Friday, June 02, 2006

Selby, England..."Malibu" UFO...?

Will Beuche catches one on Updates...

Commenting on this photo (the one on the right), he finds it a little similar to something he found at Amazon.com (similar to the one on the left).

Nice catch, Will!

But the story said the photo was taken as the "UFO" hovered above a beauty salon. Well, if it was hovering ABOVE the salon, where was the photographer located to get this angle?

Looks like the photographer must have been in an adjacent UFO hovering just above this one to get this shot.

One thing "intrepid" investigator Russell Kellett said is likely accurate..."We know it's not simply plasma...". I couldn't agree more, Russell!

I imagine the salon owners lament the "craft" leaving, what with the loss of the nice landscape lighting and all...

[h/t to UFO Updates]

Thursday, June 01, 2006

Stan Friedman...on Stan Friedman...


I am treading on thin ice here...I just read the following on UFO Updates...








Stan Friedman wrote:

May I respectfully suggest my Review of Case MJ-12, a 28 page,
January 2003 paper. It is posted on my website at:

www.stantonfriedman.com

Or available from UFORI, POB 958, Houlton, ME 04730-0958.($4.00)
Including S and H) Either way it would be much easier than going
back through UPDATES and contains material that is not on
Updates. It is far more than just opinions.

It contains evidence that Kevin's statements are often flat out
wrong.It also shows that a number of Tim Cooper's purported MJ-
12 documents are emulations.

I would also suggest the new Chapter of TOP SECRET/MAJIC

which deals with many specific objections. I wonder how many
people on this list who claim that the arguments are just
dueling opinions have looked at the facts that are
presented.Phil Klass said PICA type wasn't used . I provided a
number of examples.

Many said TOP SECRET Restricted wasn't in use. I provided a
statement from the GAO that they found a number of examples.

Some complained that all TS documents required control numbers.
I provided both examples and statements from an archivist at the
Eisenhower Library that they had many such. Kevin didn't like
the use of Admiral Hillenkoetter as opposed to rear Admiral. I
provided strong evidence that the use of generic ranks was quite
common etc etc etc. These aren't opinions. They are facts.


Stan Friedman

What is interesting here is that the things Stan says here are all correct...they are facts. They are things he responds with when people claim the MJ-12 documents contain errors that prove they are fake.

However, as a response to someone saying he is not convinced that MJ-12 is real, this is intellectually dishonest.

Now, I respect Stanton Friedman immensely. But these words were in response to someone saying he has not been convinced of the validity of the MJ-12 story. I also have not been convinced.

When I say that I am not convinced that the MJ-12 documents are real, and that I require proof before I accept them as real, I am making what I believe to be a reasonable request.

So, what does Stan say to that? All he can say is as above...that he has proven that the types face was in use, the paper was in use, the words were in use, the watermark is correct, the classification was in use, etc.

My queston is..."which of these statements proves that the MJ-12 documents are real?".

Well, none of them.

My next question would be, "Where did these MJ-12 documents come from?"

Stan would have to answer, "They appeared in the mailbox of a film producer".

I say, "Well, I cannot accept any documents you got from a mailbox from some anonymous person as real".

Stan's reply might be, "Well, the documents pointed to another document...the Cutler-Twining memo...which was found in an archive just as the mailbox documents said!!!".

I say, "Wow...now we're getting somewhere. What does the Cutler-Twining memo say to prove MJ-12 is real?".

Stan might respond, "Well, it says nothing about MJ-12, but instead says something about when Cutler would be in his office, and what should be done with his paperwork while he was out."

Oh.

So, in light of this we have the following...

A bunch of documents (on film...not the documents themselves) appear in a mailbox. I cannot accept these documents as real since their provenance is unknown.

We have a document that WAS found in an archive that has nothing to do with whether MJ-12 was real or not, but instead addresses a side-issue that is all but unrelated...UNLESS you accept the "mailbox" documents as real.

We have NOTHING else.

So I ask, is it reasonable to remain unconvinced that the MJ-12 documents are real?

I would say it would be unreasonable to be convinced otherwise.

Now, since these documents were received there have been other documents supposedly related to MJ-12, but Stan is convinced that THEY are fakes. Okie dokie. So he admits that there ARE fake MJ-12 documents out there, but that HIS are real. Hmmm.

There have been no more documents to corroborate the existence of MJ-12 that are not of similarly questionable provenance. If someone in the military "leaked" the mailbox documents, why has he or his confederates not released more? Surely he could not have thought that these documents alone would be accepted at face value, and presumably he risked freedom and perhaps his life to "leak" them.

Now, there is also this detail. A military man named Richard Doty talked to one of Stan Friedman's associates about faking some UFO documents to create "buzz" that might get some official documents released in rebuttal. This conversation was BEFORE the mailbox documents were found. Plus, this military guy was based in New Mexico, and the mailbox documents were postmarked from New Mexico. Hmmm.

Is it possible that the mailbox documents were fakes?

Yes.

It is posssible that Richard Doty provided the mailbox documents?

Yes.

Is it possible that whomever provided the mailbox documents also planted the Cutler-Twining memo to help "prove" the mailbox documents were valid?

Yes, especially if he was involved with military intelligence and disinformation programs (which Doty was).

Is it possible that MJ-12 was non existent and was never real?

Yes.

Most important...Can Stanton Friedman prove that any of the above statements are false?

NO.

So, when someone claims not to be convinced that MJ-12 is real, what leg does Stan have to stand on when he asserts that such a claim is "research by proclamation"?

I don't know, but I will say that if he were the Emperor he'd be a little chilly...

If you have proof that MJ-12 is or was ever real, I'm ready to hear or see it. However...

If all you have is the mailbox documents, the C-T memo, the EBD, etc, etc., you haven't convinced me.

And if you want to call that proclamation, you're just being obtuse. Or intellectually dishonest.

Open Minds Uncover the Serponic Reality...UPDATED!!

I've been spending some time perusing a few forums lately regarding the Serpo story. For those of you who have been spared the gist, you can catch up (or not) at serpo.org.

Anyway, after someone was able to get some identifying information on the "leaker" called "Request Anonymous", the disclosures stopped. Then a NEW leaker popped up saying that Serpo was all disinfo, and that the REAL story was about something called Seinu.

Then, another poster started a new web site to debunk the Serpo story altogether...

So, the forum that brought the story out was "Above Top Secret" (ATS), which eventually killed the thread to prevent promoting what they deemed a hoax. Another forum..."Open Minds" (OM) picked up the thread. I joined, and was summarily banned after my first post due to apparently questioning the validity of the subject. "Open Minds" indeed. LOL

So, the folks that dug up the scoop on "Request Anonymous", started their own forum, "Reality Uncovered" (RU), where the discussion has moved to the involvement of Richard Doty, the existence or not of Anonymous #1 and #2, and how UFO hoaxes can generate income or not.

Whatever your take on Serpo, Seinu, etc., the discussions are occasionally interesting, and some of the participants take this stuff REAL seriously.

Caveat Emptor, but it's a fun diversion...especially for those interested in the antics of folks like Doty, who are infamous in UFOlogical circles.

Anyway, it's been a hoot.

And, while on the subject of forums, please take a minute and check out "UFO-Planet". I spend far more time there than at the others, and the conversations are friendly, and the folks are curious, curteous, and cool. Tell Martin I sent you!

====================================================================
UPDATE!!!

In an epiphany, it would appear that "Reality Uncovered", and indeed perhaps the entire Serpo saga might be part of a "no nukes in space" scheme involving "Dr." Carol Rosin. Rosin is one of the Greer Disclosure clowns who seems to make a habit of being around when luminaries die (Werner von Braun and Tomothy Leary to name 2).

Rosin claims that von Braun told her that the military would create fake terrorist threats and asteroid threats and evil ET threats to convince people that weapons were needed up in space.

Rosin claims to be working against weapons in space. But, by heading up an organization like hers...with her "reputation", it seems more likely that the military and/or government might be propping up this organization in order to make being "anti space weapons" seem "kooky". In other words, I am beginning to think that Serpo was created to form factions between those that are "FOR" Rosin's ideas, or "AGAINST" them.

In the end, rational folks would side with weapons in space rather than be labelled a kook.

Seem at least as plausible as the govt. making people like Bob Lazar look credible at first and then to be made to look like a kook to keep people from "falling" for UFO/alien stories.

At any rate, I have severed ties with all of the above sites...except UFO-Planet. I like it there...no Rosinite clowns, and little of the melodrama. Whew. LOL


[h/t to ATS, RU, OM, and UFO-Planet]

Tuesday, May 30, 2006

More Heflin fun...










On the left above is a cropped section of Heflin photo #2. It is cropped from a 600 dpi resample of the large scans from the Druffel, et. al., re-analysis posted here.

The image on the right is the same cropped section with Adobe Photoshop's "Emboss" filter applied.

When a photograph is blurred, or sometimes when over-exposed, detail can often be recovered using an emboss filter. While it can also result in false information, it can be useful. As with the sharpen filter, when the emboss filter is applied in an "excessive" amount, subtle details which were barely (or not at all) apparent in the original image can emerge.

If you look at the image on the right above, I think there is an apparent straight-line feature running from the object to the door frame. Now, this image is oriented as it was in the original photo, so there is geometry that can emerge as a result of the "grid" pattern of pixels. In other words, the apparent filament in the image could easily be a by-product of the pixelation of the scan, and could be misleadingly enhanced by the embossing filter.

BUT, I think it is noteworthy that we are assuming (for sake of argument) a hoaxed image using a model and a suspension line, and under this type of filtering we see a vertical straight-line filament appear...just where it would need to be. Note that there is not a similar feature anywhere else in the image. Note also that while the filament is not exactly lined up with the center of the object, the distortion of the filtering involves two copies of the image being offset, so that the filament might not be located exactly, but its "impression" can still be accurate.

I will add that I did nothing more to the image than what I described. Just cropped the resampled image, and applied the emboss filter at near maximum level.

Food for thought? Or just empty carbs? You be the judge.

Dave Rudiak chimes in...

David Rudiak, a frequent (and very competent) contributor to UFO Updates, offers some experimental evidence to support his contentions on the Heflin photos. Unfortunately, his experiment leaves at least one very important detail out of the equation.

Dave creates a color field on his computer and then overlays several threads over it to simulate different suspension means, assuming that the object in the Heflin photos is a model. He then shoots a photograph of the field and the thread, to see whether the thread can be resolved. Trying different thread types, he reaches the conclusion that yes, the thread would be resolvable.

However, in the Heflin photos, he is sitting inside a truck...in dark shade...when taking the initial 3 photos, and in each of these photos, the entire camera frame is dominated by the darkness of the truck interior. In the simplistic auto exposure system of the Polaroid 101, the scene is light-averaged. This means that the exposure is set based on the average lighting in the scene. So, when the photos were taken, the camera would attempt to make both the interior of the truck and the scene outside as visible as possible. Well, this makes the scene outside highly over-exposed, as the camera attempts to balance a good photo of the interior with a good photo of what is outside. So, if the object was a model suspended outside, any suspension thread could easily be hidden in the highly over-exposed exterior light. Since the maximum level of "white" is finite for a camera, once the exterior reached this level, the thread could easily be "engulfed" in this glaring white.

Similarly, the object itself would appear highly over-exposed, meaning that to a person standing outside the truck, the object would have been significantly darker, and the apparent "glare" spots on the object would have been far less prominent. I don't know if that fact has any bearing on what the object might have been, but it is notable that the object does not look in the photos as it would have appeared to anyone outside the truck.

Again, the lack of a discernible thread does not rule out hoax, especially if the over-exposure of the exterior is what caused a suspension means to be rendered invisible. But the framing of the photos, coupled with the position of the object in the photos, leads me to suspect hoax.

I will add however, that in this case the exterior scene isn't over-exposed to the extent of maximum white, so if the scene is darkened and contrast-enhanced, a thread or some impression of a thread might become visible. As I presented in my previous post, there does seem to be an "impression" of a thread visible, but this is based on a very cursory examination. I found similar "impressions" in the other images of the object as well, but this one seemed the most clear with unaided eye.

The mystery deepens. Perhaps we are on the verge of some real findings in this case. Another example of how applying more advanced technology on older cases can actually illuminate and in some cases, provide solutions.

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?