- Comment
From: Keith Mayes
1-18-2
-
- I see that in relation to the recent UFO video clips
some 'tests' have been carrid out to 'prove' that is not an artifact of
the lens system. Christoffer from Denmark tested the camera by zooming
in on some bright stars and noted the same effect as the video could not
not reproduced. He claims this means that it must be a UFO. The 'test'
is absolutely meaningless. A star is a point light source and cannot be
enlarged, as he pointed out himself. Jupiter though presents a large 'solid'
object and is easily enlarged with even modest equipment. It is, apart
from the Moon, currently the largest and brightest object in the sky, and
was in January when the video was taken. I am an ametuer astronomer and
have been for over 30 years. I have specialised in astro-photography for
the past 20 years. The night video of the 'UFO' is nothing more than Jupiter,
it is easily recognisable to an astronomer by its size, brightness and
position in the sky for an observer in the UK at this time of year. When
zoomed in, it will show just the image that you have shown as a UFO. The
so called tests on stars were meaningless, do the test on Jupiter then
tell me it was a UFO.
Keith Mayes
-
-
- Keith -- That's interesting, We didn't
know Jupiter bobbed and weaved in the sky, or traversed so rapidly from
one part of the sky to the other in minutes. What a planet! We were also
unaware that Jupiter could also appear exactly the same to conventional
camcorders in October, too -- as in the Derbyshire/Bonsall footage. That's
one amazingly mobile and sneaky planet. We're also curious how the same
Jupiter got into those STS-75 NASA shots (especially since there were hundreds
of Jupiters, if you've seen the video). Curious! Something sure took one
heck of a bite out of Jupiter, too.
Sky & Telescope states: Jupiter
is at opposition (opposite the Sun in our sky) at the beginning of the
month, so for all of December and January it appears about as big and bright
as it gets. Use as little as 40x or 50x magnification on your telescope,
and Jupiter will look as big in your eyepiece as the full Moon does to
the naked eye. But higher powers will probably work better. Wait until
late at night when Jupiter climbs high in the sky for the sharpest, steadiest
telescopic views of its dark cloud belts and bright zones.
I'm sure Christoffer and Bambi couldn't have missed such a glaringly bright
object to run their tests on -- which were done on the 17th, if ole' Jupiter
is the brightest thing in the sky throughout December and January. They
had to settle for what WAS there... the brightest star in Orion and the
"clearest star in the nightsky" -- which would have been... JUPITER,
according to you and Sky & Telescope ("It is, apart from the Moon,
currently the largest and brightest object in the sky"). So TEST II
footage IS a shot of Jupiter... and it did NOT become what was formerly
videotaped when zoomed, much less un-zoomed. If not, where was Jupiter
when they shot their test footage? We would like to see someone submit
a video image of Jupiter that looks like the frames below. No super zoom-in...
just straight on, natural, as these images reflect.
We find this assessment as incredulous as the woefully oft repeated "venus"
"swamp gas" and "flock of Geese" explanation always
tossed at UFO sightings and photos. BTW, UFO stands for "Unidentified
Flying Object." And that is precisely what they videotaped. - ed
|
-
| Close lamp in frame focused, and glaring UFO clearly visible; little or
no zoom. JUPITER?? Not very likely. (lampst452 k.qt) |
Incredibly bright object over house at considerable distance - no zoom
- no other stars apparent (Hqufofilm1.qt) |
-
-
-
- A Debunk From Tom King at Skynet
1-19-02
Email received:
From Mike Farrell
1-19-02
-
-
- Dear UFO Video Enthusiasts,
-
- I'm no expert on video equipment,
- so I must concede to someone who is.
-
- http://www.ufovideo.com/database/crap.htm
-
- Please check out this new page by Tom King
- (Arizona, USA) who can certainly back up his
- technical claims with many years of video
- expertise and experience. He put this page
- together just to answer dubious claims
- posted on the Jeff Rense website recently
- concerning "camera artifacts" on those new
- UK/UFO images and the STS-75 Tether UFO images.
-
- And while you're, there take the time to look over
- his excellent website called SKYNET.
-
- Thank You, Tom King!
- <ufohunter@home.com>
-
- Let's get these "technical considerations"
settled
- for once and for all.
-
-
- -------
Reply...
-
- Tom, like many others, has done an excellent job of actually
shoring up the claims of our content, rather than duplicating or tearing
down what has been displayed at rense.com. But his efforts are applauded.
It was a good attempt at duplication, but it falls far short of what we
have offered here. There's nothing inexplicable about Tom's experimental
shots and examples.
Yes... video cameras at night, out of focus, and/or zoomed, can produce
spheres of blurred, colored light and even some odd artifacts, including
the appearance of a disc with an apparent "hole" or "notch"...
or even half of it missing!
We don't deny this at all.
-
- We do NOT deny that distortions take place on video at
night, in shots out of focus, or zoomed.
- We do NOT suggest that what is being seen is actual surface
relief or texture in Bambi's footage -- or even a "flying saucer"
(though we feel the STS-75 evidence represents a shocking coincidence,
and we are convinced of its absolute authenticity!).
We ARE saying... it IS a UFO... it is unidentified, it did fly (we accept
our contacts testimony) and it is an object and it was not Jupiter, as
the test shots proved. Tom's shots of Jupiter only scarcely approximate
a possible type of distortion that can take place. It does not explain
the other enigmatic elements of Bambi's footage, or why Jupiter would be
so intensely bright for Bambi, and move unlike stars in the sky, while
Tom's Jupiter is dulled, entirely unbrilliant and only slightly resembles
what is presented here. Daylight and night footage both have been presented.
Anomalies generated in the videos from Bambi have NOT been duplicated,
thus far. Only approximated. And just because someone can shoot a star
and make it blurry so it looks like a blob with a dark center doesn't say
anything to what Bambi caught on tape, as her star test footage reveals.
-
 What we have yet to see produced
by anyone is DUAL effects, as our contact has produced. Foreground objects,
even lighted objects, in focus, without zoom, while the mysterious "object"
displays not merely one, but several appearances, one of which happens
to be the so-called "zoom distortion" appearance claimed by Tom
and others to be a routine failure of the camera to focus properly on a
light source. How is this possible? Yes, anyone can zoom or blur a star
or bright light and WILL get 'similar' results... a circle, some bracket-blocking
effect depending on the camera type, unique colors and perhaps even a "hole"
in the center of the blurred light. But what we have not seen is reproductions
of what we see on these videos... only close proximites and those substantially
less interesting that those from Bambi/Christoffer. And, no DUAL effects.
The Dual effects are part of what make these UK images entirely unique.
-
- Again -- we are not suggesting that the object in the
videos looks precisely like what the camera is picking up. We are simply
awed at the unparalleled quality and enigmatic brilliance and unduplicatable
artifacts we see, under the conditions given and the accompanying testimony
which we see not reason to dismiss as "nonsense," much less lies.
Remember, Bambi both saw AND videotaped a strange, bright object that moved.
It was not a slowly moving, naturally traversing object in the night sky
such as Jupiter. We believe Bambi is quite capable of telling the difference
between the movement of stars in the sky and the movement of what caught
her attention to videotape the enigma.
-
- Those visiting Tom's page at http://www.ufovideo.com/database/crap.htm
, crudely labeled "crap.htm," will notice two things.
(1) Tom clearly has never seen the STS-75 video footage. Anyone who has
could not make this statement without being utterly blind: "In some
of the Space Shuttle videos you can see strange objects moving around.
Quite a few of them aren't in focus. I know because I posted a lot of these
videos 5 years ago. I studied them carefully and can easily recognize the
effects of the "UFOs" you see below."
-
- I don't know what videotape Tom has seen, but it sure
wasn't STS-75 "Smoking Gun" evidence, as there is absolutely
no way the myraid of pulsing, clearly defined, well in-focus UFOs flying
by the tether in the footage could be the result of blurring, zooming or
any other camera defect/effect. Plenty of people have seen stills of STS-75...
and yes, they leave much to be desired. We have no rights to show the footage,
unfortunately. Those who have seen the videos, however, know they're seeing
something NASA doesn't want to discuss and blacked out in its transmissions.
The STS-75 footage is, in a word, shocking. I think to even suggest that
STS-75 footage is the result of blur or some other camera defect is simply
preposterous.
(2) Tom's images are lacking many of the elements seen in Bambi's footage,
yet he's claiming he's shot the exact same thing.
-
- We welcome every opportunity to challenge these images
featured, and by no means plan to hold them up as sacred cows protected
from analysis by others. Rense.com has a solid reputation for reporting
both UFO frauds as well as openly admitting mistakes and revising all necessary
data when something can be conclusively demonstrated to be something other
than what we think it might be. We're interested in the truth. We invite
every skepticism and scrutiny and experiment. Unfortunately, Bambi in the
UK has captured something on video tape, multiple times, which others cannot
accurately duplicate, which defies some basic conventional wisdom (ie,
how you get a street lamp in focus while the claimed distortion "effect"
is clearly visible on the object, even at an unzoomed distance, while NOT
effecting foreground objects, lights, etc. If one light distorts as such,
all similar and/or relative lights should also likewise distort with similar
effects. That's just using your logic bean, folks.)
-
- Neither Christoffer or Bambi, or Rense.com, is claiming
these are images of a space ship from another world. We are saying it is
a Unidentified Flying Object videotaped with some extraordinary
characteristics which are worthy of attention and examination, and we bring
to bear against it remarkably similar imagery as STS-75 as examples and
reference.
-
-
Additionally, why would the "bracket" effect (left)
clip off only the bottom half of the supposedly blurred UFO and not the
moon? The two slightly different zoom levels of these clips may indeed
impose some distortion, but that distortion should be uniform throughout
the image.
-
-
- Comment
1-20-02
- Dear Jeff,
-
- This URL is a link to a page on our new website gallery
that shows a digital photo taken indoors of a 'light ball' very similar
to the one shown in the frames from the 'Dropa Stone/UFO' story: http://www.cropcircleanswers.com/alternative_spaces/5v.htm
-
- We've learned from our photographic experiments that
bright light sources can photograph with this concentric ringed appearance
in digital stills and video. That's not to say that a UFO wasn't seen and
filmed, but just that the digital camera optics may be creating the concentric
ringed disc effect.
-
- The object shown in our gallery photo was likely a brilliant
but smaller light ball (the type Ed sees daily), close to the camera and
out of focus, that can photograph with a digital camera as a 'bullseyed'
disc. The International Ghost Hunter Society's site also has similar examples.
Possibly some digital video cameras on full zoom can also capture this
effect photographing a bright light source out of focus. We have seen the
'notched' effect before, which we understood to be a camera aperture artifact.
None of our cameras have created this particular notch effect, but we've
seen photos from others that have.
-
- From our extensive photo research we've found that many
things can photograph to appear 'anomalous'. You have to maintain a very
discerning eye to not misidentify them. For example, dust and rain can
photograph to look very similar to 'orbs'. However there is definitely
a genuine phenomenon being recorded in ways not explainable by dust, or
water droplets in the air, that we and others with us have also witnessed
and photographed on many occasions.
-
- We have a lot to say about the genuine luminosity phenomenon
(ironically fraught with misidentification and misinformation just like
the Crop Circle phenomenon), and can address and refute some of the debunking
of it we've seen on the internet; and of course we have accumulated a lot
of new material in our ongoing Crop Circle research we'd love to have the
opportunity of sharing with you and your listeners.
-
- The new Crop Circle movie 'Signs' looks like it's going
to give a dark ET slant to a phenomenon we understand to include the highest
spiritual source. The movie's director, Shyamalan, is saying he thinks
the Circles are all manmade! We will be doing our utmost to represent and
shine a light on the real story behind the phenomenon, so the real miracle
and message of the Circles isn't lost in the furor generated by the fictionalized
multimillion dollar movie.
-
- We've recently done some updating on our new site (Ref.
esp. to Alternative Spaces Gallery Pic 11 for remarkable story), and hope
you have a chance to take a look. Please keep us in mind if you should
happen to see an opening in your program schedule, we would very much like
to offer our perspective on these and other related and pertinent issues.
-
- Look forward to all contact.
-
- Best Wishes,
-
- Ed & Kris
http://www.CropCircleAnswers.com
Ed & Kriss -- Thanks you for this informative example -- indeed,
we are discovering more and more that digital cams and camcorders can produce
seriously strange anomalies. We're willing to eat as much technical crow
as necessary, while still maintaining that Bambi sincerely saw and videotaped
something inexplicable (to her naked eye), something dreadfully bright
and which moved in such a way that brought her to think it something utterly
out of the ordindary. - ed
|
