UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 1999 > Oct > Oct 25

Re: RPIT More New Findings

From: neil morris <neil@adm1.ph.man.ac.uk>
Date: Sun, 24 Oct 1999 11:21:43 -0700
Fwd Date: Mon, 25 Oct 1999 08:53:16 -0400
Subject: Re: RPIT More New Findings


 >From: James Easton <voyager@ukonline.co.uk>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
 >Subject: Re: RPIT More New Findings
 >Date: Sat, 23 Oct 1999 01:39:03 +0100

 >Regarding:

 >>From: Neil Morris <Neil@adm1.ph.man.ac.uk>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
 >>Date: Wed, 20 Oct 1999 13:35:33 +0100
 >>Subject: RPIT More New Findings

 >Neil wrote:

 >>I realise some on this list have concluded that the RPIT project
 >>is nothing more than a wild goose chase reading symbols into
 >>"smuge" marks etc, but I hope the attached image will even make
 >>these people stop and think.

 >[...]

 >>I'm left with the conclusion that this _is_ a large piece of
 >>aprox 1/2 inch thick material which is totally at odds with
 >>anything contained in the "usual" explanations for the debris.
 >>I'm not saying it's ET at this point, but as sure as hell it's
 >>_not_ MOGUL.

 >Neil,

 >How do you know that for sure?


James,

As I said in a protracted private exchange with Phil Klass a
couple of months back now on this topic, I _cannot_ be 110% cast
iron sure.

Nobody can _either_ way, just from the images.

_But_

When numerous details within these images fail to match the
official blueprints of the ML307a->c radar reflector nominated
by the USAF as being identified as the cause of the wreckage
within these images, I start to smell a rat. I have footage of
the MOGUL launches showing the train configuration, I have
details of the equipment packages and instruments they carried,
I see none of this in the images, I therefore conclude, in my
opinion, this is _not_ MOGUL debris.

You are free to continue to believe it as such, _but_ please go
through the anomalous items located within the FW images one by
one and attempt to identify each within the MOGUL specification.

I suggest you may have _extreme_ difficulty resolving the latest
"thick" metalic debris findings with this specification as there
seems to have been no such material used in the construction.

 >>A final thought, I find it interesting that this debris is in
 >>clear view in one of the two photographs were the original
 >>negatives have been "lost", I only hope a copy might have been
 >>made of the other and it might yet turn up, I wonder if it too
 >>might have had "interesting" debris in full view.

 >It's clearly the same 'debris' in all photographs taken.

Not so, though _some_ of the debris is seen in _most_ of the
images, the "mix" gets moved round from shot to shot it gets
covered and uncovered and as with the later Newton shot some
dissapears altogether.

 >[From your website]

 >>After starting out on this little project thinking the debris
 >>on the floor WAS a weather balloon, the more I look at these
 >>pictures in detail the more I think it's NOT, and the proof of
 >>the Roswell Event might have been right there looking out at us
 >>for the past 50 years in these 4 photographs.

 >A difficulty with greatly magnified images is losing sight of
 >the simple picture.

 >See, for example:

 >http://web.ukonline.co.uk/voyager/jbj_1.jpg


Even in the UTA's 552x694 lossy .jpg (the URL above) you can
clearly make out the "tram lines" of the "glyph panel" in the
lower left, (not part of any MOGUL spec) and just about make out
the light coloured sedan parked outside Ramey's window. Of
course you'd have no idea exactly what these blobs of pixels
were if you hadn't bothered to look any closer, and, when things
didn't start to make sense with the "accepted convention" to
keep on looking that little bit closer.

You are correct in the observation that I look _very_ closely at
the images, but this is not done in isolation, I do have the
original 11x14's and general overviews of the prints used for
"targeting". For example, regarding the above image, my data set
comprises of the lower half of this image, using my own 11x14
first generation prints I produced 14 overlapping grid scans
covering the area showing the debris, each of these 14 images is
6000x6000 pixels scanned at 2400 dpi. Together with general
overviews this comes to aprox 580 megabytes of image data, a
similar amount of image data has been generated for the other
two usable UTA images, the MarcelLeft image is of no great value
for close work as the camera was moved as the flash went off
causing image blur.


 >Does that even conceivably show debris from an alien spacecraft?


I prefer to consider it "unknown" at this time as I have yet to
come accross the makers "chassis plate".

Best Regards
Neil.

-------------------------------------------------------
                      Neil Morris@Home.

Email:             Neil@adm1.ph.man.ac.uk

Web Sites:        Roswell and Alien Autopsy
                   http://adm2.ph.man.ac.uk/
         The Fort Worth Photographs of James Bond Johnson
                http://adm2.ph.man.ac.uk/ftw-pics/
-------------------------------------------------------



[ 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