Lake Erie UFO's update - Bigelow Involvement Now

Here is two recent updates to this Lake Erie UFO story as reported by Jaime Maussan!

UFO Sightings over lake Erie PT.1
www.youtube.com...


UFO Sightings over lake Erie PT.2
www.youtube.com...


---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Friday night on The Alien Agenda radio, both Eugene Erlikh and Michael Lee Hill were featured on the show. Both had filmed unknown multicolored orb/craft over Lake Erie and coincidentally live within 5 minutes of each other in Cleveland. Michael's videos go further back to 2006 and Eugene's are more recent. On April 6, 2010 Michael and Eugene unknowingly and simultaneously filmed similar multicolored orb/craft on the same night and at the same time or within minutes of each other. Both videographers made this discovery just yesterday as well.

According to Erlikh, at approximately 6:45pm EST, on Thursday night (April 8, 2010) a private telephone call came into his residence. Eugene answered and the man on the other end assumed to know it was Eugene and called him by name. The man identified himself as a member of Bigelow Aerospace Advanced Space Studies. He did give his name and email that is, in fact, linked to the BAASS.ORG domain name. He asked Eugene a number of questions pertaining to the sightings over Lake Erie. The man then demanded Eugene give up the exact coordinates of the location the lights are appearing. When Eugene questioned the man, he stated he knew the lights were not terrestrial or from this planet and there's big money involved in obtaining that technology. He instructed Eugene to email him the coordinates. Eugene immediately hung up the telephone.

The first video was made by Michael Lee Hill on April 6th, 2010 and the second was made by Eugene Erlikh on the same night at approximately the same time

www.youtube.com...





www.youtube.com...



Now, let's assume the comments made by Erlikh are factual. I have no reason not to believe he is telling the truth based on his diligence in recording these events in an honest manner and not refusing to disclose any information to MUFON. But, when someone unknown to you calls your residence, identifies themselves as a representative of BAASS and demands information, well, it's time to start questioning people's motives.

Source - naturalplane.blogspot.com...

The The Alien Agenda radio host then E-mailed the BAASS Investigator and asked why are you contacting Lake Erie UFO witnesses? Didn't MUFON say case closed? they are just airplanes?

This is the Bigelow Aerospace Advanced Space Studies Investigators actual response.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In Regards to the Lights over Lake Erie I am not absolutely convinced that they are coming from conventional aircraft.

As an investigator I must be completely objective with any UFO reports which has had multiple witnesses. BAASS employees are paid professionals, all the investigators are formal Law enforcement detectives who have a higher level set of skills and experience.

MUFON Takes anyone who pays the money and passes the test and works for free. That does not make them a credible source for information for me to except they're conclusion.

- Bigelow Aerospace Advanced Space Studies Investigator

Um. Those are airplanes. Like this one.



Adding Maussan to the story really does not help add credibility. The whole story is sordid, full of lies, and kind of dumb.


[edit on 6/26/2010 by Phage]

Thank you very much for the videos!

However, I do not see in the videos any kind of non-worldly movement or special light show in the objects that would suggest to me that they might be extraterrestrial.

I will have to agree with Phage for the time being and say that they seem to be airplanes.

If there is more information regarding this scenario that is not in the videos posted, I would be very glad to see it so I can change my opinion if needed.

Well there goes any chance of this story being taken seriously at all by anyone. Jaime Maussan is a fraud, a hoaxer, a liar, a cheater and an overall burden on anyone trying to find the legitimate and whole truth about the UFO/ET issue.

1 step forward with MSM coverage, 30 steps back with Jaime Maussan.

I have been following the story and I am not sure they are planes. Michael Lee Hill's footage was featured on the Histy Channels UFO Hunters and the history channel revealed the lights do not match any know FAA lights in configuration or color output.

The airport said they were not normal flight paths and they were not tracking anything on radar as well, you would think if they were coming into the airport that the airport would know about it?

Bigelow says they are not aircraft so I looked into Bigelow and found out just how they know they are not aircraft.....because they have been looking into the same exact thing at the skinwalker ranch!

The following is from the Skinwalker Rach websites "Types of Anomalies & Classification System" page, which as far as i know there is no higher authority than Bigelow at this time.

www.skinwalkerranch.org...

A pulsating spherical ball of light.

The light appears bluish to a yellow green glow. The light it casts is not extremely bright but will cast light on objects immediately surrounding the orb. Typically there is more than 1 orbs gathered. They have the ability to hover and make no noise. There appears to be no physical shape supporting these orbs. A characteristic feature is that they will pulsate their light intensity for a matter of seconds growing extremely bright, and then fading away to nothing as if the object simply vanished. Apparently these have been witnessed during the day but are more visible at night. Have been seen transforming into other animal shapes and is suspected of having the ability to transmorph into the shape of local living animals. Can affect other electrical objects and knocked out the power to the ranch house. Shift between a visible and invisible state as they pulsate on and off.

These are intelligent and purposeful like in nature. I suspect they are some sort of transportation vehicles for another intelligence or the drones for this intelligence. They have a role of observing. They are unique in that they appear almost curious about any humans they come across. They seem to easily detect your presence, and may be influenced by meditative thoughts/requests. I believe their function is to observe, report, and to transport either consciousness, or actual entities within them, as if some form of vessel. This is the most interactive of all the anomalies on the ranch and will pursue and entertain its viewers.
The flash drones tend to take on a more interactive role if the observer is alone. Possess the ability to generate a state of uncontrollable "panic" in those targeted, Witnessed working in groups in a predator/prey fashion. The sensation of being hit by one is described as being hit by a high velocity warm water balloon. The after effects of which immediately evaporate away. However a state of depression typically follows lasting for days to weeks.

Although speculative, the light may only travel in a light-off configuration. When the light is visible, the object appears stationary, however it disappears, only to reappear in a different location. This postulates that the light may possibly be "phasing" in and out from one location to the next.

------------------------------------------------------------------

Here is what Bigelow revealed about these pulsating balls of light that blew my mind...

"They( A pulsating spherical ball of light) Have been seen transforming into other animal shapes and is suspected of having the ability to transmorph into the shape of local living animals."

think about that for a moment, I really don't think these are airplanes.



[edit on 26-6-2010 by MrUnkown]

MrUnkown

Thank you very much for more information about the subject!

You say based on other investigators and the airport themselves that these objects did not match normal airplanes AND were not in a normal flight path?

How very interesting! Do you know of any other sources that refute the above claims with any kind of evidence?

Originally posted by Hitotsumami
How very interesting! Do you know of any other sources that refute the above claims with any kind of evidence?

Yes, I was just watching UFO Hunters episode "Dark Presence" I think was the name of it.

They had a UFO researcher/advocate Jim Dilettoso perform "spectral analysis" of video imagery of these exact same Orbs of Light UFO's showing up over Pheonix, Texas, and Lake erie Ec., that proved the lights could not have been produced by a man-made source.

Dilettoso determined the amount of red, green and blue in the various video images and constructed histograms of the data, which were then compared to a database of known light sources such as flares, Lanterns, Planets, FAA lights, Etc.

The Balls of light UFO's do not match up to any known "spectral analysis" histograms of any known light sources, that was the conclusion. That episode was just on TV last night.

I just found the clip from that UFO hunters episode on Youtube, here it is.




[edit on 26-6-2010 by MrUnkown]

Thank you for the video clip!

I think you may have misunderstood me though. I asked if there were any researchers 'refuting' these claims. Are there any sources that say these claims are false that you know of?

Originally posted by Hitotsumami
Thank you for the video clip!

I think you may have misunderstood me though. I asked if there were any researchers 'refuting' these claims. Are there any sources that say these claims are false that you know of?

I don't think so, I know many think they are just planes and it is understandable why they think that but when you look into it a little more closely the airplane theory falls apart very fast.

reply to post by MrUnkown

Jim Dilettoso. A supporter of Billy Meier (the face of the Hoax forum), he actually believes that tripe. He "analyzed" Billy's photos and declared them real!

His "spectral analysis" is no such thing. A histogram is not spectral analysis, all it does is show you how how the video device recorded the light. Different devices, with different settings, produce different histograms of the same scene.

Much has been made of a ham-handed spectral analysis of Phoenix Lights photographs and videos by prominent UFO advocate Jim Dilletoso, whose conclusions have been widely discredited since you can't even remotely do a spectral analysis of lights in a photograph and expect there to be any useful similarity to the spectrum of the actual light source, any more than you could expect a photograph of an orange to smell like an orange. Dilletoso found that, based on the colors in photographs, the Phoenix Lights could not have been from any known earthly source. Note that among Dilletoso's other claims to fame is having spent six weeks at an underground alien base in Dulce, New Mexico. Judge his credibility for yourself.

skeptoid.com...


[edit on 6/26/2010 by Phage]

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by MrUnkown

 

Jim Dilettoso. A supporter of Billy Meier (the face of the Hoax forum), he actually believes that tripe. He "analyzed" Billy's photos and declared them real!

His "spectral analysis" is no such thing. A histogram is not spectral analysis, all it does is show you how how the video device recorded the light. Different devices, with different settings, produce different histograms of the same scene.

Much has been made of a ham-handed spectral analysis of Phoenix Lights photographs and videos by prominent UFO advocate Jim Dilletoso, whose conclusions have been widely discredited since you can't even remotely do a spectral analysis of lights in a photograph and expect there to be any useful similarity to the spectrum of the actual light source, any more than you could expect a photograph of an orange to smell like an orange. Dilletoso found that, based on the colors in photographs, the Phoenix Lights could not have been from any known earthly source. Note that among Dilletoso's other claims to fame is having spent six weeks at an underground alien base in Dulce, New Mexico. Judge his credibility for yourself.

skeptoid.com...


[edit on 6/26/2010 by Phage]

From Skeptoid.com huh?

Really?

I don't know much about Jim Dilettoso but what he is doing seems legit enough to me but I will just stick with what Bigelow has revealed on the subject, they are going to be a little bit more hard to debunk.

reply to post by MrUnkown

Please provide a source verifying that the claimed correspondence with Bigelow Aerospace occurred. (Yeah, I know, "unnamed source".)

While Bigelow owns skinwalker ranch, skinwalker.org is not connected to Bigelow Aerospace. It is a blog. Please provide evidence that the "findings" of skinwalker.org have anything to do with Bigelow Aerospace or NDISci.

Domain ID

89206876-LROR
Domain Name:SKINWALKER.ORG
Created On:09-Aug-2002 20:42:02 UTC
Last Updated On:01-Dec-2009 15:04:31 UTC
Expiration Date:09-Aug-2010 20:42:02 UTC
Sponsoring Registrar:GoDaddy.com, Inc. (R91-LROR)
Status:CLIENT DELETE PROHIBITED
Status:CLIENT RENEW PROHIBITED
Status:CLIENT TRANSFER PROHIBITED
Status:CLIENT UPDATE PROHIBITED
Registrant ID:CR30440181
Registrant Name:Bryan Beery
Registrant Street1:1985 Sherington PL
Registrant Street2:Apt. E-307
Registrant Street3:
Registrant City:newport beach
Registrant State/Province:California
Registrant Postal Code:92663
Registrant Country:US
Registrant Phone:+1.9496422506

[edit on 6/26/2010 by Phage]

They are probably drones collecting information about the lake

I think manned UFO's fly in crazy directions;

While UFO drones just hover there

[edit on 26-6-2010 by SupremeKnowledge]

Sorry, I did the wrong domain name search.
Here is the correct one.

Domain ID

156878379-LROR
Domain Name:SKINWALKERRANCH.ORG
Created On:14-Aug-2009 16:21:13 UTC
Last Updated On:14-Oct-2009 03:53:03 UTC
Expiration Date:14-Aug-2010 16:21:13 UTC
Sponsoring Registrar:GoDaddy.com, Inc. (R91-LROR)
Status:CLIENT DELETE PROHIBITED
Status:CLIENT RENEW PROHIBITED
Status:CLIENT TRANSFER PROHIBITED
Status:CLIENT UPDATE PROHIBITED
Registrant ID:CR12476494
Registrant Name:Registration Private
Registrant Organization

omains by Proxy, Inc.
Registrant Street1

omainsByProxy.com
Registrant Street2:15111 N. Hayden Rd., Ste 160, PMB 353
Registrant Street3:
Registrant City:Scottsdale
Registrant State/Province:Arizona
Registrant Postal Code:85260
Registrant Country:US
Registrant Phone:+1.4806242599

Not a RAH RAH post, but I love when Phage gets on a case!

OK....maybe it is...RAH RAH!!

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by MrUnkown

 

Jim Dilettoso. A supporter of Billy Meier (the face of the Hoax forum), he actually believes that tripe. He "analyzed" Billy's photos and declared them real!

His "spectral analysis" is no such thing. A histogram is not spectral analysis, all it does is show you how how the video device recorded the light. Different devices, with different settings, produce different histograms of the same scene.

Much has been made of a ham-handed spectral analysis of Phoenix Lights photographs and videos by prominent UFO advocate Jim Dilletoso, whose conclusions have been widely discredited since you can't even remotely do a spectral analysis of lights in a photograph and expect there to be any useful similarity to the spectrum of the actual light source, any more than you could expect a photograph of an orange to smell like an orange. Dilletoso found that, based on the colors in photographs, the Phoenix Lights could not have been from any known earthly source. Note that among Dilletoso's other claims to fame is having spent six weeks at an underground alien base in Dulce, New Mexico. Judge his credibility for yourself.

skeptoid.com...


[edit on 6/26/2010 by Phage]

No # Sherlock. Well that's a classic case of stating the obvious. According to your friends then it would be useless me using any analysis of the music i record, as it sounds different from the actual source and different again, depending on the medium I'm recording to. In reality we do exactly that all over the world every day.

If one knows how recording the visuals of aircraft light reacts on a given medium it is perfectly possible to make comparisons to other lights recorded to the same medium. if the lights don;t produce the same artifacts as aircraft lights, on any given medium, chances are, they ain't aircraft lights.

Fair enough, one can argue, just as with sound, there is quality level, below which analysis becomes virtually pointless, but that's the same fro measuring pretty much anything. That the people down at Skeptic anonymous can't be bothered to calibrate the different mediums reactions to differing light's signatures doesn't mean, someone else hasn't actually done it.

reply to post by FireMoon

It isn't a matter of quality, it is a matter of what is being analyzed. The spectrum of the light is not being analyzed the brightness of pixels is being analyzed. It's like comparing the amplitudes of the audio streams you're talking about, not the frequencies.

Dilettoso is not a scientist. Here is what a scientist who actually does what he claims to do says about his "analysis".

Met with skepticism, Dilettoso reacts by claiming that his methods have been lauded by experts.

"Dr. Richard Powell at the University of Arizona believes that my techniques are not merely valid but advanced to the degree where there was nothing more that they could add," he says.

Powell, the UofA's director of optical sciences, confirms that he spoke with Dilettoso. "He called here and I talked to him, and I could not, for the life of me, understand him," Powell says.

"I don't know how you take a photograph or a videotape after the fact and analyze it and get that information out. We didn't say that his method was valid, we said we didn't have any other way that was any better," Powell says.

There is no way to do what he claims to do. Not the way he does it, or any other way.

Here's what the company who makes the software he uses says:

Hearing that Powell denies calling his techniques "advanced," Dilettoso claims that Media Cybernetics, the company which sells Image Pro Plus, told him that the software package would do the kind of spectral analysis he does.

Jeff Knipe of Media Cybernetics disagrees. "All he's simply doing is drawing a line profile through that point of light and looking at the histogram of the red, green and blue. And that's really the extent of Image Pro. . . . Spectroscopy is a different field."

And another astronomer, Paul Scowen, who works with the Hubble telescope and others:

"All Dilettoso is doing is extracting a brightness profile. It makes no statement about frequency distribution. What he's getting his knickers in a twist about is he's heard the term 'spatial frequency' and he's confusing it," Scowen says. "He's getting his terms mixed up. He knows the words, but he doesn't understand the concepts behind them."

Scowen notes that when Dilettoso is asked about the limitations of camcorders and videotape, he repeatedly responds: "It's all I've got."

"He's not saying the rest--that it's insufficient," Scowen says.
Curious graduate students peek over Scowen's shoulders, shaking their heads at the videotapes of the Phoenix Lights and Dilettoso's claims about them.

"Nobody asks astronomers to take a look at these images. And that's what we do for a living," says Ph.D. candidate Steve Mutz.

Professor Rogier Windhorst walks in and asks what his students are poring over. Someone tells him Dilettoso claims to be doing spectral analysis from videotape.

"Oh, you can't do that. It's bull#," Windhorst barks.
"It's a consensus now," Mutz says with a laugh.

www.phoenixnewtimes.com...

His "analysis" is nonsense.

[edit on 6/26/2010 by Phage]

I do think Hill has some very good footage,
but J.Maussan getting in on anything is retarded.
He can ruin the best footage,
all he has to do is associate his name with it somehow.

But Hill was recording and sharing things before J.M. ever had anything at all to do with it,...
He just finds cases from everywhere and shares them. (BS or not)

If i had anything good, I would do everything possible to keep J.M away from any of it.

At first (years ago) I tried to give him some credit..
But that is just impossible now. Guy is

soo. Mr. Maussan~ If you happen to read this forum, and see this post.. lol
Please, Please stick to promoting your phony BS hoaxes and stay away from anyone who does, or tries to take this whole thing seriously.
thanks.

reply to post by Phage


Light is a vibration same as any musical note is. There isn;t any difference at all. What colour is this guitar?





Is it white? No it isn't it's ivory to yellow/ Yet, the name of that finish is commonly referred to as TV white. The reason for that is a simple one. In the 1950s, when you went on TV with a white guitar.Under the TV lights, white looked like a dirty grey on a black and white TV screen. So the guitar companies invented a finish that, under TV studio lights looks white. In other words they did practically, what your intellectuals are having so much trouble understanding the concept of. They used the known artifacts of the given recording medium and corrected for them.

In exactly the same way technicoluur film film red is a totally different colour than on kodachrome film. You learn how these colours actually appear and compensate.

If i record a cor anglais and a clarinet onto different mediums. One, they will never sound, to the human ear quite like they did in the room they were played in. Differing mediums will still able, anyone who knows the inherent differences in tone, to differentiate between the two instruments, no matter that, in terms of absolute accuracy, none of them are actually true representations of the instruments Light is no different.

Any person working in film will be able to list you how . pretty much, any given light will look on the various types of film, from 35 mm analogue to digital. if they can't they don't find employment. That is, you have several pictures of standard aircraft lights on any given medium it is perfectly possible to learn to spot their inherent characteristics. To the extent that, given alight from a different source on the same medium, it will be pretty obvious it is not from a standard aircraft light.

I'm guessing here but i would assume that. Dilletoso uses something like the D26 calibration system. Then used known recordings of aircraft lights as a control to gauge how similar other lights are. I'd further guess that, any read out of the data of those images should be able to be compared to the read out of a film of any other sort of light and they would be different.

To take your compadres thinking to its' logical conclusion we'd refuse to look at any of the pictures from the Hubble telescope as they are , in effect, best guesses, made by filming and adding the images together as composites to arrive at the *proper* colours.

There's test on- line where you are asked to spot the guitars being played through a real amp and those played through a digital simulation of an amp.Most people get about 60-70% right, if they know their amps and guitars. I managed 15 out of 16 right. The reason was probably because i use amp sims day in day out, i know the fine minutiae of detail they produce and their tiny differences in the artifacts they have inherent within them. I'm guessing, any movie lighting guy worth his salt, could do exactly the same with differing light sources and the, to the amateur eye seemingly tiny or no difference at all, between similar lights.

I don't profess to understand the methodology of extracting the data to prove those differences, but i'm guessing it can be done. I'm also guessing, most people couldn't give a flying fig about something so anal and have never even given it a second thought. That doesn't mean it hasn't been done. In music we use a test called a *null test*. it works by using the artifacts of phasing. That is in its' simplest form, if you overlay two sounds of an identical nature, they cancel each other out. I know enough about light to know that it is feasible to produce a similar sort of test. Whether it's practical, i don't know, it's not my field, but the concepts are exactly the same as those, used in reverse, to create colour images from Hubble.

reply to post by FireMoon

Light is not a vibration. It is electromagnetic radiation. It has nothing physically in common with sound.

You cannot compare the digitization of sound to that of light. Do you record the amplitude of only three notes when you record music? A digital camera records the brightness levels of three colors. That's it.

If by my "compadres" you are talking about the quoted scientists you're barking up the wrong tree. The images we see from Hubble are false color images. The images we see from Mars are false color images. Sometimes they are adjusted to approximate what they would look like if seen with the human eye and sometimes they are wildly different. What's your point? I still like looking at them even though I know the colors aren't real.

Dilettoso's "analysis" is nonsense, as stated by those who do the real thing as a profession. As stated by those who created the software he uses.

[edit on 6/26/2010 by Phage]