The point is this one: the guy did NOT share his documentation neither here nor in some other conspiracy forum: he did share it in a SPECIFIC
discussion board where professional astronomers were involved in the discussion: THERE he shared all the documentation in his possession and the
astronomers who provided the explanation also provided the results of their calculations: no one has the burden to show anything to us as proof, since
the video reached ATS only because someone found it using a P2P search engine: this should be enough to clarify that the discussion was intended to be
between SPECIALISTS: everyday professional astronomers spot stuff like that and don't care at all, while he did care because he was not a
professional astronomer and he couldn't interprete correctly the documentation related to the video.
I would say that i'm not an ufologist at all, and after many discussion and calculations i think (helped by a professional astronomer and helped
by professional meteorologists) that the "ufo" was simply a little balloon floating approx 6000 meters high.
At the beginning i kept my movie only for myself because i decided that it was not scientifically relevant even if very rare to capture.
One day a friend of mine asked it to me and since that day the movie became public domain even on "extraterrestrial" websites. That was not my
original desire or intention.
Sometimes you can't figure out the evolution of a situation. Thank you for commenting.
If some untrained guy would enter a discussion between specialists about, for example, LTPA (Luminous Transient Phenomena in the Atmosphere) then he
would most likely believe to have found not just one but some thousands of smoking guns proving the existence of aliens intelligent life forms, but
this does not mean that they actually are: all that he would prove would be simply his lack of knowledge in that specific subject matter.
The data related to the calculation is not avaliable because it has never intended to be available, while the spreadsheet and all the other stuf
should be available somewhere so everyone could make his own calculations (if he is able to): but is available only because Alberto wanted to share
them with some SPECIALISTS, not in some conspiracy website. Or are they supposed to teach the basics of the Moon motion tracking and related
calculations to everyone who claims that "he doesn't buy it"?
Now, look at this rough scheme:
If you (A) are tracking a moving object (B) and something flying following a straight path crosses your field of sigh (C)
you will get an U-Turn effect after a certain point: how the apparent turn should appear, can be determined only in a way: looking at the technical
data coming straight from the tracking software and doing the appropriate calculations
: and THIS is what has been done by specialists, they don't
share them with me and you because "sharing" was NOT their purpose: a serious assessment was
And of course the path looks to be irregular: the
Moon does NOT move following a straight path.
Astronomers helped Alberto to explain the reason of the apparent turn and assessed that it was flying straigh and a constant speed, meteorologists
helped him to explain where it was, basing their assesments on focus, appearance, weather conditions, behavior in flight, telescope settings,
What has happened is like this: imagine that you have the hobby of the photograph, and want to ask to some expert why there's some blurred/foggy area
in one of your photos, and in order to do that, you share your photo in some discussion group of photo specialists:
then, someone else rips off your photo and posts it here, in the "paranormal studies" forum, claiming that it's a ghost: would at that point some
glitch, or some dust, or some moisture become magically a real ghost?
Do you think that i wasn't excited the first time i saw the footage? I thought, at first glance, even that it was flying close to the Moon surface,
but since there was no evidence corroborating that belief, i thought that it could have been everywhere between Earth and Moon: after, i got in touch
with Alberto, who has been kind enough to reply rather than simply ignore my first email, and he also told me to be available to share the
documentation in his possession if i was interested, since his server had banwidht issues. We can choose to accept the explanation or to believe in
some conspiracy involving an important astronomer, meteorologists and Alberto Mayer himself
But please, back on topic now, there are already
discussion about this specific sighting, i've posted and re-posted all i could post and honestly i haven't anything else to say. Of course, i
respect your opinion, and i would like to point out that this is my take on THIS specific
evidence, not on the Aliens & UFOs stuff: you could take a look at my threads about The Height 611 UFO Crash, The RB-47 UFO Encounter, The strange
story of JAL 1628, Some images from Mars etc and you will find out that the last thing i'm interested to is to debunk some genuine case: what i would
be interested to is to clean the field from the hoaxes and the misinterpretations, you can call something UFO after having ruled out that it is a
bird, a bug, a ball, a freesbee, a reflection, a lens flare, an helicopter, a plane, a blimp, a weather ballon, a star, a planet, a spotlight, the
ISS, a satellite, a sprite, a red sprite, a blue jet, a giant jet, an elve, a ball lightning, some atmospheric electricity, an Earth light, an
earthquake light, an ignes fatui, some plasma, a mountain peaks luminosity, a noctilucent cloud, a St. Elmo's fire, a Transient Lunar Phenomena, ab
sunset mirage and yet a HUGE list of stuff to rule out: this is what makes of an alleged UFO a REAL one, to rule out all the known phenomena, it's
the only rational way to proceed and besides the only chance we have to focus on the serious stuff instead of wasting our time (for example) following
The only thing i have to say on topic is that a blind sceptical is not better than a blind believer: they are at the same level of knowledge or,
better, ignorance: the best thing to do is to be open minded but at the same time to keep the feet anchored to the ground, to keep being balanced
(and this is not very easy to do): then, to respect everyone's opinion and to don't flame who think different from us (and this not only is easy to
do, it's mandatory). I for example don't appreciate the one-liners who chime in the thread just to say "Fake, badly done", while i applaud who
puts efforts, no matter if he/she thinks different from me.
Sorry OP for the long off topic, i hope it was the last one
[edit on 19/10/2008 by internos]