Analysis of UFO Spectrum

"I know you said the ball appeared to 'hover', but this is often the case when meteors pass clean over head and away from you. They appear really fast as they go overhead (because they are travelling _really_ fast) but as they head towards the horizon, appear to slow, and this also accounts for the loss of intensity."


No, I said it Hovered .. which means it sat there the size of a full moon for at least ten seconds and then decended the same size slowly... slowly.... into the trees..

Besides, I'm 51 years old and have seen literally hundreds of falling stars, per se. My whole family saw several UFOs in the mid 60's at dusk one evening. they looked like smal stars that could cover the horizon in a blink of the eye and stop, or do a complete left or right turn without slowing. we watched the SAME stars play or fight for about fifteen minutes, then disappear AWAY from Earth!.. my Dad, mom, sister and about ten cousins saw them.. we all saw the same thing.

I live in Rural East Texas where there are NO city lights, the sky is clear a lot and many friends of mine have some awesome experiences they share candidly... recently one of my friends and others were on a dirt road riding around and saw what appeared to be a white blimp with unknown markings that was there (about 300 feet off the ground), and when they approached it by car, it literally FLASHED out of sight..
 
Last edited:
use a search engine to find the space shuttle video titled STS 48, a notorious shuttle video of a mission that filmed a blinking UFO at the edge of the earths atmosphere advancing and firing a spray of something at a smaller UFO that reversed course and fled out of sight.
 
slim said:
Awesome chris! forget about the naysayers... they'll always be last! What I saw was entirely different. I was cruising into a campground at about 3 am looking for a place to camp in the Missouri riverbotoms when a bright light fell towards earth. It was a huge ball the size of the full moon that I first took to be a falling star or meteor with greenish flames trailing behind it. it was about a mile distant and I figured I was a goner for sure! it came streaking down very fast and then slowed visibly fairly quick. It then hovered above the treetops and the flames went out.. it then slowly settled into the trees. I stayed in the area for about an hour before leaving.
Click to expand...

Hi slim,
Thank you for your post.Your sighting sounds very interesting. Too few people people who actually witness the 'ufo events' actually get to discuss their sightings on the forums I've visited (and it's the same here...). It's either 'ufo researchers' or so called sceptics fostering their viewpoints on whoever they think cares. I think they do that a lot.
 
phlogistician said:
Just what is your deficiency Chris? Can't work the focus on your camcorder? Notice how NONE of the light sources are pin sharp? Not even the lights from the city? So what we have here, is a couple of out of focus aircraft coming in to land, with running lights, and the occasional flash of tail lights visible too. At one point, another aircraft in a different air lane is briefly visible.

It's nothing mysterious, it's just badly recorded air liners coming in to land. Living near an airport myself, I could take such footage. Well, if I suddenly became incapable of using my camcorder correctly, that is.
Click to expand...

I find you quite rude, and will not be responding to any of your posts.
 
chris beacham said:
Hi all,

Perhaps some of you will find this Preliminary Report on UFO phenomena by Massimo Teodorani of interest....

http://www.surfin.com.au/mtreport.html
Click to expand...

Well, that was fun, but I won't be responding to any more posts on this thread. I think the pdf report and I have said all I want to on this particular subject.Thanks again for the link skinwalker.....
 
Yeah chris, I agree.. So much time and energy is wasted on the debunkers who very quickly discount and pick away at anybody who can or will step forward with their accounts of something VERY Real. You'd think they would at least remain optomistic enough to ponder the thought instead of briskly poking holes in what the viewer HONESTLY Saw... like as in REALLY Saw Something Spectacular. I've seen the strings and wire Shit and it does a disservice to science and the pursuit of the truth. those people ought to be castrated and fed their own nuts...
 
chris beacham said:
I find you quite rude, and will not be responding to any of your posts.
Click to expand...

Because you are incapable of answering my questions.

If you were, you'd be happy to demonstrate how you managed to get spectra from a diffraction grating.

Usual woo woo tactic, as soon as you are asked for proof, you flounce.
 
On the one hand it's very well to analyse something from a skeptical position based upon your own views, understanding and perception, but on the other hand to do so by starting a post with "Just what is your deficiency Chris?" isn't exactly going to have the person you are responding to about their claims wanting to interact with you at the level you would suggest they should (namely supplying evidence or being receptive of contradicting evidence).

I would suggest Phlogistician and other hardline skeptics to refrain from the personal attacks that are so often noted when replying to posts. I know pseudoscience is filled with falsities, uneducated people and jokers but it doesn't mean that such an aggressive stance is deemed necessary.

I would also suggest being more tactile in discussion, stating someone is a "woo woo" isn't aiding them in their development of Logical progression (Namely if they have manifested some delusion, the only way to prove to them they have a delusion is to produce supporting evidence with any contradictions put fowards).

Namely it's fine saying "It could have been a plane coming into land on approach, because planes have to approach runways unlike helicopters that could potentially land vertically", but it's not to say "It's a plane, you woo woo".

Just note that UFO stands for "Unidentified Flying Object", it doesn't mean it's an alien space craft it just means it's something that hasn't been identified that was percievably flying. (Of course Flight zones, approach paths and even when the Ground control sends craft out in different vectors to avoid collisions is not just possible but something that would also be documented [if commercial]. I believe their is also the possibility of "Offshore" going helicopters, however thats depending on if a "UFO" is within about 200km inland of a shoreline.)
 
Thanks Stryder! Very well put! The subject is at least interesting enough to wonder about. with the Earth being home to many species It is even more practical to assume that the universe is home to many races that would visit it than believing the earth is inhabited by Ghosts, which is another subject that could be concidered Woo Woo..
 
chris beacham said:
Silas said:
Uh, I think that's a boat, dude....
Click to expand...
Uh, I think your wrong again, dude.
Click to expand...
Taking into account Stryderunknown's comments, I will concede that my post could be interpreted as rudeness. I am totally in agreement with Stryderunknown's caution against arrogance in post responses.

slim, that movie of the STS48 UFO was debunked by James Oberg, but I think he went into far too much detail in trying to counter Richard Hoagland's analysis. We're looking at dot moving slowly in one direction - scale is impossible to determine, it could be a large object very far away or a tiny object close up. Then the shuttle's RCS fires up, and the dot suddenly changes direction and shoots out of screen. A large object at the distance claimed by Hoagland (1713 miles, since he believes it appears from over the horizon) could not possibly by means we know now behave in such a way - added to which, why on earth would it move like that just when the shuttle fired its engine (probably not even visible from that distance)? On the other hand a tiny scrap of debris or sunlit dust not only would be much more capable of such a shift in momentum, being right next to the shuttle it's more likely to be affected by the rocket firing.

You can "analyse" the film till the cows come home, Occam's Razor enjoins us to explain it in the simplest manner possible: given an unexplained occurrence which in one interpretation is moving in a superhuman or super-natural manner, and in another interpretation is moving exactly as one would expect in the circumstances, we are forced to the latter, rational explanation.

Same goes for this movie of Mr Beacham's. I've seen all sorts of films of airliners coming down apparently strange places, and dropping out of sight between buildings - are they crashing on a high street? No, there's an airport you can't see. There's no better way of learning the problems with perspective than watching aircraft come in.

With nothing more than his map and an apparent flight plan, it may appear that the objects are flying into the water of Sydney Harbour, but experience suggests that they are simply landing on an airstrip. Experience also suggests that a film taken in daylight at the same place would reveal a lot more - specifically airliners coming in to land. One of the lights starts off moving in the "wrong" direction, and then stopped, and the camera operator focussed in on it while it was "hovering". It definitely looks like it's hovering in one spot. But an aircraft making a long turn during approach in which it spent a while moving right at the camera position would have the same effect. Lo and behold it begins to move to the right again and follows the same line as the other lights.
 
Stryder, it's hard to stay polite when pseud's are wantonly trying to dupe people, and make money off it.

Did you read that 'paper' on the linked website covering the spectra from this aircraft? A few technical truths, some glaring omissions, over use of technical terms, very little actual content, and absolutely no data or method shown. Scientific papers describe method, and show data.

Now, I asked Chris how he managed to extract the data from his image, and he's dodged. If he doesn't put up his data and method, I was right to be rude. If he shows us how he did it, and the method is sound, I'll apologise. I can't be fairer than that.
 
Silas, there are two dots, not one. both are blinking, the larger one is moving slowly and the spray is coming from the larger blinking Dot. the other smaller dot reverses course and races away. I downloaded it and watched it scores of times. there is nothing coming from the shuttle at the time. Naturally people wish to debunk that video, but it cannot logically be done.
 
I just did it, quite logically. If there's one dust particle, there are likely to be others, I was dealing with the one that moves anomalously. Since the others don't move anomalously I didn't worry about them.

Ok, I'm looking at this: http://www.ufoevidence.org/VideoClips/STS48main.mpg

First of all, you can see a flash reflecting off nearby surfaces - that's the rocket motor firing, so there is something coming from the shuttle at the time - motion and probably expulsive particulate matter. As soon as the flash happens, stuff starts moving - in particular our star piece of debris rapidly reverses direction. The other dot moves slightly faster. Then there's another piece that streaks across the screen, moving even faster than the other two. Is this your spray? Again, not surprising if they're tiny lumps of matter being forced away from the shuttle during a maneouvre. During the last close up on this particular film, you can quite clearly see that the third object moving fastest (the "spray") does not emanate from the second object.

They're three lumps of matter floating around the Shuttle amidst a whole other load of stuff. Nothing seems to me to be blinking, but if there is variation in reflectivity it's because they're irregular objects which are rotating - this would apply to a chip of paint from the Shuttle as much as to a distant spaceship.
 
Silas, spot on in your explanation. I used to work where a guy who became a Shuttle crew member got his PhD. He used to come back and bring his home movies taken on board the shuttle to show us every now and again (which was a nice thing to do considering how busy he was).

He pointed out the debris glittering in the sunshine, and showed us the manouvering motors being fired in his vids. Cool stuff. The shuttle is shrouded in debris, flecks of paint, dust from the cargo bay, stuff it picks up on ascent, they've lost nuts and bolts during repair missions, a screwdriver, a glove from an Apollo mission once. Mir dropped 300 pieces of debris after EVAs! All glittering in the sun, all following the same path, all waiting to be pushed out by thrusters.
 
From what I can see, the dots are pulsating and moving independently. the one approaching makes a "Circular" turn and races away.. why would only one paint chip out of many do this, while the slower one never speeds up also? the spray appears to come from a Black Cloud of matter just below the slow dot to the lower left. like there is a large darker vessel .. Your explaination is feasable, yet it doesn't address other videos that were caught by individuals monitoring those cameras also.. NASA has every reason to hide and debunk those movies, so any spokesman for them is trained in his answers. Obviously the fears of the Governments are well founded in Hiding the truth from its citizens. Mentioning UFOs brings redicule and anger from many people, like we shouldn't dare to go there.. I would welcome the truth no matter what! The past Russian Cosmonauts on Mir speak of viewing hundreds of accounts of spaceships speeding past them, many acting curious, like they know its inhabited by Earthlings. I think they view us with mistrust because we do seem to kill each other off quite viciously! It would be hard to fault a supierior race for hiding from us, but its harder to understand the outright lies our officials tell us. NASA has a long record dating back to the sixties of "Don't ask, Don't tell" like one of our first Astronauts stated when he saw a UFO: Be advised, There IS a Santa claus!
 
Slim sez:

The past Russian Cosmonauts on Mir speak of viewing hundreds of accounts of spaceships speeding past them, many acting curious, like they know its inhabited by Earthlings.

It would be hard to fault a supierior race for hiding from us

So, these so-called "superior races" werre hiding from us yet hundreds of them were speeding past a manned space station in plain view?

:rolleyes:
 
Slim, why are these spaceships visible to Cosmonauts on Mir, but not earth bound astronomers? I used to work with professional post Doctorate researchers, and _none_ of them ever caught a UFO, or significant anomoly, at any wavelength, from Infra Red through optical, to Extreme Ultra Violet, to X-Ray. Interesting no amateur has ever snagged an image or movie either. Odd that even with Mir and the ISS being visible to the _naked_ eye, ... you'd have thought if craft were buzzing Mir all the time, some spotter would have caught one in his telescope!
 
Chris Beacham, I ran a few questions past a friend of mine who is a professional scientist, and asked him if he thought it was feasible you attained spectra from a digital camera with the apparatus you describe. His response was that I was wasting my time talking to you.

So, you can prove two people wrong, one a Govt Defense Researcher, if you post your method and data. Go on, show us both up.
 
Actually, I think he was suggesting that Dr. Massimo Teodorani was the one who did the spectra analyses. Beacham didn't write the report, he just copied it from another site on the internet (giving Teodorani full citation, of course).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top