IMPORTANT !!! before you take pictures of UFOs

Hey everyone,

i just translated that video into english,
i think y'all need to watch it.
i never saw anything about this subject in english.

www.youtube.com...

dont forget to check the video description for more informations.
if you got any question you come see me.

Interesting. Any physics or chem buffs that can confirm this information?
I would the sales of these slides going up after some weeks time

If you do go and buy those slides, please make reference photos of dull things like planes / lanterns / birds / etc., in order to have something to weigh possible ufo shots against.
Also please do post those here so we all can benefit from them

[edit on 2/7/08 by flice]

No problem flice,
it obviously works on light objects only,
when you take a picture of a light with a Diffraction Slide on
your camera, it will look like a rainbow on the picture,
each color = 1 chemical component like sodium etc...
the picture has to be clear for data to be analyzed properly.
i'll post some more informations real soon

[edit on 2-7-2008 by Antidiplomate]

reply to post by Antidiplomate


Cool... Would be fun to experiement with. When you say light, you are referring to light waves? So pointing the camera at something that doesn't emit light would yield no result, is that correct?

Cheers

Hello Flice.

Antidiplomate is correct in his thinking and this particular subject has been brought up before. (albeit somewhat tentatively).

Spectroscopy is useful for the reason that it enables us to identify the emissions spectra (wavelengths of light) from luminescent objects and thus permits us to ascertain both temperatures and elementary makeup. (no light = no measurement)

Each element's spectral response is easily identifiable and thus by comparison we can determine what elements go into the makeup of a star for example.
E.g Sodium emits light at the wavelength of about 589nm. A good example is on the wikipedia here.

If you want a good source which covers both the physics and practical work involved I would suggest you take a look at Christian Buil's pages on the topic.

The problems with spectro work on the other hand are simple.

1. You need quite specialised software and a lot of reference material to do any meaningful analysis.

2. It's very hard to get a good diffraction grating for a normal camera.

(You'll note that in all the cases where analysis is involved the grating fits into an eye-piece adapter for a telescope which is then coupled to a camera using a camera adapter, camera filters tend to be for visual effects and not science)

3. And finally it works only for emitted light, filtering reflected light is next to impossible to work with.

Apart from that, It would be well worth the effort. I personally would be very interested in seeing meaningful spectro analysis of our 'weird moving star' sightings.

Cheers.

Absence.

Thanks for participating Absence,
you're right, You need quite specialised software and a lot of reference
material to do any meaningful analysis.
or you could just send your spectra to Jerome Frasson for exmple.
but i think we should give it a try and spread this information.
some people like jerome frasson are spending their whole time doing
some research on that technic.
he even invented an adaptator for your cell phones fellas.
so yeah flice, it's like using your camera for a spectrograph.
it will break up the light and make a spectra, Absence explained it all.
it will give you the temperature, the chimical components and it will
give you the power level of the magnetic field.
spectra are full of information and very useful.
do not put your fingers on the diffraction slide film,
your prints would mess the data up.
Absence said It's very hard to get a good diffraction grating for a
normal camera, and that is true,
that's why i'll make a tutorial exlaining how to adapt it on any camera.
you need to practice on some standard lamps first
then you could take some pictures of Sodium lamps or Mercury lamps
to gauge the measurements, you dont need to zoom in,
the more specific the image is, the more precise the spectra is...
hope it makes sense...

Peace

[edit on 2-7-2008 by Antidiplomate]

I just found this document :
www.ufo-science.com...
if you cant download the file, just right click on the link and save target as...

[edit on 3-7-2008 by Antidiplomate]

[edit on 3-7-2008 by Antidiplomate]

Assuming I can record a spectrum, how do I measure the wavelengths of the emission lines so I can determine what elements are involved?

WG3

There you go waveguide3 :

Part 1 :
i162.photobucket.com...

Part 2 :
i162.photobucket.com...

Part 3 :
i162.photobucket.com...

Part 4 :
i162.photobucket.com...

Part 5 :
i162.photobucket.com...

Part 6 :
i162.photobucket.com...


[edit on 3-7-2008 by Antidiplomate]

good post thanks for the information

So I have a question. Now when we had our sightings, it wasn't like anyone was going to run into the house and grab the camera, plus its a cheap one and the pics would have been terrible. So, if a were serious about trying to get shots, is there a middle price camera out there that would be more ideal for taking pictures that could be easier to analyze, instead of a mod?

Interesting, this would be quite useful for something like the sky watch project.

[edit on 3/7/08 by just theory]

I still don't see how you can 'analyse' the spectrum if you don't have a calibrated wavelength scale to place against your images. Having say a known sodium doublet on one of your exposures isn't going to tell what some other line is on a UFO exposure. The original report suggested sending your spectrum to the originator's lab. The implication is taking a spectrum is one thing. Analysing it is something else. I honestly doubt that many UFO spotters would gain much satisfaction or knowledge by this venture unless expert analysis is to hand.

TC

Originally posted by waveguide3
I still don't see how you can 'analyse' the spectrum if you don't have a calibrated wavelength scale to place against your images. Having say a known sodium doublet on one of your exposures isn't going to tell what some other line is on a UFO exposure. The original report suggested sending your spectrum to the originator's lab. The implication is taking a spectrum is one thing. Analysing it is something else. I honestly doubt that many UFO spotters would gain much satisfaction or knowledge by this venture unless expert analysis is to hand.

TC

That's why i just added the part 6
all the documents i am sending were made by real scientists.
i'm not a scientist but i really trust Jean Pierre Petit.
but if you're skeptic about all this, you can contact Jerome Frasson or
Jean Pierre Petit on their website, check the address on the video description.
i think we could gain satisfaction AND knowledge by this venture.
really.

Originally posted by mystiq
So I have a question. Now when we had our sightings, it wasn't like anyone was going to run into the house and grab the camera, plus its a cheap one and the pics would have been terrible. So, if a were serious about trying to get shots, is there a middle price camera out there that would be more ideal for taking pictures that could be easier to analyze, instead of a mod?

CHeck this out :

Part 1 :
i162.photobucket.com...

Part 2 :
i162.photobucket.com...

Part 3 :
i162.photobucket.com...

[edit on 3-7-2008 by Antidiplomate]

Welcome to ATS, Antidiplomate. Good to see JPP on YouTube. Well done translation.

If anyone could take a picture of a UFO with the diffraction grating, I'm sure analysis wouldn't be a problem with a few other pictures for calibration.

Come on people, flag this thread, this is serious ufology!

Thanks nablator !
i think this is really impotrant.