Hawkins Debunked

I

Ives

Registered Senior Member
Remember that footage of the "drone" hovering over the water in Florida? I always found it to be fairly creepy footage. Well, what appears to be some fine debunking work has been done, showing a most remarkable resemblance between that "hovering" drone and an old "Star Wars" pod for sale at hobby shops. Here is a link to the site:



http://www.ufovideo.com/hoaxes/mikehawkins/hawk6.php
 
I frequently wonder why no camraman or photographer in the world seems to be able to remember how to focus or zoom when confronted with a UFO
 
Well, I think that's a good point, particularly in reference to the Hawkins video. If I had fishing line supporting my hoaxed UFO, I wouldn't want to zoom in either!
 
well now lets not be narrow minded, science hasnt proven that UFO's dont shoot a beam into your brain that makes you forget how to correctly opperate a camera, and if you questioned an airforce official about it I bet they would deny that UFO's carry such beams. Both are pretty strong evedence that such beams exist I think :p
 
Although this has been covered before, perhaps a short recap is
in order. UFOs are believed (notice I didn't say "proved") to emit
electromagnetic radation while operating . It is thought by many
researchers (such as physicists) to be in the microwave range,
possibly X-rays and UV rays because of the documented injuries
suffered by some witnesses who were too close for too long a period
of time. That can cause ionized and excited atmospheric molecules
around the UFO, showing up as a glow at night and a "fuzzy"
appearence in the daytime. In rare instances, it can even make a
daytime UFO look as if it is enclosed in a kind of "bubble", such as
the sighting reported by momentum7. The camera records much
as what you see, if the image is unclear, that is how it is recorded.
No beams to the brain necessary. The central part of the image
should appear sharper and more in focus than the edges in this
type of daytime photo, however. If the photo is too sharp or the
whole thing out of focus, I personally question its authenticity even
more than normal.
 
Ahh, so its a camera baffling bubble instead of an anti-focus brain beam. Those clever aliens.
 
Nothing clever, it's similar to looking at something through heat
waves. Ever notice the image of a rocket or space shuttle taken
from the ground below the launch looks fuzzy?
 
This supposed "Bubble", if it's even physically possible, and quite aside from the fact that he just pulled it out of his ass to explain away an obvious flaw in many hoaxes, still does not explain the lack of proper camera handling in many UFO pictures and videos. The problem remains, no zoom, poor focus, and the ever popular technique of having absolutely no other reference points in the shot.
 
Originally posted by Mystech
This supposed "Bubble", if it's even physically possible, and quite aside from the fact that he just pulled it out of his ass to explain away an obvious flaw in many hoaxes,
===============================================

I stated in my post that I was refering to the research of others.
You seem to be unaware of such study, but it does not mean I
just pulled it out of my ass. Paul Hill, a respected physicist-engineer
that had a 20+ year career at NASA-Langley, details the effects in
his book "Unconventional Flying Objects." There are others also.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Also of interest is Hill's analysis of the spectra and intensity of an apparent plasma sheath surrounding such craft, the details of which correlate with what one would expect in terms of it being a secondary effect associated with the propulsion system, for example, a blue shift and intensity increase during a "power-up" phase, and the opposite during hover or landing maneuvers. An additional fine point that emerges from this analysis is resolution of the paradox that observation on a direct line-of-sight to a near part of the craft can reveal a metallic-like structure while the attempt to observe the outline of the craft, necessarily by an oblique line-of-sight, results in an indistinct blur. Analysis shows this to be a reasonable outcome of an expected re-absorption of reflected light by the surrounding plasma in the longer-length path associated with the more oblique view.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Some independent reviews of the book:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1571740279/ref=ase_marcelkuijstensp/002-6763862-1958434
Click to expand...
 
how about such strong EM emmitions in the microwave range would explode anything organic and fry anything electronic for miles around? At the very least TV reception would suffer and fish would school funny, whales would beach themselves, birds would fly into plate glass windows!

well... maybe not the last one.

but really wouldnt ham radio, radar, hydrogen telescopes all be interfered with if a UFO is dumping enough microwaves into the area around it to start bending and distorting light? And that STILL dosnt explain why you cant zoom in on an object, you can still have an up close and focused picture of a distorted object, hell maybe you would actualy be able to see what the distortions look like instead of just trying to squint at a fuzzy dot that takes up all of 4 pixels on the picture.
 
in post by SpyMoose:
how about such strong EM emmitions in the microwave range would explode anything organic and fry anything electronic for miles around? At the very least TV reception would suffer and fish would school funny, whales would beach themselves, birds would fly into plate glass windows!
=============================================
Ever seen an x-ray machine in a hospital? They don't seem as
powerful an emmiter of x-rays as UFOs, but the effects are similar.
X-rays decrease in power and intensity rather quickly, same as with
a microwave oven. They won't fry you for miles around. The effects
are related to distance and time of exposure. You have to be close.
 
Originally posted by Andre
2inquisitive



This effect is due to a refractive index change of air of a different temperature as based on the Clausius-Mossotti equation

So the light gets slightly refracted when passing hotter or colder air masses , creating the blurry apparance. I'm not aware of any of those effects with electro magnetic or radiogenic phenomena.
Click to expand...
================================================
Yes, Andre, I am aware it is not the same thing as a refractive index
change caused by heat, but used the example as a "similar" effect
for a visual reference. I also stated it was not "proved", but was
based on the work of others. Paul Hill devotes 29 pages to the
effect in his book. I have the book and I have read it. Several physicists have considered the work excellent, among them Dr.
Edgar Mitchell, an astronaut and physicist, and Dr. Hal Puthoft of
Stanford University. I am not qualified to judge his work, but do
find his book excellent, as others who have read it. Paul Hill was a
Chief Scientist-Manager at NASA-Langley who personally witnessed
UFOs early in his career, which led to his interest in the subject. He
also witnessed them in the company of other scientists.
============================================
UFOs are believed (notice I didn't say "proved") to emit
electromagnetic radation while operating . It is thought by many
researchers (such as physicists) to be in the microwave range,
possibly X-rays and UV rays because of the documented injuries
suffered by some witnesses who were too close for too long a period
of time.
 
Andrea, I don't want anyone to think that I am pretending to have
a knowledge of physics, because I have almost none. I have stated
as much in other threads. Paul has many charts and equations in
his book that I know little of, and don't have the computer skills
to post. For instance, one of the shorter comments under one chart
is as follows: "Relative spectral radiance of nitrogen at 22 Torr
(closely approximating one millimeter of mercury) excited by 10 keV
electrons. The effective spectral slit width was 18A (the A had a little
o above it, I assume it had to do with angstroms) and the total scanning time approximately 90 minutes. Below 3200A the relative intensity is less certain." He offers summaries sometimes for the
non-physicist, which I sometimes understand. :D Another paragraph
devoted to the non-physicist, I assume, is the following:
"The quantum mechanical explaination for the indistinct or invisible
outline of the UFO at night is particularly straightforward. In excited molecules, the downward drop of the electron through various energy levels is a reversible process. When two molecules each have an
electron in an unstable upper energy level u, that drop to a lower level 1, they each give off a photon with an energy equal to the difference in the energy levels u and 1. If the photon from the first molecule properly encounters the second, it puts the electron right back from level 1 to level u, the reverse of the relaxation process.
This is why the spectroscopist says that the absorption spectrum
of a gas is equal to its emission spectrum. Any wavelength which
a gas emits it can, and does, absorb. Since the excited air emits in the visible wavelengths, it absorbs the same wavelengths, and there is a critical distance of a few feet of plasma that will absorb
the passing light. In other words, beyond a few feet of thickness
a plasma is essentially opaque to light of its own emission frequencies." I can't post the whole chapter, but maybe this will
be of benefit if it pertains to your question. I don't know if experiments have been performed, but he does have some stuff
about using lasars to simulate colors and effects.
 
Andre, I have come across another example. I can't post the photo.
"Figure III-5 is a photo of a pertinent experiment. The Langley
Research Center of NASA has developed a technique for ionizing
the air in a supersonic wind tunnel in order to photograph a test
model by ion light. It is a simple way to study the air flow and
shockwave system. The photo is that of a small model under test.
The N2 1st negative blue peaks of nitrogen are activated by shooting
a stream of electrons crosswise and upstream of the model. These
are the same ions which give the UFO its blue color at high power.
The light color (blue in the original photo) around the model is a zone
of compressed, ionized air created by the surrounding supersonic
shock envelope under study. It is by this light that we see the model.
While this photo is almost full-size, making it size favorable for seeing
because the plasma depths are small, still the edges are indistinct.
This is particularly true, in this instance, with regard to the windshield,
which is obscured by a local concentration of plasma which doesn't
pass reflected light from the windshield. The analogy with the UFO
is very close and essentially obvious."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top