpoint, and their interpretation of the events. If you read the discussion section for the linked article you'll find concern that the viewpoints expressed are too narrowly sourced. Further, we find that the majority of quoted sources are simply pro-UFO, ETH-biased sources.

Second, I think it's silly to hold up one arbitrary source as canon. If the request is, "Please evaluate this incident," then the respondents should be free to obtain whatever information they deem applicable and to test its merits. If the request instead is, "Please evaluate this particular account," then the foremost question would be, "Is it an accurate account?" I just don't agree that you and Kamaz are on the same page yet. You and I aren't, but we seem to be getting closer.

I do not believe that the explanation put forward by Kamaz satisfactorily explains the events are recorded there.

I don't read that as his intent.

Of course, if that record differs from the actual event, the analysis I've put forward is entirely moot.

Yes, that's my point. And if Kamaz is trying to explain the actual event rather than Wikipedia's likely-biased report of it, then your analysis of his claims must accept a burden to prove the account is faithful before you can assert that the analysis therefore applies. I don't see that Kamaz or anyone else felt limited to the Wikipedia account, nor that the original poster required such a limitation, nor that such a limitation would be prudent or useful.

This is a great point. But it doesn't actually address anything that I said.

It wasn't meant to. I'm simply illustrating different modes of misrepresentation that habitually plague UFO reports. Hence when evaluating some particular UFO reports we must be attentive to errors of that class.

In all honesty, I'm not sure why everyone is spending so much time challenging me.

Because you have raised points that, in some people's estimation, merit a challenge. That doesn't mean you won't be vindicated. You simply aren't yet being given the benefit of the doubt.

JayUtah
2010-Oct-01, 06:44 AM
...

My frustration is with the fact that no attempt (excepting my own) seems to have been made to challenge the conspiracy theory Kamaz put forward...

captain swoop objected to Kamaz both before and after you engaged the discussion.

...the challenges posed to what I wrote tended to be based on whether or not I have a thorough enough background to express an opinion, rather than if my point of view actually has merit.

No, you only lately expressed the notion of the Wikipedia article as some sort of canon to which the thread was obliged. Until then I don't believe anyone felt either limited to it or disallowed from questioning it. The challenges to what you wrote are based on your assessment that the explanation was unconvincing before determining whether it was the original poster's intent and that the propositions to be explained were factual and correct.

This is important because if the "complex" allegations in the Wikipedia article are, in fact, simple allegations interpretationally composed into complex ones, then the simplistic techniques Kamaz describes are not so farfetched an explanation. Not the best, mind you, but not inconsiderable.

Fooglmog
2010-Oct-01, 07:17 AM
I'm content to leave it there JayUtah. I appreciate the reasoned discourse.

The majority of our remaining differences now seem to centre around interpretation of the words of others. I've laid out my interpretation and the rationale behind it, and am now perfectly content to allow anyone who reads this thread to make their own determination as to its validity. Continued discussion on that subject has no direct bearing on the original subject of this thread, and seems likely to result in nothing more than repetition of already stated points. However, I hope that (whether it is agreed with or not) I have made my interpretation clear and that the merits of my arguments can be judged within that context.

If Kamaz (or someone with a similar viewpoint) does return, I'd still appreciate a response on the challenges I've raised -- especially the question of how multiple contacts on multiple divergent vectors could be produced, since that's a question that's gone wholly unanswered.

Finally, I owe an apology to Captain Swoop. He certainly was challenging Kamaz' theory before I entered this discussion. My statement to the contrary was an honest mistake. You have my apologies sir.

PS. JayUtah, I've used Clavius as a resource many times in discussions I've had with friends and colleagues. Your work is much appreciated.

eburacum45
2010-Oct-01, 09:06 AM
Questions ,why the arrival of the two jet fighters suddenly make all the unidentified targets to disappear from the radar?
Why (did) the unidentified targets on the radar reappear when the jets fighter left the aera ?

How (would) the theory about anomalous propagation of radar signals explain that ?
The two events were unconnected; this was nothing more than a coincidence. When two unconnected events occur at approximately the same time, an observer might assume that one event caused the other; but without evidence of a causal link, this assumption is quite often wrong.

Many of the more impressive UFO cases have an element of chance coincidence in them; there may be some quite startling coincidences, sometimes, but as I've pointed out before, coincidences occur quite frequently in everyday life; most of the time we either don't notice them, or soon forget about them. In some cases we remember the coincidences for years or decades afterwards as if they were important - but they are not.

eburacum45
2010-Oct-01, 09:10 AM
To be fair to Kamaz, it was I who brought the 'Palladium' theory into this discussion, although I don't know very much about it, and I doubt it was used or even available in 1952.

Daggerstab
2010-Oct-01, 09:13 AM
Here's an example of a UFO-flavoured "startling coincidence":
http://forgetomori.com/2008/ufos/extraordinary-explanations/
(/ diversion)

gzhpcu
2010-Oct-01, 12:44 PM
What I always wondered was why should ufos buzz the white house in 1952 only?:confused:

Also, never saw much sense in investigating incidents which happened so long ago (like the "Battle of Los Angeles", etc.).

Nowadays, with all of the digital cameras, cellular phones, iphones, etc. around, one would expect plenty of collaborating photos of unidentified flying object incidents to occur, if they truly existed... where are they?

JayUtah
2010-Oct-01, 01:46 PM
I'm content to leave it there JayUtah. I appreciate the reasoned discourse.

I feel the same way, especially since we agree that the anomalous-propagation hypothesis is the most likely. I'm also glad you find my other work to be useful.

HenrikOlsen
2010-Oct-01, 06:05 PM
What I always wondered was why should ufos buzz the white house in 1952 only?:confused:

Also, never saw much sense in investigating incidents which happened so long ago (like the "Battle of Los Angeles", etc.).

Nowadays, with all of the digital cameras, cellular phones, iphones, etc. around, one would expect plenty of collaborating photos of unidentified flying object incidents to occur, if they truly existed... where are they?
Corroborating?

We don't really want collaborating evidence.:D

Don J
2010-Oct-01, 06:38 PM
What I always wondered was why should ufos buzz the white house in 1952 only?:confused:

Also, never saw much sense in investigating incidents which happened so long ago (like the "Battle of Los Angeles", etc.).


Here a pic of the 1952 event over the Capitol.
http://0.tqn.com/d/ufos/1/0/E/0/-/-/1952washdc.jpg


What I always wondered was why should ufos buzz the white house in 1952 only?:confused:
Nowadays, with all of the digital cameras, cellular phones, iphones, etc. around, one would expect plenty of collaborating photos of unidentified flying object incidents to occur, if they truly existed... where are they?

UFO near White House emits ray of light: The incident, which occurred on July 20, 2010 at 3:18 AM, was photographed in high-speed, high definition photographs by Wilbur “Will” Allen, a former White House employee and Air Force One engineer under U.S. Presidents Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, and Bill Clinton.
http://www.examiner.com/exopolitics-in-seattle/ufo-near-white-house-emits-ray-of-light-horseplay-false-flag-or-socially-destabilizing-event

NEOWatcher
2010-Oct-01, 07:27 PM
UFO near White House emits ray of light: The incident, which occurred on July 20, 2010 at 3:18 AM, was photographed in high-speed, high definition photographs by Wilbur “Will” Allen, a former White House employee and Air Force One engineer under U.S. Presidents Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, and Bill Clinton.
http://www.examiner.com/exopolitics-in-seattle/ufo-near-white-house-emits-ray-of-light-horseplay-false-flag-or-socially-destabilizing-event
You left off the part about him working for motion picture studios which is notorious for publicity stunts.

Why does he need a 5 minute video to show 10 frames of a shot?
Why do we have no other items in the shot for both depth and movement references?
Why does he not show the frame after the one with the streak?
Why is it a "hyperdimensional" UFO? What exactly does he mean?
Why don't we see an X-ray or some evidence of his implanted device? If it doesn't show up, then how does he know it's there.
With this millennial celebration with one million witnesses, why is it not plastered all over the news? I'm sure plenty of people had camcorders at that event.

Swift
2010-Oct-01, 07:28 PM
UFO near White House emits ray of light: The incident, which occurred on July 20, 2010 at 3:18 AM, was photographed in high-speed, high definition photographs by Wilbur “Will” Allen, a former White House employee and Air Force One engineer under U.S. Presidents Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, and Bill Clinton.
http://www.examiner.com/exopolitics-in-seattle/ufo-near-white-house-emits-ray-of-light-horseplay-false-flag-or-socially-destabilizing-event
From the link:

A hyperdimensional UFO in over flight approximately one mile south east of the White House in Washington, DC appears to have fired a ray of light or directed energy beam in the vicinity of the White House.

Hyperdimensional? What does that mean? The picture is a dot with a line, against a featureless black background.

NEOWatcher
2010-Oct-01, 07:30 PM
One more question.
Why, in the slow motion of the frames, do they show that single frame as multiple frames with movement of the streak?

Don J
2010-Oct-01, 07:37 PM
From the link:

Hyperdimensional? What does that mean?
Probably that made allusion to an another dimension rather than from outer space.

NEOWatcher
2010-Oct-01, 07:50 PM
Probably that made allusion to an another dimension rather than from outer space.
He also mentions they are extraterrestrials too. So; they are from outer space.
But; by repeating "hyperdimensional" 30 times in the article? Most stories drop the adjectives after 1 or 2 references for brevity. So; to mention it so many times, there should be some explaination of it.

Don J
2010-Oct-01, 08:08 PM
One more question.
Why, in the slow motion of the frames, do they show that single frame as multiple frames with movement of the streak?
if you look at the right corner of the page the author explaination

"Composited frames 1-10 in sequence: [HD]
par Will Allen (vidos)
0:10
Composited frames 1-10 in sequence:
Frames 1-10 are overlapped on top of each other, in order of event. As each frame transpires, and the next frame overlapped and layered From this we can see the trajectory of each anomaly in each frame as it happens."

NEOWatcher
2010-Oct-01, 08:21 PM
Thus inducing a movement that was not filmed. They said it was captured on a single frame.
Again, why not the following frames?

The whole thing looks like a setup to me.

Trakar
2010-Oct-01, 08:33 PM
Here a pic of the 1952 event over the Capitol.
http://0.tqn.com/d/ufos/1/0/E/0/-/-/1952washdc.jpg


Are you certain that is an actual photo? It looks like cover art for a story about the supposed event. I was unaware of any actual photos. I've heard about radar reports of the event and even a few scattered eye-witness singlet UFO reports from the DC area in the general time frame, but don't recall any actual photos or movies except the coverart for articles about the event and a few dramatizations that later shows and movies recreated.


UFO near White House emits ray of light: The incident, which occurred on July 20, 2010 at 3:18 AM, was photographed in high-speed, high definition photographs by Wilbur “Will” Allen, a former White House employee and Air Force One engineer under U.S. Presidents Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, and Bill Clinton.
http://www.examiner.com/exopolitics-in-seattle/ufo-near-white-house-emits-ray-of-light-horseplay-false-flag-or-socially-destabilizing-event

ROFLOL, I thought you were being serious!

Garrison
2010-Oct-01, 08:34 PM
He also mentions they are extraterrestrials too. So; they are from outer space.
But; by repeating "hyperdimensional" 30 times in the article? Most stories drop the adjectives after 1 or 2 references for brevity. So; to mention it so many times, there should be some explaination of it.

Yes, because it could also refer to the sci-fi notion of hyperspace and hyperdrive, indicating a concept of the vehicles mode of interstellar travel rather than where they originate.

JayUtah
2010-Oct-01, 08:54 PM
...

Here a pic of the 1952 event over the Capitol.
http://0.tqn.com/d/ufos/1/0/E/0/-/-/1952washdc.jpg

Carefully edited by UFO fanatics to hide the extremely obvious explanation of catadioptrism.

UFO near White House emits ray of light...

And you accept the interpretation of an author who inexplicably labels it a "hyperdimensional" vehicle?

Van Rijn
2010-Oct-01, 09:09 PM
He also mentions they are extraterrestrials too. So; they are from outer space.
But; by repeating "hyperdimensional" 30 times in the article? Most stories drop the adjectives after 1 or 2 references for brevity. So; to mention it so many times, there should be some explaination of it.

This appears to be an attempted explanation (from the article):


According to Mr. Allen’s photo-analysis, each of the UFO/ET phenomena mentioned above was capable of dimensional shift into a self-generated Star gate phenomenon

It's amazing how he can determine the specifics of new physics simply from photo-analysis.

I liked this bit too:


Mr. Allen appears to be a selected ‘go to’ photographer’ for these advanced hyperdimensional UFO incursion events in Washington DC that have high symbolic value.

For example, Mr. Allen – on cue from hyperdimensional intelligence - photographed hyperdimensional UFOs over the U.S. Capitol in July 2002, 50 years exactly from July 1952 UFO over flights of the U.S. Capitol. Mr. Allan states that, in his opinion, the same hyperdimensional extraterrestrial civilization was responsible for both events.

Amazing how they happen to follow him around. Of course, I can think of another explanation for this.

Don J, do you take this article seriously?

captain swoop
2010-Oct-01, 11:14 PM
From the wiki link
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1952_Washington_D.C._UFO_incident

Questions ,why the arrival of the two jet fighters suddently make all the unidentified targets to disappear from the radar?
Why the unidentified targets on the radar reappeared when the jets fighter left the aera ?
How the theory about anomalous propagation of radar signals may explain that ?

What was the gain and dwell time on their PPI? It can be turned up and down to try and clear a screen or try to make a 'real' contact' visible in the noise and clutter. When a 'real' contact is made it is so much stronger than the background it flares the PPI so you turn the gain and dwell back down again. Also contacts and clutter comes and goes all the time. It takes concentration and experience to get anything out of the display at all sometimes.

HenrikOlsen
2010-Oct-02, 12:07 AM
So basically the arrival of two real physical targets made it possible to positively eliminate the noise was was the initial unidentified targets. Makes sense to me.

Don J
2010-Oct-02, 04:31 AM
Thus inducing a movement that was not filmed. They said it was captured on a single frame.
Again, why not the following frames?


Not exactly, he said than in one frame the object was firing a beam of light.

"I imaged a slow moving UFO pulse through the sky, and then [observed the UFO] fire an energy beam which extended from it.”
"In the ten frames of images [in the video below] are other objects. First are the echoes of the luminous anomaly slightly in front of this object in tandem flight and manoeuver."



Why does he need a 5 minute video to show 10 frames of a shot?

The video on Facebook last only few seconds.
http://www.facebook.com/video/video.php?v=411648374194

Don J
2010-Oct-02, 04:37 AM
This appears to be an attempted explanation (from the article):



It's amazing how he can determine the specifics of new physics simply from photo-analysis.

I liked this bit too:



Amazing how they happen to follow him around. Of course, I can think of another explanation for this.
Don J, do you take this article seriously?

I am more interested about the pics
http://www.facebook.com/video/video.php?v=411648374194


it's amazing how he can determine the specifics of new physics simply from photo-analysis.


Apparently he explain how he achieved that in this 70 min interview (note that I have not ventured to listen the interview due to my slow inernet connection)
Quote
"listening to this interview will explain in depth the context and action of what is occurring in Mr. Allen’s photographs set out in the Slide Show below, as well as what Mr. Allen has documented to be the dynamics of this intelligent extraterrestrial civilization behind these UFO/ET phenomena from 1942 – present."
http://exopolitics.blogs.com/exopolitics_radio/2010/05/obama-adviser-says-ufodc-documented-ufoet-landings-on-us-capitol-could-destabilize-society.html

edited to add
Dr. Bruce Maccabee analysis of the ten frames
http://www.ufodc.com/page%209.html

gzhpcu
2010-Oct-02, 07:01 AM
Here a pic of the 1952 event over the Capitol.
http://0.tqn.com/d/ufos/1/0/E/0/-/-/1952washdc.jpg


UFO near White House emits ray of light: The incident, which occurred on July 20, 2010 at 3:18 AM, was photographed in high-speed, high definition photographs by Wilbur “Will” Allen, a former White House employee and Air Force One engineer under U.S. Presidents Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, and Bill Clinton.
http://www.examiner.com/exopolitics-in-seattle/ufo-near-white-house-emits-ray-of-light-horseplay-false-flag-or-socially-destabilizing-event

Examples of "proof" photos: two hazzy snapshots. Not very convincing, unless you are convinced that alien spaceships exist and you areuncritically looking for anything to back up the contention.

As Jay mentioned, look at this: http://lookathimnow.wordpress.com/2009/03/27/1952-washington-dc-ufo-capitol-building-photo/

eburacum45
2010-Oct-02, 07:35 AM
Here a pic of the 1952 event over the Capitol.
http://0.tqn.com/d/ufos/1/0/E/0/-/-/1952washdc.jpg

I've searched for a source for this picture many times, and failed to find one. My current understanding is that it was taken much later than 1952, and may have been a 'mock up' created for a documentary, or simply a chance photo with multiple streetlight reflections. Note that it does not conform to any of the visual or radar sightings. The picture has been copied many times by UFO sites, but no-one ever gives a provenance for the image.

If you have any proof that it was taken in 1952 please present it, otherwise you'll have to withdraw the claim that it is a 'a pic of the 1952 event over the Capitol'.

HenrikOlsen
2010-Oct-02, 08:26 AM
It's rather clear that the pic in Don J's link is identical to the one in gzhpcu's link except it's even more cropped and has been run through a sharpen filter on a quite aggressive setting.
Catadioptrism, definitely.

Trakar
2010-Oct-02, 04:56 PM
edited to add
Dr. Bruce Maccabee analysis of the ten frames
http://www.ufodc.com/page%209.html

And why should Maccabee's analysis be given any credence or consideration?

eburacum45
2010-Oct-02, 06:01 PM
If you actually read Maccabee's analysis of the 2010 photos, he fails to find anything particularly unusual in the sequence of photos, except for the last one. Concerning the last image, with the strange bent tail of light, Maccabee asks

"If the trail was not the result of the light moving then what caused it? Can we rule out a vibration of the camera during the last photo?"

but as far as I can see, he received no answer.

It seems quite feasible that this sequence depicts a perfectly ordinary series of images of an Earthly aircraft moving along steadily, with a bright (landing?) light displayed; on the last frame the camera is jerked upwards, perhaps by accident, and produced a thin (i.e. not overexposed) streak of light in a downwards direction. Maccabee's analysis is quite consistent with this interpretation.

Even if the cameraman denies moving the camera on the last frame, this may have been an involuntary or accidental movement, which the cameraman did not notice; this interpretation is reinforced by the fact that it is the last frame in the sequence.

Don J
2010-Oct-02, 06:47 PM
Examples of "proof" photos: two hazzy snapshots. Not very convincing, unless you are convinced that alien spaceships exist and you areuncritically looking for anything to back up the contention.

As Jay mentioned, look at this: http://lookathimnow.wordpress.com/2009/03/27/1952-washington-dc-ufo-capitol-building-photo/
That analysis convince me about the catadioptrism explanation. Thanks!

Don J
2010-Oct-02, 06:52 PM
I've searched for a source for this picture many times, and failed to find one. My current understanding is that it was taken much later than 1952, and may have been a 'mock up' created for a documentary,

This one is the mock up.
http://www.examiner.com/images/blog/replicate/EXID2912/images/300-1952-footage.gif
and the video from the documentary
http://www.google.fr/url?q=http://www.youtube.com/watch%3Fv%3DsTZ7O9cfpPQ&sa=X&ei=y3-nTNOhKsKblgeno_TODQ&ved=0CCAQuAIwAQ&usg=AFQjCNFjJgDIqTTjAEetRkuup4kW-MAHmQ



If you have any proof that it was taken in 1952 please present it, otherwise you'll have to withdraw the claim that it is a 'a pic of the 1952 event over the Capitol'.
Done see post 66

Don J
2010-Oct-02, 07:21 PM
And why should Maccabee's analysis be given any credence or consideration?

Have you see the comparative analysis with an object photographed in day time emitting a ray of light.

http://www.ufodc.com/page%209.html

scroll down to these pics down the page for description.

http://www.ufodc.com/DSC_9152.jpg

http://www.ufodc.com/DSC_9152%20Anomaly%20%20wide%20perspective%20norma l%20enhanced.jpg

http://www.ufodc.com/DSC_9152%20Anomaly%20%20sol.jpg

eburacum45
2010-Oct-02, 08:09 PM
This one is the mock up.
http://www.examiner.com/images/blog/replicate/EXID2912/images/300-1952-footage.gif
and the video from the documentary
http://www.google.fr/url?q=http://www.youtube.com/watch%3Fv%3DsTZ7O9cfpPQ&sa=X&ei=y3-nTNOhKsKblgeno_TODQ&ved=0CCAQuAIwAQ&usg=AFQjCNFjJgDIqTTjAEetRkuup4kW-MAHmQ


Done see post 66
Thanks; that's really useful. Those two images are obviously based on the catadioptric image, or so it seems to me.

HenrikOlsen
2010-Oct-02, 10:17 PM
And they are a prime example of people fabricating fake "evidence".

Trakar
2010-Oct-02, 11:07 PM
Have you see the comparative analysis with an object photographed in day time emitting a ray of light.

http://www.ufodc.com/page%209.html

scroll down to these pics down the page for description.

http://www.ufodc.com/DSC_9152.jpg

http://www.ufodc.com/DSC_9152%20Anomaly%20%20wide%20perspective%20norma l%20enhanced.jpg

http://www.ufodc.com/DSC_9152%20Anomaly%20%20sol.jpg

Seriously!?

WHarris
2010-Oct-02, 11:35 PM
From the link:

Hyperdimensional? What does that mean? The picture is a dot with a line, against a featureless black background.

Probably the Vogons plotting their Hyperspace bypass through Earth. I believe the plans are posted at Alpha Centauri.

Garrison
2010-Oct-03, 12:19 AM
Have you see the comparative analysis with an object photographed in day time emitting a ray of light.

http://www.ufodc.com/page%209.html

scroll down to these pics down the page for description.

http://www.ufodc.com/DSC_9152.jpg

http://www.ufodc.com/DSC_9152%20Anomaly%20%20wide%20perspective%20norma l%20enhanced.jpg

http://www.ufodc.com/DSC_9152%20Anomaly%20%20sol.jpg

To me the initial image just looks like an aircraft leaving a contrail, and the modified photos don't do anything to change that opinion. By the looks of it the picture was taken near dusk with a low light setting, which would explain the brightness of the building lights and the extreme flaring from what was probable a light coloured aircraft. In fact the red section in the third photo could be part of an aircrafts lights.

JayUtah
2010-Oct-03, 12:20 AM
Have you see the comparative analysis with an object photographed in day time emitting a ray of light.

I see a helicopter light to which someone has randomly applied Photoshop sliders. What is that meant to prove?

HenrikOlsen
2010-Oct-03, 12:42 AM
That helicopters can be unidentified and flying?
Oh, and that they have searchlights.

Don J
2010-Oct-03, 04:19 AM
That helicopters can be unidentified and flying?
Oh, and that they have searchlights.

Why using searchlights when it is clear enough to see without it ?

http://www.ufodc.com/DSC_9152.jpg

Don J
2010-Oct-03, 04:35 AM
I see a helicopter light to which someone has randomly applied Photoshop sliders. What is that meant to prove?

The point is that it is not the first time that a unknow flying object is photographed emitting a streak of light...

http://www.ufocasebook.com/gulfbreezegallery.jpg

also discussed here
http://www.ufodc.com/page%209.html

JayUtah
2010-Oct-03, 04:41 AM
Why using searchlights when it is clear enough to see without it ?

For the same reason everyone else in that photo has their lights on. Really, are you serious posting this photo?

JayUtah
2010-Oct-03, 04:45 AM
The point is that it is not the first time that a unknow flying object is photographed emitting a streak of light...

And if that were an unknown flying object, that would mean something. Really, this is a new low. Is every lens artifact now going to be a "hyperdimensional vehicle" or a "non-corporeal entity?"

Don J
2010-Oct-03, 04:47 AM
For the same reason everyone else in that photo has their lights on. Really, are you serious posting this photo?

In the photo we can see that the buildings in front are still lighted by the Sun.

http://www.ufodc.com/DSC_9152.jpg

Van Rijn
2010-Oct-03, 05:13 AM
In the photo we can see that the buildings in front are still lighted by the Sun.

http://www.ufodc.com/DSC_9152.jpg

We can? It looks like a long exposure night shot to me.

Don J
2010-Oct-03, 05:17 AM
We can? It looks like a long exposure night shot to me.

Look at the lighted part of the roof by the Sun which came out of the shadow.

Selenite
2010-Oct-03, 05:21 AM
Why using searchlights when it is clear enough to see without it ?

http://www.ufodc.com/DSC_9152.jpg

Police helicopters routinely play their beam on fleeing suspects on the ground if only to aid pursuing officers. Just a wild guess, and I don't know if it applies to this situation but it goes to show there are many more earthly explanations for what you are seeing than extraterrestrial ones.

Don J
2010-Oct-03, 05:28 AM
Police helicopters routinely play their beam on fleeing suspects on the ground if only to aid pursuing officers.
Yes but they use it during night time.

Van Rijn
2010-Oct-03, 05:32 AM
Look at the lighted part of the roof by the Sun which came out of the shadow.

How did you determine that?

The roof is mostly dark. Some light is coming from the left, from the bright city street. Some light is coming from the right, presumably the moon or other light sources. The image is overexposed, but to the left you can see some windows that are lit, and some windows that aren't.

This is a night shot.

Selenite
2010-Oct-03, 05:33 AM
Yes but they use it during night time.

I hate to break it to you because I know you don't want to believe it. but that photo reads as night or dusk at the very least. You've got a whole city glowing complete with lit up radio or TV towers in the background, and it isn't from reflected sunlight.

Van Rijn
2010-Oct-03, 05:33 AM
Yes but they use it during night time.

Exactly.

Van Rijn
2010-Oct-03, 06:05 AM
The point is that it is not the first time that a unknow flying object is photographed emitting a streak of light...

http://www.ufocasebook.com/gulfbreezegallery.jpg


The Gulf Breeze Ed Walters hoax. He made models. It's well documented, though you'll probably claim all the evidence was made up.

Don J
2010-Oct-03, 06:06 AM
How did you determine that?

The roof is mostly dark. Some light is coming from the left, from the bright city street. Some light is coming from the right, presumably the moon or other light sources. The image is overexposed, but to the left you can see some windows that are lit, and some windows that aren't.

This is a night shot.
You are right it is a night shot , i haven't observed the light also coming from the right .

slang
2010-Oct-03, 07:34 AM
Why using searchlights when it is clear enough to see without it ?

http://www.ufodc.com/DSC_9152.jpg

# Camera Make = NIKON CORPORATION
# Camera Model = NIKON D700
# Exposure Time (1 / Shutter Speed) = 1/3 second ===> 0.33333 second
# Lens F-Number / F-Stop = 35/10 ===> ƒ/3.5
# Exposure Program = manual control (1)
# EXIF Version = 0221

Feed the url to http://regex.info/exif.cgi to see such data (I used a browser plugin though). At least we should be thankful that the original image is provided, at least to such an extent that the camera info is still embedded.

ETA:


You are right it is a night shot , i haven't observed the light also coming from the right .

Sorry, missed this acknowledgment before I went for the EXIF data.

NEOWatcher
2010-Oct-04, 04:52 PM
Thus inducing a movement that was not filmed. They said it was captured on a single frame.
Again, why not the following frames?
Not exactly, he said than in one frame the object was firing a beam of light.
No; that was not my question.
Like you quoted, the beam was on a single frame.

The Beam was shown in slow motion with multiple frames to represent that single frame. In those multiple frames, the beam was shown with different lengths.
I see that as introducing movement into a shot where no movement can possibly be shown.
If it were overlapped with the other images, then it would "fade in" with it's full length.

And; what about the frames following the one where he captured the beam of light. Why are they not shown? What would the following frame reveal that he doesn't want us to know.
My gut feel is that the camera moved during the open shutter (or ccd capture) and the following frame shows the dot at the new location.




Why does he need a 5 minute video to show 10 frames of a shot?The video on Facebook last only few seconds.
http://www.facebook.com/video/video.php?v=411648374194
First of all, you need a facebook account to access it. I'm not going there.
Second, what does this have to do with the 5 minute video?
You have avoided my question with an irrelevant link.
So; Why would they go through all that manipulation to turn a 0.3 second (assuming ~30fps) video into an entire 5 minute feature?


And; you have not addressed all my other questions.
Please see post 46 for details.

Don J
2010-Oct-04, 07:05 PM
No; that was not my question.
Like you quoted, the beam was on a single frame.

The Beam was shown in slow motion with multiple frames to represent that single frame. In those multiple frames, the beam was shown with different lengths.
I see that as introducing movement into a shot where no movement can possibly be shown.
If it were overlapped with the other images, then it would "fade in" with it's full length.

And; what about the frames following the one where he captured the beam of light. Why are they not shown? What would the following frame reveal that he doesn't want us to know.

Effectively that is suspicious


My gut feel is that the camera moved during the open shutter (or ccd capture) and the following frame shows the dot at the new location.

Possible



First of all, you need a facebook account to access it. I'm not going there.
Second, what does this have to do with the 5 minute video?

I dont know i have not see the 5 minutes video due to my slow inernet connection.


You have avoided my question with an irrelevant link.
So; Why would they go through all that manipulation to turn a 0.3 second (assuming ~30fps) video into an entire 5 minute feature?

I dont know.
Can you tell us what other think are in the 5 minutes video ?



And; you have not addressed all my other questions.
Please see post 46 for details.

Don J
2010-Oct-04, 07:19 PM
You left off the part about him working for motion picture studios which is notorious for publicity stunts.
Why do we have no other items in the shot for both depth and movement references?

Put the link of the image here for details -(thanks to Slang for that link to that usefull tool)-
http://regex.info/exif.cgi
Edited to add
here the details you look for.
http://regex.info/exif.cgi?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ufodc.com%2F10%2520c .jpg



Why is it a "hyperdimensional" UFO? What exactly does he mean?

I dont know,that is the first time i saw this term.


Why don't we see an X-ray or some evidence of his implanted device? If it doesn't show up, then how does he know it's there.

I dont know


With this millennial celebration with one million witnesses, why is it not plastered all over the news? I'm sure plenty of people had camcorders at that event.
Apparently the shots were taken around 3:18 am so long after the celebration.

NEOWatcher
2010-Oct-04, 08:27 PM
Don. I think we have a communication problem here. You do not seem to be understanding what I'm stating...


Put the link of the image here for details
It's still the same picture. I said a picture with "other items" in it so we can see the scale and movement.



Apparently the shots were taken around 3:18 am so long after the celebration.
There were multiple events being described in that article which would involve plenty of people that can still fit the question.
Although; I was specifically referring to this quote:

Author Robert Stanley reports that there was a UFO/ET flyover of P-56A restricted airspace during the Millennial Celebration of December 31, 1999 – January 1, 2000, which was attended by approximately 1,000,000 persons. According to Mr. Stanley, numerous UFOs appeared to emanate from five cylindrical motherships and perform acrobatics over the assembled crowd, much to the delight of onlookers. Mr. Stanley notes that the U.S. Capitol police, responsible for security, did not panic.


In other words: with all the garbage in there, all the missing facts, misleading and overblown statements, and questions left open, I see no reason to believe any other part of that whole article.

Don J
2010-Oct-05, 03:37 AM
Don. I think we have a communication problem here. You do not seem to be understanding what I'm stating...


It's still the same picture. I said a picture with "other items" in it so we can see the scale and movement.

Why do we have no other items in the shot for both depth and movement references?

The explanation must be that the phenomena occured high in the sky .- Elevated above any starting point of measurement-

He said that he was taking pictures of stars when this happened.

“I took several stationary images of the stars as I usually do. However, there is one object I thought to be a star, moving and then discharging a beam of light!!!...."

In that sense i was hoping

http://regex.info/exif.cgi?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ufodc.com%2F10%2520c .jpg

that the camera settings indicate that he was filming something far away ie (high in the sky)

Camera: Nikon D700
Lens: 120 mm
(Max aperture f/5.7)
Exposure: Manual exposure, 1/5 sec, f/5.6
Flash: none

see the other datas available from the link

Garrison
2010-Oct-05, 09:37 AM
Why do we have no other items in the shot for both depth and movement references?

The explanation must be that the phenomena occured high in the sky .- Elevated above any starting point of measurement-


Sorry but what detail in the photograph would lead you to make such an assertion? Is there any other evidence that would lead to such a conclusion? I don't think the camera settings tell us where the object was.

MartianMarvin
2010-Oct-05, 05:44 PM
He said that he was taking pictures of stars when this happened.

“I took several stationary images of the stars as I usually do. However, there is one object I thought to be a star, moving and then discharging a beam of light!!!...."

In that sense i was hoping

http://regex.info/exif.cgi?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ufodc.com%2F10%2520c .jpg

that the camera settings indicate that he was filming something far away ie (high in the sky)

Camera: Nikon D700
Lens: 120 mm
(Max aperture f/5.7)
Exposure: Manual exposure, 1/5 sec, f/5.6
Flash: none

see the other datas available from the link(emphasis mine)

He may have changed them to photograph the object, but are these settings appropriate for photographing stars?

Don J
2010-Oct-05, 06:59 PM
Sorry but what detail in the photograph would lead you to make such an assertion? Is there any other evidence that would lead to such a conclusion?

The little point of light at the left of the "object" seem to be a star or a planet.



My gut feel is that the camera moved during the open shutter (or ccd capture)

So, why the other point of light -possibly a star or a planet- at the left of the object is not affected the same way ?

Garrison
2010-Oct-05, 07:26 PM
Sorry but what detail in the photograph would lead you to make such an assertion? Is there any other evidence that would lead to such a conclusion?

The little point of light at the left of the "object" seem to be a star or a planet.

My gut feel is that the camera moved during the open shutter (or ccd capture)

So, why the other point of light -possibly a star or a planet- at the left of the object is not affected the same way ?

I don't where the second quote came from but isn't mine. As to the first, well sorry but there is so little detail there that the other object being a star is a guess, it could be a spec of dust on the lens for all we know, hence it wouldn't distort if the camera moved. Alternately perhaps the light source did move but it could have been something relatively close to the camera, There simply isn't enough information in the picture to be useful. As evidence in support of any exotic UFO hypothesis it's pretty weak.

Garrison
2010-Oct-05, 07:44 PM
(emphasis mine)

He may have changed them to photograph the object, but are these settings appropriate for photographing stars?

I found a page on shooting at night with digital SLR cameras(not a long search more blind luck) and based on it I would say no. Here's the page:

Digital SLR night shooting (http://www.slrphotographyguide.com/camera/settings/night-slr-settings.shtml)

And heres the most relevant section:


For high quality night shots, the shutter needs to be set at a slow speed. This allows the camera enough time to let light in to the sensor, without increasing your ISO setting. How slow depends on the time of night and how dark it is. There is no set shutter speed to suit every situation. However I've found if you take one photograph at 10 seconds, one at 20 and one at 30. Then view the image on your LCD display and see which one shows the most light. From there you will be able to judge how slow the shutter speed needs to be for the rest of your photo's on that particular night.

So if the shutter speed was 1/5 of a second it's hard to believe the camera was set for night photography. Also looking up that 1/5sec shutter speed camera shake appears to be regarded as difficult to avoid unless the camera was tripod mounted.

NEOWatcher
2010-Oct-05, 08:14 PM
I've learned (somewhere, in a past long long ago) that anything longer than 1/60 is worthless if it's handheld.

Don J
2010-Oct-05, 08:15 PM
I found a page on shooting at night with digital SLR cameras(not a long search more blind luck) and based on it I would say no. Here's the page:

Digital SLR night shooting (http://www.slrphotographyguide.com/camera/settings/night-slr-settings.shtml)

And heres the most relevant section:



So if the shutter speed was 1/5 of a second it's hard to believe the camera was set for night photography.

Your link is about DSLR camera settings and tips for taking city landscapes at night are you sure the same settings apply for photographing stars?
They also mention
"How slow depends on the time of night and how dark it is."



Also looking up that 1/5sec shutter speed camera shake appears to be regarded as difficult to avoid unless the camera was tripod mounted.

He seem to make allusion that the camera was mounted on a tripod.
“I took several stationary images of the stars "

NEOWatcher
2010-Oct-05, 08:17 PM
He seem to make allusion that the camera was mounted on a tripod.
“I took several stationary images of the stars "
I don't read it that way. The article was talking about frames from a video. So I see that statement as being stills instead of videos.

Don J
2010-Oct-05, 08:23 PM
I don't read it that way. The article was talking about frames from a video. So I see that statement as being stills instead of videos.

The article say that he made his video from the 10 pics he took .

HenrikOlsen
2010-Oct-05, 08:29 PM
All in all, that 1/5 seconds at 120 mm focal length says all that's needed to know. That's a shakey cam/someone tapped the tripod at a bad time/last image of the series is bad because that's where he touched the camera to turn the autoshooting off, shot. AKA photographer who don't know his craft (the part about: not every picture you make will be good, delete the crappy pictures, don't publish them).

The long exposure thing mentioned is for when the rest of the settings are automatic, in this case it looks like the camera was set to fully manual.

Arneb
2010-Oct-05, 08:48 PM
I've learned (somewhere, in a past long long ago) that anything longer than 1/60 is worthless if it's handheld.

Not quite, but close: A rule of thumb for analog SLRs with 35 mm film said that the denominator in the fraction of a second used for exposure shouldn't be smaller than the focal length in millimeters, or one stop smaller at most. That means, 1/60 of a second would be OK with a 50 mm lens (a "normal angle" lens), anything more (usually 1/30) would be marginal. I've taken good photos with exposures one stop "too long" when I was able to rest myself or at least one arm against something.

With the new image stabilizers built into lenses for digital cameras, it's a whole new game. I've had a few lucky punches obtaining steady exposures down towards 1/8 of a second using moderate telefoto focal lengths. Together with the high sensitivity of the modern sensors, ambient light phorography is much more fun than it used to be...

Of course that doesn't change the discussion at hand. We are seeing images with severe movement distortion.

Garrison
2010-Oct-05, 09:03 PM
Your link is about DSLR camera settings and tips for taking city landscapes at night are you sure the same settings apply for photographing stars?
They also mention
"How slow depends on the time of night and how dark it is."

So you think you will need a shorter exposure for photographing stars than a brightly lit city? Really? Look at the picture of the Marina on the page. The boats and the buildings are sharp and clear but the sky is blank. Here's a page on DSLR Astrophotgraphy (http://www.astropix.com/HTML/I_ASTROP/SETTINGS.HTM), and a relevant quote with my bold:


Shutter Speed - Set to the exposure you want, up to 30 seconds can usually be dialed in directly. For longer than 30 seconds, set to Bulb. On some cameras, Bulb may be a separate exposure mode setting, or it may be accessed on the shutter speed dial past the 30 second setting.



He seem to make allusion that the camera was mounted on a tripod.
“I took several stationary images of the stars "

And that might be one interpretation but it's not a compelling one I'm afraid.

HenrikOlsen
2010-Oct-05, 09:10 PM
Without a moving mount, anything over about 5 seconds will start to get streaking and isn't really feasible unless that's the effect you're after.

You can make OK'ish pics with 4 second exposures. I posted an example here (http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php/108225-Jupiter-from-Denmark). Note that there are some bad reflexions in that pic as the series was taken through a window.

Garrison
2010-Oct-05, 09:25 PM
Without a moving mount, anything over about 5 seconds will start to get streaking and isn't really feasible unless that's the effect you're after.

You can make OK'ish pics with 4 second exposures. I posted an example here (http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php/108225-Jupiter-from-Denmark). Note that there are some bad reflexions in that pic as the series was taken through a window.

Thanks for that. So with a 1/5 of a second exposure it is extremely unlikely that the second object in the photograph is a star as DonJ suggested?

slang
2010-Oct-05, 10:02 PM
With the new image stabilizers built into lenses for digital cameras, [...]

(Or built into the body, like with (at least some) Sony DSLRs, like my A200.)

Don J
2010-Oct-06, 05:41 AM
More info about the pic (s) including location ,angle, i gathered on facebook. At the end he said that "The camera was fired continuously for 10 frames or 2.3 seconds. Each frame has 1 star relative, as a stationary reference"

excerpts from a discussion betwen Bruce Maccabee and Will Allen

Bruce Maccabee--- As I have pointed out to you, it may be that the slowly moving light/object suddenly made a large acceleration and traveled quickly along the slightly curved path. This acceleration, if that's what it was, occurred during the 1/5 sec of the tenth exposure. I need the angle calibration or at least the field of view to continue the analysis.
#
21 juillet, 19:39
#
Will Allen---- Bruce..The images are 24 mm. At 3:18 AM the camera was 110 degrees from POV. Image samples are all 12800 ISO
21 juillet, 21:33
#
Bruce Maccabee--- What is the focal length? What is POV? You're saying that on the focal plane the complete image is 24 mm wide (24 mm wide focal plane)?
21 juillet, 22:24
#
Will Allen
Bruce
Here are the specifics on the lens
http://www.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nikonusa.com%2FFind-Your-Nikon%2FProduct%2FCamera-Lenses%2F2145%2FAF-S-VR-Zoom-NIKKOR-24-120mm-f%25252F3.5-5.6G-IF-ED.html&h=8a5bd
If the horizon is 0 degrees, my angle of inclination was 110 degrees, not quite ...90 degrees straight up. Aspherical lens technology. POV Point of view. SW direction.
21 juillet, 22:44
#
Bruce Maccabee -- It is a zoom lens ... variable focal length. Do you know what focal length? Wide FOV (field of view) is 24 mm, narrow FOV is 120 mm. Did you have it unzoomed or partially zoomed or fully zoomed? The 110 deg inclination corresponds to 20 degrees "beyond" straight up, i.e., 70 deg inclination in the "opposite" direction. What is the size of the focal plane?
21 juillet, 22:52
#
Will Allen
It was in 24 mm; I seldom use it in 110 at night because it drops in light gathering capabilioties @ 110 mm. My home is in NW Washington, a few blocks from the White House. From P street which runs East West, I was aimed South. The D700 has... GPS, however I did not have the module interfaced into the camera. If due north my field of view is 0, 90 degrees straight up, 110 degrees would then be south.
The camera was fired continuously for 10 frames or 2.3 seconds. Each frame has 1 star relative, as a stationary reference

Garrison
2010-Oct-06, 05:12 PM
More info about the pic (s) including location ,angle, i gathered on facebook. At the end he said that "The camera was fired continuously for 10 frames or 2.3 seconds. Each frame has 1 star relative, as a stationary reference"

DonJ I've looked at this picture repeatedly and I have a question for you. What, in your opinion, makes this picture extraordinary and worthy of so much analysis? because all I see is a blob, a faint dot next to the blob, and a wiggly line extending below the blob. There's no contextual information in the picture, nothing that would even verify it was taken under the circumstances claimed. So please why is it you seem to feel it's so special?

Don J
2010-Oct-06, 07:37 PM
DonJ I've looked at this picture repeatedly and I have a question for you. What, in your opinion, makes this picture extraordinary and worthy of so much analysis? because all I see is a blob, a faint dot next to the blob, and a wiggly line extending below the blob. There's no contextual information in the picture, nothing that would even verify it was taken under the circumstances claimed. So please why is it you seem to feel it's so special?
I find it special because the phenomena he pictured seem in some ways similar to the The Marfa lights phenomena which sometime are observed high in the sky.

Maybe he have pictured a plasma ball which if it is the case make the pic something special after all.

R.A.F.
2010-Oct-06, 08:09 PM
I find it special because the phenomena he pictured seem in some ways similar to the The Marfa lights phenomena which sometime are observed high in the sky.

Seriously...Marfa lights (http://www.astronomycafe.net/weird/lights/marfa.htm)???

Garrison
2010-Oct-06, 08:18 PM
I find it special because the phenomena he pictured seem in some ways similar to the The Marfa lights phenomena which sometime are observed high in the sky.

Maybe he have pictured a plasma ball which if it is the case make the pic something special after all.

But you can't even establish what he pictured was high in the sky, or anything else about this other than it's a light of some sort against a dark background. Do you see any detail in the photograph that actually supports the notion that it shows something in the sky? And do you have any images of these Marfa lights to compare it to or are you just comparing it to anecdotes? There are any number of things it might be but to me the photograph contains too little information to do more than speculate.

JayUtah
2010-Oct-06, 08:40 PM
The photos themselves simply aren't remarkable. That someone is telling a remarkable story about them means very little to me.

HenrikOlsen
2010-Oct-07, 01:04 AM
Thanks for that. So with a 1/5 of a second exposure it is extremely unlikely that the second object in the photograph is a star as DonJ suggested?
At the claimed 12800 ISO, it is entirely possible it was a star.

At 1/5 seconds and 120mm it's very likely that the streak is simply the camera getting moved during the exposure, depending on the ground and tripod you don't need more that a heavy step at that setting.

As a quick test, I just took these two out my window, 1/5 second, about 120mm (cam reports 125 and 130 in the EXIF, it's a zoom lens and hard to control precisely), the last pic while touching the camera very gently.
It's clear that it's artificial light rather than a star and 400 rather than 12800 ISO, but the main point is that it's also clear just how much streaking is made by even the gentlest touch at that setting.

1376813767

Swift
2010-Oct-07, 01:54 AM
Nice test Henrik

Don J
2010-Oct-07, 03:59 AM
At the claimed 12800 ISO, it is entirely possible it was a star.

Thanks.
Thus confirming the author claim.
"Each frame has 1 star relative, as a stationary reference"


At 1/5 seconds and 120mm it's very likely that the streak is simply the camera getting moved during the exposure, depending on the ground and tripod you don't need more that a heavy step at that setting.

Why the star visible in the frame is not affected the same way ?ie the star show no streak at all.

NickW
2010-Oct-07, 04:20 AM
Why the star visible in the frame is not affected the same way ?ie the star show no streak at all.

What star? The red dot?

If I was going to call anything a star it would be the big bright blue dot with the streak (which Mr. Allen put into a video to show apparent movement). The red dot looks like noise to me.

NickW
2010-Oct-07, 04:29 AM
Also, I haven't seen where it is said it was mounted on a tripod. Maybe I missed it.

NickW
2010-Oct-07, 04:35 AM
My guess, Jupiter, and quite possibly a galilean moon caught in there. Of course, willing to admit I am wrong.

Don J
2010-Oct-07, 05:12 AM
What star? The red dot?


The star is at the left of the "object".
http://www.ufodc.com/10%20c.jpg

NickW
2010-Oct-07, 05:19 AM
I dont see any star in that picture, other than the one with a large "streak"

Don J
2010-Oct-07, 05:20 AM
My guess, Jupiter, and quite possibly a galilean moon caught in there. Of course, willing to admit I am wrong.

http://regex.info/exif.cgi?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ufodc.com%2F10%2520c .jpg
Maybe by using Sky Above with the location an time specified it can be possible to know if Jupiter was at that location ?
July 20, 2010 3:18:44AM (timezone not specified)
Detail about the location.
My home is in NW Washington, a few blocks from the White House. From P street which runs East West, I was aimed South. The D700 has... GPS, however I did not have the module interfaced into the camera. If due north my field of view is 0, 90 degrees straight up, 110 degrees would then be south.

NickW
2010-Oct-07, 05:21 AM
And as I said above, I dont think it is a star. It is probably a planet, based on his very own description.

Henrik caught a shot alot like it, just without the movement.

http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php/108225-Jupiter-from-Denmark

NickW
2010-Oct-07, 05:24 AM
July 20, 2010 3:18:44AM (timezone not specified)
Detail about the location.
My home is in NW Washington, a few blocks from the White House. From P street which runs East West, I was aimed South. The D700 has... GPS, however I did not have the module interfaced into the camera. If due north my field of view is 0, 90 degrees straight up, 110 degrees would then be south.

Sounds alot like Jupiter to me.

NickW
2010-Oct-07, 05:25 AM
The small white dot visible directly (close ) at the left of the object

I referanced to that in post 122

Don J
2010-Oct-07, 05:26 AM
Sounds alot like Jupiter to me.

Maybe by using Sky....Ooops (edited) Heavens Above tool with the location an time specified it can be possible to know if Jupiter was at that location the day and hour he took the pic.

NickW
2010-Oct-07, 05:39 AM
I would check, but Heavens Above isnt working for me right now.

But I recall looking at it from my location (West coast) during that month many of times.

HenrikOlsen
2010-Oct-07, 06:02 AM
Let's see if this link (http://www.heavens-above.com/wholeskychart.ashx?lat=38.95087&lng=-77.0636&size=500&SL=1&SN=1&BW=0&time=55397.30417) works. Jupiter was definitely very prominent at the specified time and place.

NickW
2010-Oct-07, 06:13 AM
Yeah, I think Heavens Above is borked for me right now. I actually came to the conclusion based on your photos from the registax thread you started, Henrik.

Tedward
2010-Oct-07, 07:53 AM
I may be missing it but is there a link to the original unadulterated image complete with meta data? I have seen the links to tables but I should be able to see the original somewhere?

NEOWatcher
2010-Oct-07, 01:06 PM
Why the star visible in the frame is not affected the same way ?ie the star show no streak at all.
Notice how the streak is much dimmer than the bright dot.
Now; How much dimmer would be the streak on a dot that very few people can see on the picture. It would be to dim to register.

Don J
2010-Oct-07, 07:47 PM
I may be missing it but is there a link to the original unadulterated image complete with meta data? I have seen the links to tables but I should be able to see the original somewhere?
Here the original pic which is the last of a serie of 10
http://www.ufodc.com/10%20c.jpg
that is that link which lead to the metadata
http://regex.info/exif.cgi?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ufodc.com%2F10%2520c .jpg

Here a composite image using the 10 pics showing the path of the object in the sky

http://www.ufodc.com/1-10%20Composit%204.jpg

Here the complete analysis made by Bruce Maccabee including the 10 separate pics

http://www.ufodc.com/page%209.html

NickW
2010-Oct-07, 07:53 PM
I don't see an analysis anywhere, just a picture.

Don J
2010-Oct-07, 07:56 PM
I don't see an analysis anywhere, just a picture.
The analysis is here.
http://www.ufodc.com/page%209.html

NickW
2010-Oct-07, 08:09 PM
Hey Don, did you read any of the post me and Henrik and NEOWatcher?

How does the the conclusion of UFO more likely then Jupiter?

Don J
2010-Oct-07, 08:16 PM
Hey Don, did you read any of the post me and Henrik and NEOWatcher?

Yes,
I finded the similitude with Jupiter striking when I first saw the pics of Jupiter made by Henrik and you.



How does the the conclusion of UFO more likely then Jupiter?

All depend if Jupiter made the same path in the sky during the time elapsed to take the 10 pics and there is other things which are moving in those pics as revealed by the analysis.

NickW
2010-Oct-07, 08:23 PM
All depend if Jupiter made the same path in the sky during the time elapsed to take the 10 pics.

But we have no idea if the camera was moved or not. It seems pretty apparent that the camera was moved during the shots due to the shakiness of the "object". Then the sequence of pictures were put back together to give it a large apparent movement.

Garrison
2010-Oct-07, 08:43 PM
At the claimed 12800 ISO, it is entirely possible it was a star.

At 1/5 seconds and 120mm it's very likely that the streak is simply the camera getting moved during the exposure, depending on the ground and tripod you don't need more that a heavy step at that setting.

As a quick test, I just took these two out my window, 1/5 second, about 120mm (cam reports 125 and 130 in the EXIF, it's a zoom lens and hard to control precisely), the last pic while touching the camera very gently.
It's clear that it's artificial light rather than a star and 400 rather than 12800 ISO, but the main point is that it's also clear just how much streaking is made by even the gentlest touch at that setting.

1376813767

Those are both very interesting, and frankly they seem more exotic and strange than the 'real' UFO photographs. Surely it's clear by now that there's really nothing in the photographs that constitutes evidence of anything exceptional? Without the anecdote that goes with them would anyone have given those images a second look?

HenrikOlsen
2010-Oct-08, 12:28 AM
Here the original pic which is the last of a serie of 10
http://www.ufodc.com/10%20c.jpg
OK, that's clearly not the original pic, no cam that does 12800ISO will take 880x585 images.
Note the "Software: Adobe Photoshop CS3 Windows" tag included in the image.

It's severely cropped, likely to remove all other objects in the image which would have given some indication of the real movement of the camera.

Apart from the faint light just to the right of the big one, the power spectrum is consistent with the rest of the image being empty apart from the normal sensor noise.

As the bright light is much stronger (strong overexposure to the point of saturation bleed) than the weak light, there wouldn't be one on the weak light if the tail is due to camera shake.

HenrikOlsen
2010-Oct-08, 12:30 AM
Those are both very interesting, and frankly they seem more exotic and strange than the 'real' UFO photographs
After posting the second one, I had the nasty thought that it's probably going to end up somewhere as a claimed UFO proof picture.

NickW
2010-Oct-08, 02:30 AM
After posting the second one, I had the nasty thought that it's probably going to end up somewhere as a claimed UFO proof picture.

Headlines read: "BAUT forum member changes mind, photographs UFO!"

I feel sorry for you already. :)

Don J
2010-Oct-08, 03:24 AM
OK, that's clearly not the original pic, no cam that does 12800ISO will take 880x585 images.
Note the "Software: Adobe Photoshop CS3 Windows" tag included in the image.

It's severely cropped, likely to remove all other objects in the image which would have given some indication of the real movement of the camera.

Apart from the faint light just to the right of the big one, the power spectrum is consistent with the rest of the image being empty apart from the normal sensor noise.

As the bright light is much stronger (strong overexposure to the point of saturation bleed) than the weak light, there wouldn't be one on the weak light if the tail is due to camera shake.

I agree with you... case closed. The "object" photographed is Jupiter.

Tedward
2010-Oct-09, 07:46 AM
Here the original pic which is the last of a serie of 10
http://www.ufodc.com/10%20c.jpg
that is that link which lead to the metadata
http://regex.info/exif.cgi?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ufodc.com%2F10%2520c .jpg

Here a composite image using the 10 pics showing the path of the object in the sky

http://www.ufodc.com/1-10%20Composit%204.jpg

Here the complete analysis made by Bruce Maccabee including the 10 separate pics

http://www.ufodc.com/page%209.html

Just saying thanks, don't want to seem ungrateful. Unable to read the meta data locally but looks like it is already answered.

UFOwga
2010-Dec-27, 03:35 AM
Don J: Thank you, http://www.UFOdc.com.
For those experts: To form an opinion you must know all the facts. Here is a fact you never considered*(http://www.nuforc.org/webreports/076/S76930.html)
A couple walking their dog* witnessed a luminous object "But what we think we saw, left us floored! The damn thing emitted a tube of light.. I think Z saw red lights around it or moving away from it"
Taken from NUFORC report. So, let us look at the facts and the analysis by my associate Dr. Bruce Maccabee, the physical data taken in sequence from a stationary platform @ 20000 ISO. If these anomalies were stars, why then did they move and the stars remain stationary? Dr. Maccabee performed his analysis based on fixed variables (a star that never moved in all the 10 frames of the sample). If we base our coordinates and calculations on defined constants, in this case a star that is in the same position in each frame. Based on the exposure and continuous firing of the D700 Nikon, which registered each frame with metadata components.
WE take all the data, to an expert in Optical Physics like Bruce Maccabee (Ph.D). Then we allow the true scientist and expert too concur with the forensic data. Then we take the 2nd and third party witness testimony as indicated on NUFORC for time and day of event. If then, you feel that I am in error or incapable of generating an expert capture of events that fall within my lens, then I will be the first to say you all are correct: However, I wont and your are not correct, based on the physical evidence as reported.
Wilbur Allen
http://www.UFOdc.com

Tedward
2010-Dec-27, 09:46 AM
Any corroborating evidence and explanation (the link)? Helicopter, plane on approach? Weather condition? Direction and time?

I assume the second para is reference to the images not the link?

eburacum45
2010-Dec-27, 09:57 AM
Welcome to Bautforum, Mr Allen!
During his analysis, Bruce Maccabee asked a very pertinent question;

If the trail was not the result of the light moving then what caused it?
Can we rule out a vibration of the camera during the last photo?
In other words Maccabee could not rule out the possibility (and neither can I) that this trail was caused by movement of the camera and not the imaged object. What answer do you have to Maccabee's question?

slang
2010-Dec-27, 10:51 AM
Any corroborating evidence and explanation (the link)? Helicopter, plane on approach? Weather condition? Direction and time?

The incident time and date are in the link, but that's about the only detail in there. Would you be surprised if there was a big fat bright Jupiter in the sky at that time and date?

chrlzs
2010-Dec-27, 01:00 PM
The analysis is here.
http://www.ufodc.com/page%209.html

First, it is worth noting that Maccabee appears to have only contributed a few bits and pieces to that page.

As for it being an analysis - I beg to strongly differ. That isn't even close to being any sort of 'analysis'. I'm happy to go into more detail when I have more time, but for a start:

- it completely ignores proper photographic analysis, including the simplest explanation of camera movement (my best guess being a camera (and/or scope?) that has been tapped or struck during the last exposure)

- it completely overlooks the fact that the supposed reference 'star' (likely = Ganymede) would, by virtue of it being dim, not leave a trail as the camera was moved - the fact that Maccabee doesn't seem to consider this, casts doubts over his input

- it contains completely unsupported assertions, like "Both samples show energy discharge from an unknown airborne object" - 'energy discharge'??? - camera movement easily explains the image's long streak

- it contains unsupported claims like "Enhanced analysis shows this object was enshroud{sic} in blue energy", not mentioning the fact that the blue edges look exactly like chromatic aberrations/sensor bloom and/or the byproducts of the inappropriate post-proc..

- it contains inappropriate use of various post-processing techniques that are both additive and destructive, with no documentation of what was done, nor why

- none of the images are available as originals, so any cropping/zooming/postproc cannot be verified

- it includes what appears to be very obvious 'hot pixel' effects (these are common in long exposure images, yet they are seemingly unknown to the 'analyser'), and again they are cropped and have no reference points to relate them to the original images - the 'analyser' has decided they show a 'pursuit'...

- it includes vague, apparently unrelated 'supporting' reports, one of which seems almost certainly to be a searchlight equipped helicopter

- it includes the almost de rigueur over-enlargement and over-processing of images, again with no reference to what enlarging algorithm or processing steps, and why they were used

- it refers to the person who photographed this as "an acquaintance who happens to be a professional photographer and "UFO Hunter." Yet this same person didn't document the sky conditions, talk about where it was in relation to known objects, give details of his equipment, etc..? Anyone else find this whole thing just a touch 'strange'?

And a couple of extra notes:
On 20 July 2010 from Washington, Ganymede was placed pretty much exactly where that little 'star' was, relative to Jupiter.
At 3am-ish on that night, Jupiter was moving .. go on take a guess... Yep. From left to right and slightly downwards. If I had time to dig around and took a look at the exif from each frame, I think we could flesh that out even further..


And I haven't even started on the Maccabee stuff yet... :D

Suffice to say, I remain a little underwhelmed, and unless a full-res image or two is produced, I would not waste my time further. If I have a choice, the first and last images, straight from the camera, preferably in raw format, would be nice.

PS - I confess to not reading back very far - is this still ontopic for the 1952 White House events?

PPS - the images look a tad familiar. I may have more to say about this later...

Tedward
2010-Dec-27, 04:11 PM
The incident time and date are in the link, but that's about the only detail in there. Would you be surprised if there was a big fat bright Jupiter in the sky at that time and date?
My mistake. I clocked the date but missed the time. I did look again later, now its not opening. I blame the mince pies over the last few days.

UFOwga
2011-Jan-01, 09:21 AM
Rule out camera vibration. If camera vibration was the cause, then the effect would have translated throughout the image, which it does not. As mentioned, in the 10 frames are 1 particular constant: A stationary star* If the camera was moved from the tripod, which it was not, then we can consider this an artifact of motion, however it is not, Secondly, it is in sync with eyewitness report given from secondary location at time of event, as reported on NUFORC* http://www.nuforc.org/webreports/076/S76930.html
We can say, that this person saw what was photographed, therefor rule out camera vibration. Also, the images show the anomalies trajectory, and the image with the object and energy protrusion are in line the images 1-9 in sequence of events, So if this object is imaged and the images show its trajectory to be consistent in each frame, then motion is not a factor in the rendering of these images.

UFOwga
2011-Jan-01, 09:27 AM
Don J: Thank you, http://www.UFOdc.com.
For those experts: To form an opinion you must know all the facts. Here is a fact you never considered*(http://www.nuforc.org/webreports/076/S76930.html)
A couple walking their dog* witnessed a luminous object "But what we think we saw, left us floored! The damn thing emitted a tube of light.. I think Z saw red lights around it or moving away from it"
Taken from NUFORC report. So, let us look at the facts and the analysis by my associate Dr. Bruce Maccabee, the physical data taken in sequence from a stationary platform @ 20000 ISO. If these anomalies were stars, why then did they move and the stars remain stationary? Dr. Maccabee performed his analysis based on fixed variables (a star that never moved in all the 10 frames of the sample). If we base our coordinates and calculations on defined constants, in this case a star that is in the same position in each frame. Based on the exposure and continuous firing of the D700 Nikon, which registered each frame with metadata components.
WE take all the data, to an expert in Optical Physics like Bruce Maccabee (Ph.D). Then we allow the true scientist and expert too concur with the forensic data. Then we take the 2nd and third party witness testimony as indicated on NUFORC for time and day of event. If then, you feel that I am in error or incapable of generating an expert capture of events that fall within my lens, then I will be the first to say you all are correct: However, I wont and your are not correct, based on the physical evidence as reported.
Wilbur Allen
http://www.UFOdc.com

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tIozZXeGutw&feature=player_embedded#!
(Video of image stream, please note the star that does not move in each frame*)

captain swoop
2011-Jan-01, 09:49 PM
UFOwga
Welcome to BAUT. Please take some time to read the rules for posting and the advice for posting in the Conspiracy Forum. Both are linked at the bottom of this post

chrlzs
2011-Jan-01, 10:14 PM
Rule out camera vibration.
I'm sorry, but NO.


If camera vibration was the cause, then the effect would have translated throughout the image, which it does not.
Camera *movement*, which can have numerous causes, is just like any other contributing factor to the final image. The final image shows whatever light *was strong enough* to cause the sensor to record it. If an object is very dim, it will need to 'rest' on the sensor (or film grain) for longer to register. If the camera is moved, a BRIGHT object will show a trail, whereas a dim object may not show a trail if the brightness was insufficient to trigger the sensor (film grain) response. FTR, that image shows EXACTLY what Jupiter and Ganymede would have looked like on that evening, from that location, in an exposure taken by a camera that was moved at some point during the exposure.

If you dispute that, please point out precisely what image attributes are inconsistent with that.


As mentioned, in the 10 frames are 1 particular constant: A stationary star*
Are you referring to the bright object? If so, it's very likely Jupiter (a planet)...


If the camera was moved from the tripod, which it was not
Please explain EXACTLY how you know it was not 'moved from the tripod'??? Are YOU the photographer? The reports are very unclear on this - so if you ARE the photographer, where are the original full-resolution files, and please give details of the equipment used. If you are suggesting that a camera won't move when tripod mounted, then you need to learn a little more about such photogrpahy.


then we can consider this an artifact of motion, however it is not
Given the information provided to date, that is a completely unsupported claim.


Secondly, it is in sync with eyewitness report given from secondary location at time of event, as reported on NUFORC* http://www.nuforc.org/webreports/076/S76930.html
We can say, that this person saw what was photographed
What?? here's what they said:


Moving star with beam of light
My wife and I went out to walk the dog. While out we all saw a slow moving bright star! I thought it was strange, the dog would not look away, and became agitated afterwards? But what we think we saw, left us floored! The damn thing emitted a tube of light.. I think Z saw red lights around it or moving away from it. My wife does not want to talk or have me make this report, so please do not post my name! I did not believe in UFO's until I saw this light! Kirk to Enterprise: Beam me up?
Apart from the silly claim that their dog is a skywatcher, the lack of any direction information, the lack of any information about the sky conditions, the lack of any information about where the object was in relation to known objects in the sky at that time (eg Jupiter), the 'Star Trek' humour and the anonymity, it refers to two red lights that do not appear in the images, and an alleged witness who will not co-operate... It all sounds very familiar - forgive me for suggesting that it sounds like the sort of thing that would be posted by someone to bolster a claim.


Also, the images show the anomalies trajectory
NO, they show the object movement relative to the camera (or vice versa). And even if we accept that the camera was perfectly still, the movement is consistent with Jupiter's track through the sky at that time. This can be verified by any planetarium program - and if anyone else asks nicely, I'll provide a GIF to show that.


the image with the object and energy protrusion are in line the images 1-9 in sequence of events
I see a trail of pixels that is very likely Jupiter (but could be a streetlamp or any number of other objects) moving thru the frame. There is absolutely NO evidence of an 'energy protrusion' - if you have any, please provide it or withdraw that claim. Is this some sort of energy beam that travels in shaky lines? Lightning perhaps? The other 'witness report' deosn't mention any wobbliness..


So if this object is imaged and the images show its trajectory to be consistent in each frame, then motion is not a factor in the rendering of these images.
That isn't how analysis works... The movement in the first frames is quite consistent with Jupiter's motion through the sky (using equipment on a slightly shaky tripod). The last streak is consistent with camera movement on that some tripod, probably from being bumped as the exposure sequence was ended.

So... what is the most likely explanation?

eburacum45
2011-Jan-01, 10:56 PM
I doubt it is Jupiter, to be honest, as the movement looks to be too fast.

If the motionless point is indeed a star, then the light is moving quite fast in comparison to that star, which shows no sidereal motion. Unless this sequence was taken with an equatorial mount then the brighter light was not Jupiter (assuming the motionless point is a star). Were you using an equatorial mount by any chance?

I suggest an ordinary aircraft with only one light visible - a landing light perhaps. The blur in the last frame is probably caused by movement of the camera.

The 'star' seems to get slightly dimmer in the last frame- this is consistent with the camera beng subject to vibration in the last frame, causing this streak to become visible on the bright light but not on the dimmer star.

Jim
2011-Jan-01, 11:39 PM
My wife and I went out to walk the dog. While out we all saw a slow moving bright star! I thought it was strange, the dog would not look away, and became agitated afterwards? But what we think we saw, left us floored! The damn thing emitted a tube of light.. I think Z saw red lights around it or moving away from it. My wife does not want to talk or have me make this report, so please do not post my name! I did not believe in UFO's until I saw this light! Kirk to Enterprise: Beam me up?

What could possibly be more substantive than the eyewitness report of an anonymous source on what he thought someone else saw?

(BTW, is Z the wife or the dog?)

gzhpcu
2011-Jan-03, 01:57 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tIozZXeGutw&feature=player_embedded#!
(Video of image stream, please note the star that does not move in each frame*)
What is this supposed to be? :confused: You can't seriously expect this to be proof of anything...:think: