UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 1999 > Jan > Jan 21

Israeli UFO Explosion - It's The Real Thing

From: Moderator, UFO UpDates - Toronto
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1999 11:34:36 -0500
Fwd Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1999 11:34:36 -0500
Subject: Israeli UFO Explosion - It's The Real Thing





SIGHTINGS


Israeli Mid-Air UFO Explosion Analyzed - It's The Real Thing
by Barry Chamish
<chamish@netvision.net.il>

1-20-99

Last month I reported that I had acquired a video copy of a
mid-air UFO explosion over the Israeli city of Rosh Haayin. I
wrote that my impression was the video captured a profoundly
important moment: the first mid-air UFO collision ever recorded.
I requested that experts analyze the film scientifically. Within
a day, Dwight Connelly of MUFON committed himself to having the
video analyzed. The video is a compilation of two UFO events
recorded by Spasso Maximovitch in 1995 and 1996. I sent Dwight
both clips and he passed them on to MUFON's video expert Jeff
Sanio for computer analysis. The following is his report. I will
not comment on his conclusions. Jeff has no need of my analysis
of his analysis. Let's just sum matters up like this: It's The
Real Thing. Added to Israel's list of UFO firsts, is the first
mid-air explosion between two unexplained aerial craft ever
captured on videotape or any other media. Several film and TV
producers asked me to release the clip for their programs but I
had to turn them down. I am prevented by a copyright problem
from reproducing the film, though I am permitted to display my
copy. I am seeking a conference to premiere this remarkable
event. In the meantime, I will publish MUFON's full report on
http://members.tripod.com/~ufoisrael.

TEXT OF THE MUFON REPORT:

Date: Tue, 19 Jan 1999 23:39:44 -0800
From: Jeff Sainio <jsainio@execpc.com
Reply-To: jsainio@qgraph.com
To: chamish@netvision.net.il
Subject: my report

I left out the stills from the video, as you've already seen them.
The paper copy has already been sent.

Dwight Connelly
14026 Ridgelawn
Martinsville IL
62442

1-16-99
217-382-4502,4014
Videoanalysis
6/24/96
Rosh Haayin, central Israel
Spasso Maximovitch


Events as reported to me from Barry Chamish
(chamish@netvision.net.il): `On 28/9/95, Spasso Maximovitch
noticed an unexplainable object in the skies over Rosh Haayin in
central Israel. He grabbed his video camera and captured a
silvery, glowing object become, two, three and then four fiery
orbs, in a near square formation, over a wide expanse of the
northwestern sky. After this incident, Mr. Maximovitch became a
constant skywatcher. His dilgence was rewarded on 24/6/96 when a
similar silvery orb appeared in the lower western sky. He
trained his video camera on the orb... And then a glowing white
oval-shaped object appeared some 20 degrees west of the object
and streaked toward it at high speed. Within three seconds it
struck the stationary orb, causing a huge explosion in the sky
which must have destroyed both objects. Stunned, Maximovitch
stopped filming immediately after capturing the explosion.`

The submitted video, which was in PAL format, was converted to
NTSC format. It shows several events; a group of lights, one
apparently dropped from another (the dropping is seen in the
stills marked 28/9/1995 and 3:27:33); a stationary light which
is apparently struck by a moving light, and a triangle of
lights. The group of lights is interesting, but I could find no
basis for investigating any form of anomalousness. The triangle
of lights has no reference objects to indicate what or where it
is.

The stationary light was much more interesting. Various lights,
probably streetlights, in the video were used as reference
objects, and showed that the light was stationary over some 30
seconds. An approaching airplane's landing lights will appear
stationary, although motionlessness over this length of time
seems unusual.

A vertical tower structure, apparently made of girders, is near
the light. Some horizontal structure is atop the structure. It
was not sufficiently defined for continuous measurements to be
made from it.

Another bright object appears to the left and slightly below the
stationary object. In 2.9 seconds, it moves toward the
stationary object, apparently hitting and exploding. In 1/4
second, the explosion disappears with no trace of either object.
The 5-frame sequence to the right illustrates the sequence.

The bright object can be seen to move between the girders of the
vertical structure. This is useful in determining the relative
size of the moving light. (The size of the light as seen on the
video, is misleading; it is presumably much smaller than what is
seen, due to extreme overexposure and glare.) The light
disappears or reappears completely 6 times; in 3, the change is
abrupt; completely bright-to-dark or vice versa. In the other 3,
the change is gradual, with a frame showing partial brightness.
What can be learned from this? One must remember that the video
is a sequence of 1/50 second time exposures. Assume the light is
small, and that the moving object has only one light. If by
chance, the disappearance coincides with the period between
exposures, an abrupt disappearance will be seen. A large light,
or several lights horizontally separated, will never disappear
abruptly while moving slowly. Since 6 occurrences form a useful
population of samples, the moving light can reliably be said to
be quite small. This probably eliminates the flame from a
missile as a source.

Although the vertical structure was not a reliable reference
object, the two lights' relative position could be measured.
Over 500 measurements of the two lights' position were made. The
graph at right shows the distance between the 2 lights. Breaks
in the data line are due to unreliable data from camera motion
or the moving light going behind the girders. Reference straight
lines show constant speed. The slopes of the lines show that the
moving light spent about a second at some speed, then sped up
about 16% before the collision. The 16% is not due to a zoom
change; the tower is sufficiently visible to verify that its
size does not appreciably change. Although the graph shows noise
and missing data, the acceleration certainly occurred in under a
second. No reasonable object I know of is capable of a 16%
acceleration in a second.

When the 2 objects apparently collide and explode, the apparent
size of the light expands by a factor of roughly 2.5; this does
not appear to be due to overexposure, but is the real size of
the object. The last 2 frames of the video are NOT overexposed,
but diffuse; since overexposure is not involved, this indicates
the actual size of the explosion is shown. The real increase in
size of the bright area is certainly much larger than 2.5. In
the video the explosion moves downward; this is probably due to
camera motion of the startled videographer; the reference tower
is too smeared to verify this conclusion.

The explosion is not due to any conventional method I am
familiar with; conventional, large explosions require much more
than 1/4 second to disappear, and usually generate flaming
debris that falls from the explosion. Neither characteristic is
seen here.

The acceleration, light size, and explosion are not explainable
in any convention way that I know of, and this case remains
unidentified.



Jeff Sainio
MUFON Staff Photoanalyst
7206 W. Wabash
Milwaukee WI 53223-2609
jsainio@qgraph.com







SIGHTINGS HOMEPAGE


[ Next Message | Previous Message | This Day's Messages ]
This Month's Index |

UFO UpDates Main Index

UFO UpDates - Toronto - Operated by Errol Bruce-Knapp


Archive programming by Glenn Campbell at Glenn-Campbell.com