Danish policeman photographed beaming UFO that stopped his car

page: 1
11
<<   2 >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 5 2011 @ 03:57 PM
link   

On August 13 1970 police officer Evald Maarup (above) was driving home in his patrol car at night near the border between Denmark and Germany when a bright blueish light shone down on his car, stopping it and its radio. The temperature inside the car shot up and Maarup was able to capture several images of the phenomenon with his official police Fujaxa camera:



Further details are here:

wiki.razing.net...

If Maarup's photos are genuine - and Michael Swords endorses them in his excellent Big Study blog - then they are incredibly interesting scientifically.

They seem to be the only photographs ever taken of a light cone, or light tube, emanating from a UAP.

The four art students involved in the famous 1976 Allagash, Maine incident ( I don't believe their hypnotically induced abduction story) described a tube of light rather than a cone.

www.ufoevidence.org...

en.wikipedia.org...


Maarup's photos could also be of a light tube, foreshortened by perspective to appear conical. Though I haven't made any measurements, the light tube theory would give a roughly equidistant spacing to the near-vertical bands of light that we see here.

Clearly this is no beam of ordinary light from a helicopter. Professor Auguste Meessen has tried to explain 'solid' light beams by talking of ionic plasma waves. His theory might also apply to light tubes. Ionised air molecules at high temperature would emit spectral lines, here apparently reflected from the bottom of the hovering craft, letting us see its shape. Plasma wave theory might account for the vertical bands of light.

Failing a spectrographic analysis, it would be interesting to have details on the sensitivity range of the film Maarup used.

The official explanation was one of the silliest ever. Maarup had witnessed the landing of a T-33 fighter/trainer.

Wonder what people think.




posted on Nov, 5 2011 @ 04:01 PM
link   
nice lay out of a thread, so i already starred you for that.

but one question and maybe that is just me...

but what am i supposed to be looking at here?

ETA:

what part is the UFO?
the little dot?
edit on 5-11-2011 by kn0wh0w because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 5 2011 @ 04:02 PM
link   


The official explanation was one of the silliest ever. Maarup had witnessed the landing of a T-33 fighter/trainer.


I dont get why that explanation is "The silliest ever". Are T-33's made of clowns?



posted on Nov, 5 2011 @ 04:04 PM
link   
I have never ever heard about this story,
and I'm from Denmark.

Even though you can't tell much from those pictures, its still interesting though.



posted on Nov, 5 2011 @ 04:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by TsukiLunar



The official explanation was one of the silliest ever. Maarup had witnessed the landing of a T-33 fighter/trainer.


I dont get why that explanation is "The silliest ever". Are T-33's made of clowns?


if you're going to play skeptic.. try a little harder


you know damn well what he meant by that statement and i sure hope the op doesn't 'bite' and respond to your question.

are T-33's capable of emitting a solid beam of light? (assuming the account and pictures are real)


edit on 5-11-2011 by kn0wh0w because: (no reason given)
edit on 5-11-2011 by kn0wh0w because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 5 2011 @ 04:08 PM
link   
tube of light rather than cone tells me LASER without a shadow of a doubt...not sure what else to add, the resolution on the developed film is terrible. no comment on authenticity yet.




Plasma wave theory might account for the vertical bands of light.


=3 yes it could. (think harmonics...with light...)
edit on 5/11/2011 by whatsinaname because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 5 2011 @ 04:11 PM
link   
reply to post by kn0wh0w
 





you know damn well what he meant by that statement and i sure hope the op doesn't 'bite' and respond to your question.


No, he asserted that is was silly. He did not explain why it was silly. That was my point. I want to know why it cannot be a T-33.



if you're going to play skeptic.. try a little harder


How do I do that?



posted on Nov, 5 2011 @ 04:11 PM
link   
I have never heard of this event. Thanks allot OP, very interesting

I always wish I would come into contact with a UFO or some extraordinary
event, but when I really think about it, it would be absolutely terrifying.



posted on Nov, 5 2011 @ 04:23 PM
link   
reply to post by TsukiLunar
 




No, he asserted that is was silly. He did not explain why it was silly. That was my point. I want to know why it cannot be a T-33.


Ok, i understand.
it's a fair question but i thought you were calling him out on this little tidbit to derail to thread.



How do I do that?


by debunking the UFO case and not trying to derail the thread by 'debunking' one line of his OP.
wich holds no credence anyway because it's an assertation the OP made, i'll give you that.

now let us get back ontopic and try to the debunk or verify anything from this case.
or at least try.



posted on Nov, 5 2011 @ 04:28 PM
link   
I really like older cases like this because creating a hoax on film like this is near on impossible. Will have to look into this as I havent heard of this sighting before. Nice post.



posted on Nov, 5 2011 @ 04:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheMindWar
I really like older cases like this because creating a hoax on film like this is near on impossible. Will have to look into this as I havent heard of this sighting before. Nice post.


its harder but not impossible. there we're faked photo's before photoshop/paint (depending how epic you are at editing.)



posted on Nov, 5 2011 @ 04:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by whatsinaname

Originally posted by TheMindWar
I really like older cases like this because creating a hoax on film like this is near on impossible. Will have to look into this as I havent heard of this sighting before. Nice post.


its harder but not impossible. there we're faked photo's before photoshop/paint (depending how epic you are at editing.)


true..

i can show you a photoshop of the 1890's and you can't tell.

there's a thread on ATS somewhere.

150 year old photo manipulation



posted on Nov, 5 2011 @ 05:03 PM
link   
It reminds me of this thread from a couple of months ago.
www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Nov, 7 2011 @ 03:11 AM
link   
reply to post by TsukiLunar
 


No, but as far as I know they don't emit structured 'light beams' that defy conventional scientific explanation.
Bear in mind that English is a subtle language, words like 'silly'' have many nuances.



posted on Nov, 7 2011 @ 05:26 AM
link   
In my opinion these are the best type of cases. 1970, detailed account, Officer of the Law, and even had a camera on him. The pictures are awful, but his story fits together perfectly. Why the hell would he try and fake this?

Wake up people



posted on Nov, 7 2011 @ 11:53 AM
link   
reply to post by Regenstorm
 

Yes, It's interesting to compare the Wanaque photo:



with Maarup's photo in my OP.

I'm no expert here, but I guess the Wanaque beams could just conceivably be ordinary light beams reflecting from water droplets in a mist above the lake. But I don't see how the beam in Maarup's photo could be explained in this way.

It's also interesting that Maarup's sketch of what he saw (below) is so different from his photo.




posted on Nov, 8 2011 @ 08:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by Lowneck


They seem to be the only photographs ever taken of a light cone, or light tube, emanating from a UAP.




Lowneck, fascinating thread mate and I´d certainly never heard of this one before - it does sound quite similar to the Red Bluff UFO case involving police officers, beams of light and EM interference effects but I think you´re right in stating this could be the only one involving (alleged) photographic evidence of light beam/cone.

Did find a similar(ish) case from Norway a few months later (October 1970) where an unknown disc shaped object hovered over a car and the driver was blinded by ´a strong blue-white light´ but unfortunately nothing for August.


NICAP Link


All the best.



posted on Nov, 9 2011 @ 09:59 AM
link   
reply to post by karl 12
 

karl12,

Many thanks for comment and link to Michael Swords' NICAP piece about the Norway 1970 Incident.



On the bottom there was a 2-meter "extension" or shortened column coming from the same positioning as the dome on top. Around the middle of the thing was a band [about 0.5 meters wide] of golden partitions, which had "wavy" [hard to focus upon?] quality. It hovered there at about 10 meters high for 50 seconds. It was nearly directly above the car


Intriguing to compare the 'extension' with the apparent 'beam' that Maarup photographed.

But whereas the Norwegian guy stopped his car, in Maarup's case, the UFO stopped it, or so he claimed.

The car-stopping could possibly be explained if the UFO was surrounded by plasma, perhaps as byproduct of its propulsion system, as Paul Hill suggested in his book. Hence the idea that the banded beam may have been a plasma wave phenomenon.

I guess that, apart from Auguste Meessen, one of the few people really qualified to analyse these apparent plasma phenomena connected with UAPs is Italian astrophysicist Massimo Teodorani.

Cheers.



posted on Nov, 9 2011 @ 11:37 AM
link   
Hi all, interesting photo/story as car stopping and beams of light were, according to my memory of the time, common.

Having a Policeman give the evidence would seem to add so much gravitas to the report, yet so many seem to get swept under the carpet by officialdom,

I assume that we are looking at a contact print and not the negative, otherwise the photos were taken in daylight!

Just two queries come to mind.

It is along time since I last used 35mm roll film, so I might be wrong, but should there not be a white frame around each exposed frame?

Do not remember a camera by the name of "Fujaxa", but maybe it is a local spelling of "Fujica" or even a miss-spelling.

Look forward to more comments about these photos and comparison with other similarly dated reports.

Good find.



posted on Nov, 10 2011 @ 02:30 PM
link   
reply to post by dowot
 


Dowot,

Thanks for the comments.

Agree with your concerns about the 35 mm film strip.

Perhaps some expert will help us out here. One account stated that Maarup's original film was not returned to him by the authorities, so there is an issue about authenticity of these photos.

I relied on endorsement by Michael Swords, one of the most meticulous researchers in this field, but he's not infallible.

Cheers.





new topics
top topics
 
11
<<   2 >>

log in

join