Trivial phenomena -> Science -> Homeclick!
Cette page en franšaisCliquez!

Trivial phenomena:

Some skeptics claim UFOs are not discernible from IFOs, i.e. "Identified Flying Objects. While many people lack the experience and knowledge to make the distinction, experiences ufologist know better.


Various NASA video captured by space shuttle missions and recorded either by NASA of amateurs occasionally show this type of objects. They may have a hole in the middle or not, and one or two notches or not.

Venus, distant light sources, zooming, a weird video effect:

How it happens:

Quite rarely, a video with intense zooming or other particular condition can show anomalies in the appearance of a distance light source such as Venus, by letting appear lens, rims, sensors, mounts feature across the source of which the spare light bounces wild in the lenses.

This happens rarely because most video cameras are built so that it does not happen in normal operation. However, additional objectives or incorrect mounting can happen.

The unusual effects can come and go during the video shooting, depending on the amount of lights coming in, the angle it comes in, focus variations, and the zoom rate variations. Thus, such a "UFO" can seem to change shape during the shooting.

Lens mounts can create notches.

Lenses themselves sometimes have mount notches.

Lens brackets can create unusual effects.

Sensors, mount points, notches can create unusual effects.

CCD mounts can create unusual effects.



Examples of cases in this IFO category:

NASA STS-75 mission:

The images:

Various NASA video captured by space shuttle missions and recorded either by NASA of amateurs occasionally show this type of objects. They may have a hole in the middle or not, and one or two notches or not.

The reports:

There are no sighting reports with these allegedly "secret NASA video".

Discussion:

Not just anything seen on a video image is a alien spaceship. One of the silliest comments about those is that they are "Drop disks". The Dropa disks are somehow an archeological puzzle that may ort may not be related to aliens who, according to some reported, crashed on earth thousands of years ago. Because a picture of a Dropa disk shows a notch, people without sense of logic think that these NASA video "objects" are spaceships of the Dropas. But these stone disks are obviously no spaceship and the notch on the Dropa disk is very obviously just a broken part of the disk, not an intrinsic feature:

Israel 1988:

The images:

Three video frames are shown. They are obviously cropped, as they do not have video ratio but a 100 by 100 pixel size. The first is obviously zoomed heavier, the second shows the round with the "hole" in the middle and the third shows the round, the "hole" in the middle and the indentations (image left). The headline of the article talks about "photos" but these are indicated to be video frames in the report.

The report:

In 2006, a Webmaster says a friend of his in Israel saw a UFO and took pictures. The Webmaster says they are the "best photos yet of a UFO" but they are not. He says that "either this is the Aurora project or an alien" spaceship but it is nothing of that. He says the photos are smoking gun proof of alien spaceship they are not.

He says the UFO is "somewhat similar to what has been described as a Roswell type aircraft" but it does not since nobody knows for sure what the shape of that spacecraft, if any, really was. He says the UFO has "a delta wing shape" but it does not.

The witness was already in search for UFOs, since "he was familiar with" that Webmaster's website. While the Webmaster says the witness is his friend, he also says that when he came by to show his images "he was a pleasant fellow" and "not the typical witness or individual I expected". If the witness had really been his friend, the Webmaster would have discovered that before. It is apparent that they met him for the first time.

The witness did not show photos but a 4 minutes video he shot in 1988. The exact date and exact place is not given. The witness name is not given. The witness says he was home in Tel Aviv and received a phone call from a friend in a nearby city, who said she was watching a UFO in the sky and wanted him to tape it.

The witness says it was a brilliant bright object in the sky that "was being illuminated by the moon." He said it "turned and performed a yaw axis."

The Webmaster makes no investigation. Instead he starts by expressing certainty that it is either "the Aurora project or an alien spaceship" on the ground that the object look very similar to one shown in the DVD "The Secret NASA Transmission" by Martin Scubbs which cannot be doubted because it is NASA footage. Further on he says it could be the "Bird of Prey" secret plane by Boeing, as if this prototype existed at this time and as if it would fly above Tel Aviv. While the headline says it is smoking gun material, further in the article he only wonders "is this the Smoking Gun of UFOs?" and that he has to "wait for the smoke to clear!"

He says it is obvious that there is a connection between all the sightings stated in his article; this is very true:

"We have photographic proof of a similar if not identical object. This object has been videotaped on earth as well as above it. It has been sighted since the 1980s and is either an experimental aircraft or proof of extraterrestrial visitation."

While saying initially that it could be the Aurora, he then gives Aurora performances as if it was existing and known. He then discards Aurora because it is allegedly "delta-shaped and is similar to the F-18 Hornet" while previously he said it was similar to "the Roswell craft" because it is delta-shaped. He also discounts the Bird of Prey also for configuration reasons.

While in the beginning of the article he says his friend showed him the video without wanting a profit of fame, at the end of the article he says "the lawyer would like to sell his video to any television network or company willing to make him a lucrative offer."

Discussion:

It is only too apparent that common sense was not at work on this sighting. Utterly terrible contradictions appear, and none of the basic data are provided, making all this the lowest form of ufology. For example, the witness is called a friend but was met for the first time. It is said that he does not seek profit but later on a call for TV networks to buy the video is made.

The visual sighting as reported by the Webmaster is lacking all relevant data even minimal. No time, no location, no description of movements, no angular size, no duration. The UFO could well be Venus. It was seen from two "nearby" towns by people communicating over the phone - no exact locations indicated - which suggests that it was not near any of the two people who saw it.

The claims and discussions about the UFO being secret planes Aurora (existence still unproven 18 years after the sighting) or Bird of Prey (exists but only 16 years after the sighting!) was unnecessary. A correct approach is not done.

The only good observation by the Webmaster is that the UFO is similar to other UFOs, i.e. actually, to other video images of other UFOs.

The cause for this UFO is the cause I present at the top of this article.

Valid XHTML 1.0 Strict



 Feedback  |  Top  |  Back  |  Forward  |  Map  |  List |  Home
This page was last updated on May 18, 2006