How to make (or fake) a UFO

Because of the recent flurry of information (or disinformation) about the pictures from SOHO, NASA and others have put out a little guide about how someone takes a perfectly explainable artifact and manages to turn it into a "UFO."

sohowww.nascom.nasa.gov...

yeah i just posted that in the "UFO Pics to be revealed" thread earlier today.

Byrd,

We talked about that on William One Sac's board...

pub173.ezboard.com...

I agree that the objects need to be studied, but to jump the gun and label them starcraft or any such thing is WAY premature. There's no evidence that they represent any kind of guided craft at all.

They're anomalies on the photos.

NASA's right about "you can't tell what it is or how far away it is" from those photos. You need two reference photos points to judge distance.

I think that is reasonable. And I am sure that the people who ran the presentation had a good eye on making a few dollars for themselves. This seminar got world wide press, or at least from Australia to Europe. I think phait said he was going to one of the presentations, I wonder what his thoughts are. On the other hand, I cant help but wonder why NASA is so quick to debunk this, when it is in the agencies own best interest to generate as much interest and attention in itself as possible. My "theory" is that NASA has a long standing policy towards debunking ufo's, even though public interest in the agency helps generate funding for it. I believe it would be possible for NASA to study these and other phenomena and remain scientific in their method.

As Byrd says, it needs to be looked at, but you cant jump to any conclusions about it. However the agencies knee jerk reaction to quickly debunk any anomolies that are found causes me to have great skeptism in their intent to remain wholey scientific at an official level. It seems beaurocracy rules the day. A good example is the NASA tether experiment. There are clearly, what appear to be huge, pulsating objects floating in and out of view, seemingly attracted by the tether.

NASA's response is something along the line of debris floating near the tether.

For detractors (some) the reason the tether is visible along its whole length is that it is glowing as it falls through the atmosphere.

Actually, as many have pointed out, NASA has tried to distance itself from the UFO stuff (on the grounds that they're all a bunch of fruitcakes and NASA has better things to do with its time and money.) Apparently taking care of the requests for information and handling the other stuff is awfully time consuming and they'd rather take that time and put it into engineering (ref: see how the Brits handled the Rendlesham Forest case. Folks wanted various agencies to drop everything they were dong and mail all applicable documents to whomever was requesting this.)

Rendlesham Forest and NASA are proving that this is a poor strategy. They've got to handle this promptly.

So... let's examine the other side of this. NASA says it's known anomalies and artifacts created by the image hunters' software. They must have gotten the "what the heck IS this" from their own staff when these things first showed up and had a way to determine that they're natural.

I thought of a very simple test (which can be done by examining the images): See if any of the "dots" do NOT follow Newton's laws.

Lens anomalies should appear and disappear or follow a straight-line pattern. Comets and ejecta should move in predictable patterns. Alien spacecraft would move in ways that defy Newton's laws -- swooping in towards the sun and then suddenly traveling from the equator to the poles. They might also hover at a spot for days and then move back out again.

What I don't see in that is a long-term behavior pattern consistant with an artificial object. I think it might be something to study, though.

And I'm not buying a "moving around with a cloaking device" theory -- if it cloaked well enough to get them in, then it should cloak well enough once they're on top of the "target."

Whatcha think? Any patterns there that can NOT be explained easily?

Honestly, I do not follow the SOHO stuff to greatly, but I will look into it and see if I can find any examples of that for you. As far as comets go, I beleive a comet is just going past the sun now, has been for a few days, you should really check out these links, they are amazing. Note: I am not claiming this is an alien spacecraft, it seems to have a tail, although I am not sure it is pointed directly away from the sun. It comes in from the top.

Right after the interuptions: lasco-www.nrl.navy.mil...

lasco-www.nrl.navy.mil...

Tail appears to be pointing in the wrong direction, but of course it is all relative.

lasco-www.nrl.navy.mil...

Nice Shot:
Click Here

If you want to look at it in higher resolution mpegs or gifs, click here lasco-www.nrl.navy.mil...



[Edited on 1-30-2003 by William One Sac]

I see the pix you mean. Interesting, but I'm not sure it indicates anything other than a comet.

If you had a comet passing between the sun and the observer (or a small meteor entering the telescope field from any direction) you could get the same effects. That's why I'm thinking that in order to have a chance of being valid, you have to reject anything that moves in a straight line and start looking for things that DON'T hover or move in a straight line.

I have spent some time looking ane downloading the images of the SOHO satillite.
First I think it is disingenuous to suggest that charging $27.00 dollars for a 4 day conference is going to "make a bundle" for these guys. In fact the hall the CDs the full page ad in UFO mag. cost money. And it was out of pocket. Where do you think research money comes from the UFO followers like yourselves. I've been many UFO conferences not one of the reseachers were driveing Mercadies cars. They are not rich.

I've read Bernard Heaish article about what the intelligence community feels toward scientist and in isn't pretty. They must really be laughing at the UFO community.
I look very carefully at the images. The CD contains not only the orignal downloads but the filters that was used to bring out the detail. Some of the images go toward the sun then away pretty good for a comet or meteior. Some of the objects have flashing lights(more space pea I suppose). The structure on the objects are very detailed. Some of the objects were heading right toward SOHO.
I don't think the images that NASA presented were impressive at all. I do believe something extrodinary was photographed. But even so the idea that some people want to get their money back if fine(except for some people in the UFO field).

I like what Stanton Friedman said to me. He said they were interesting let's wait and see. That my friends is an open mind not "well their making a bundle"
I am not a member of Euroseti or any publication.

rif

Actually, what I said was they wanted to "make a few dollars" not "Make a bundle". Of course I understand that it costs money to produce these things, I also realize people have to eat. My statement was realistic, not cynical.

How do you know they will even make their money back. I understand that to make a buck off of the UFO subject can and has been a problem but I think what we should be doing is examining the evidence and not so quick to judge the one presenting the evidence. We get enough of that in the media and with the Voodoo science produced by the debunkers who call themselves "skepptics".

What I propose and may be looking at doing is starting a web site where the UFO researcher and the UFO interested parties may look at the responces by researchers to the media and the debunking bios scientific community.

This would be one place where you could post not only the media bull but ask and e-mail the other party to comment on the piece.

We are getting it from both parties the UFO community and the media at large. We need a fairer playing field
rif

rif, I never made any inference as to how much money was made. In fact, you are arguing with the wrong person, I agree with much of what you have said, I just feel you have taken a single comment by me and twisted it way out of context.

Personally, what my feelings are on the subject, is that it is ok for a researcher(s) to make money from his/her research. We live in a capitalistic society, and as I said "people have to eat." I dont think that knowledge that has the possibility of being this profound should be the exclusive domain of those who are able to pay for it (where do we draw the line?) on the other hand I dont see why a researcher who spends alot of time studying the phenomena should not be paid for their work. Or for their expenses. Books and cd's are a fair way to accomplish that, in my honest opinion.

Guess what, I am by no means a skeptic, and again, I agree with what you said about "blanket debunking" or finding a single example of what may be pixel bleeding etc.. and painting the entire range as a joke. If you are looking for a web site for your debate, you have found it. I love to discuss these things, this subject in particular is very interesting to me and I would love to hear what you know about it. By my own admission this is something I have only really watched on the periphery.

I think here you will find healthy debate. I keep an mind not so open that my brains fall out, nor so closed that it has no room to grow.

If you are willing, I would like to hear what you have to say about Byrds questions. I think that if you want to discuss whether researchers should be paid for their work, and hopefully findings, then it should be made on a different thread.

And Byrd, I never said that was anything other than a comet. (X5 by the way) I just thought it would be something you would be interested in.

sohowww.nascom.nasa.gov...

[Edited on 2-1-2003 by William One Sac]

I don't want to debate and I wouldn't take on Byrd because I think he neither looked carefully or already made up his mind and you couldn't pry it open with a vice. Why I spoke to you was because I think you do have an open mind.
Although I think that if three fellows of Uufoseti wanted at to first try and bring the factions of the UFO community together and having failed that decided to start their own resreach group with 15,000 pounds out of pocket money does not mean in any way that they felt they had "their eyes on " the money when they let out.
I think also they jump the gun in what they discribed but it may have been more with frustration at NASA which "claimed up" after they were forced to look at other images that did not fit neatly into their discriptions.

But I think Byrd is just as closed minded and disingenuous by stating how these images were not impressive and easily explained.
What NASA did is the same as most debunkers do and that is all people that video and tell their tails are either liers or fools and if it can be duplicated then that is what the person has done.
I have some faith in people - especially when it becomes tens of millions.

I think mainstreme scientist today have lost the edge and much respect because of their attitude which many times reminds me of the church and how the would distroy anyone who questioned their take on reality.

Don't ever forget that when a scienitst comes foward with the beleif that UFO's are real they have just lost any chance of a research grant for ever and have gone down considerably in the tax bracket.

Unless they prey for forgivness to the alter of the mainstream.

rif

They are pretty cool, William, and I do like the pictures of the sun!

It'd be interesting to see the SOHO data on this and to see if THEY have any oddities that they feel they can't explain well. I feel pretty certain that they must have things they're not sure of. It'd be interesting to see how they decide that an image/item is classified as "unknown."

I just would like to write more on the alien subject more.
I was at a UFO conference where they had a skepptic speak. I likeed him he was one of the originals who belong to the cicop inquirer and quet over an ethical question. He was a friend of Klass and stop speaking to him because he caught him taping him on the phone.
He mention how they had been lied to by some CIA contact he used in the government to debunk UFO. It was about the U2 flights and how they were mistaken for UFO's in the fifties. He asked his friend in the CIA why he had lied to him and he said "That's what we do-Lie."
The interesting part of this was Bruce Maccabee was in the room and had decided when CIA had first released this inforamtion to run a check on UFO sitings during this period. There was no increase in UFO reports during the flights of the U2 planes.

My point is the media and scientist jump on this as an explanation wihtout checking. They don't care that the facts don't fit the scenero all they care about in most cases is - well we have an explanation.

Good UFO researcher not only weed out the bad cases they research the bad explanations.

As far as the CIA they must have had a better laugh on the skepptics(shades of Bernard Haiesh) they told another lie and even after they lied the skepptics bought the other lie thinking the were on the inside again.

Pretty good.

rif