OPINIONS

How to distinguish a real UFO 
photograph from a fake?

By Der Voron

UFO sightings and UFO encounters took place along all the human history, in the ancient times, in medieval, in the new and the newest time, and continue today.  

The first "official" sighting in the "UFO era" (that "officially" began in 1947; this is not true of course that it began in 1947; for example, the first UFO photo was reportedly taken on 8.12.1888 by Astronomer Prof. Bonilla of Zacatecas Observatory in Mexico) is the one of Kenneth ARNOLD on June 24, 1947. When flying his DC-4 over the Cascade Mountains in Washington, he saw, as he told, a strange sickle-shaped flying disk which he has called "flying saucer" (meaning that it "skipped like a saucer" but didn't "look like a saucer"). He made a corresponding report to US Airforce Command, and provided the drawing of what he saw.  

Some researchers think he saw just "meteor fireballs", a "mirage" or a "flock of American white pelicans", but equally it may be that he just saw the disk under some angle or the disk emitted a special radiation that allowed to see it just in this form being in aircraft and looking through the illuminator.

Here you can, with all the reason, ask: how to distinguish a real UFO photograph from a faked one? Functioning of starcraft ionic-microwave (also called electromagnetic, or antigravitation) engines is accompanied with the electromagnetic fields phenomena, i.e. plasma, which can cause air mass movements.

This UFO photograph seems to be real. 
"Fire ring" (plasma) can be seen clearly.

Another seemingly real UFO photograph. Functioning of ionic-microwave 
engines and energy generators is accompanied with the formation of plasma,
 which can look like fog clots, like on this photo.

When a starship moves down, ionic-microwave streams interact with the environment. 
Here we can see plants to stoop because of such interaction.

In other words, if on a UFO photograph you can see movement of air masses around the UFO, then this photograph can be considered as real (not faked).

Certainly, Kenneth Arnold's case was not the first sighting, neither in the newest history nor even in 1947 (not speaking of the previous times). But it is the subject of a different research effort...

Influence of UFO electromagnetic fields often caused different consequences than described above. Below are listed some known contacts of aircraft with starships. As you can see, in many cases such a contact may result in at least long-term consequences, due to the action produced by starship's electromagnetic fields: aircraft, rotorcraft and even car and other mechanical engines fail, as well as electronics, communication devices, etc. But, seemingly, not all starcraft are constructed so that their electromagnetic fields will have such an influence upon mechanical and electronic devices, else each contact similar to those listed below would result in failure of engines or electronics (for example, the above-described contact of Kenneth Arnold):

·         On January 7, 1948, Captain Thomas Mantell crashed his F-51 Mustang while chasing a UFO near Fort Knox, Kentucky.

·         On July 24, 1948, an Eastern Airlines DC-3 piloted by Captain Clarence S. Chiles was narrowly missed by a UFO while flying over Montgomery, Alabama.

·         On November 23, 1953, Lt. Felix Moncla's F-89C Interceptor disappeared while chasing a UFO over Lake Superior. No trace of it was ever found.

·         On July 17, 1957, an RB-47 aircraft equipped with special electronic intelligence equipment was followed from the Gulf of Mexico all the way to Oklahoma by a UFO that flew circles around the aircraft.        

·         On the night of October 18,1973, a helicopter commanded by Captain Lawrence J. Coyne was buzzed by a UFO over Mansfield, Ohio.

·         On October 21, 1978, civilian pilot Frederick Valentich's single engine Cessna vanished over the Bass Straits between Australia and King Island. His radio conversations with Melbourne at the time indicated that he was being followed by a UFO.

·         On November 17, 1986, over Northeastern Alaska, a Japan Air Lines 747 encountered several UFOs at close range.

Did Americans and Russians fly to the Moon, 
or were all so-called "Moon flights" faked?

It may be that both Americans and Russians never flew to the Moon. Because of a very simple thing:

Take-off after landing on the Moon (to return to the Earth)

How to take all this with a spacecraft to be able to take off from the Moon after landing on it? The mid-rank carrier rocket Ariane-5, for example, weighs 750 tons (the rocket itself and the fuel), and the "lite" carrier rocket Dnepr-1 (created basing on strategic intercontinental ballistic missile SS-18 Satan) weighs 211 tons. They develop the power of about 10-20mn KWt. We certainly can take in account that a rocket able to launch a spacecraft from the Moon should have the power of about 6 times less than here on the Earth (as the Moon gravitation is 6 times smaller), but even in this case the rocket would weigh 750/6, which equals to about 125 tons (the rocket and the fuel), plus the weight of details for deploying a temporary launching site. Even if the weight of these details equals to the minimum possible weight of about 50 tons, then the spacecraft should be able to take with itself a minimum weight of ~175 tons. No such spacecraft were developed before the flight to the Moon, none even close to that; today's most powerful spacecraft's weight carrying capabilities couldn't approach even the numbers thrice smaller than this (for example, one of the most modern Russian carrier rockets, Titan-4, which is approximately equal to Space Shuttle carrier rocket by its parameters, is able to carry only about 17.5 tons of weight). The official story of American flights to the Moon -- about Russian flights see below -- says th at larger command module rocket "Columbia" remained in lunar orbit while the lunar module "Eagle" separated and descended with firing retro rockets to the lunar surface. The astronauts exited "Eagle" to take pictures and recover lunar material from the surface. They then returned to the lunar lander module to return back to the "Columbia" command module. The "Columbia" broke out of lunar orbit to go back to Earth and splash down with parachutes.

If even we suppose that several carrier rockets like "Columbia" could deliver all this to the Moon in several lunar modules "Eagles" (seems this should have been a very hard task for such modules to land on the Moon since the Moon has no atmosphere, which diminishes the speed of similar modules when these land on the Earth), then how was for example the Lunar launching site deployed? On-site by astronauts in spacesuits? And why was all this praiseworthy process, or at least its part, not shown on the photos or on the videos? Where are photographs of such a praiseworthy achievement like Lunar launching site? And if somehow no launching site construction was still required to take off from the Moon, why are there no photographs or videos of the spacecraft taking off from it? Wasn't it impossible to take photograph/videos of the spacecraft taking off from the Moon, from "Columbia" rocket? If this was a hard technical task in those times, then why weren't at least preparations for this takeoff photoed or videoed, by astronauts on-site? Did the NASA astronauts return to "Columbia", "which remained in lunar orbit", using the rope that was hanging out of it? And where are Russian photographs and videos dedicated to their "Lunar takeoff" preparations?

Unless we assume that already at that time NASA could build an antigravitation craft -- also referred to as antigrav, starcraft, starship, and flying saucer -- for which all the described obstacles just don't exist. (Such a device is not necessarily able to fly to stars, this depends on its capacities, i.e. it is its construction that determines whether it will be able to fly to stars or only to Sun system's planets or planet satellites. Antigrav means only that the device uses antigravitation for flying -- not wings, rotors etc. Its velocity can vary from 10 meters per second to overlight speeds, this depends on what its capacities are.) This seems more reasonable, taking in account that the American flag and a plaque with inscriptions on it next to the flag are reported, by many persons who visit observatories, to be clearly seen on the Moon surface. But this means NASA had antigravs already in those remote times, and that it has them now... Or did they borrow it from an extraterrestrial civilization (Zetas Reticuli, hominoids from Orion, or maybe those who mutilate cattle)? One detail maybe directly advise us that this might have taken place: one of astronauts, during the first flight that was translated by television, was talking directly on the air that he was seeing giant artificial objects. Perhaps the aliens put such a condition for the lease of their craft: to tell directly on the air something that would evidently show the listeners that the astronauts met craft of another civilization? This may be confirmed by the following fact: just several years later the American Congress gathered to acknowledge the existence of extraterrestrials in a special report.

The NASA photo below, with its absolutely impossible (for the lunar landscape) shadows -- like if they were made with the use of different projectors shining at different angles -- can be an additional proof of all told above. Maybe NASA, let's say, "feels ashamed" for the mystification, and therefore provided such photos as hidden hints? Or, more probably, did they provide contradictory materials to entangle all this more and more?

Or maybe NASA astronauts still visited the Moon (in the antigrav) and videoed/photoed all what is claimed to be lunar videos and photos, but these got of such a poor quality due to some details of lunar atmosphere and climate that NASA decided to order new "better looking" videos/photos to Hollywood? Then we understand why there are such errors in them...

Der Voron is a writer and translator. He lives in Minneapolis, Minnesota, and works as an independent contractor for a computer company. He is now preparing the second edition of his book, Starcraft. His website is http://starcraft-version1.tripod.com/ and his email is dervoron@eudoramail.com.

www.ambassador.net
mail@ambassadors.net