The $10,000 UFO Challenge
Wow. A UFO (specifically ETH) believer putting his money where his mouth (or keyboard) is. This site offers supposed unassailable photographic proof that unidentifiable, artificial, intelligently controlled objects hovered around STS-75 Shuttle Columbia mission in February of 1996, and dares all comers to debunk the startling evidence.
Some readers have probably seen this footage of the unidentified objects. They are just that, unidentifiable, but there is a debate as to whether they move in unnatural ways. On this mission, the shuttle let out a satellite on a 12 mile-long tether to see if dragging a “wire” through the charged particles around the Earth would produce useable electrical power. Unfortunately, the tether broke, ending the experiment and presumably losing an expensive satellite.
The anonymous UFO sugar daddy has taken images from this video and enlarged/ enhanced them, in the process teasing out details which had been previously overlooked. Perhaps these mysterious new techniques of video enhancement could give us our first good look at non-human, artificial craft in space.
In his haste to make a case, he reveals the true motivation for this project, which is apparently not designed to look objectively at the incident:
A scientist, using a new technique, has been able to view these old images in a completely different way, revealing detail that has never been seen before. The process has revealed a great deal more about the Notch Craft (as it is called) and perhaps our first real look at the aliens that fly them!
Who is this “scientist?” What is this “new technique?” More importantly, what is this “completely different way” to “view old images?”
Looking at the “enhanced” frames from the video, it appears that the natural degredation of the image caused by the extreme zoom of the lens and enhanced by the physics of the image capturing device in the camera, makes small objects (such as ice and other debris) appear torus (doughnut) -shaped and adds artificial noise that imparts false detail. Even the example of an enlargement of the eye of a needle shows the interlace pattern of the original image. You can’t enhance something that isn’t there in the first place.
A host of extrapolations ensue as the UFO Challenge person offers this final proof of the amazing alien craft (and referenced to a home video that has nothing at all to do with the STS75 video):
This next image (below) was taken from a hand-held video camera recording of a Notch Back [this is what they call their UFO craft discovery] in Earth’s atmosphere, and is much smaller than the Notch Back seen near the tether. It is believed to be a craft for two occupants and appears to show a pictograph of the aliens that actually use this ship (these are on the actual hull of the craft), As you can see, the image reveals two different kinds of alien:
I’d really like to collect that ten grand, but already I know what the answer would be. It’s sort of the mirror image of the $1 million James Randi challenge for proof of ESP or psychokinesis. Besides, how much more vague can one be with statements like:
IN ORDER TO MAKE YOUR CHALLENGE, YOU MUST PROVIDE DETAILED PROOF THAT THESE IMAGES ARE NOT REAL!
Real what?
This entry was posted
on Thursday, August 21st, 2008 at 12:21 am and is filed under Astronomy/Space, Beliefs, Humorous, UFOlogy, UFOs On Film, Videos, Wake Up Down There. You can follow responses via RSS 2.0 feed.
You can leave a response or trackback from your site.
del.icio.us Digg Reddit BlinkList Google Ma.gnolia StumbleUpon Technorati Yahoo! Help
- Related News Stories:
- Coming Tomorrow »
- Mac on Ufological Views »
- Tonnies on UFOs »
- Gorightly on Roswell »
- UFO Crash: Hawaii »
- Beyond UFOs »
- Darklore II »
- Fundamentalist Skeptics In The News »
- Art Bell Still The Best »
- What CSI(COP) Is About »
|
Aug 21 2008 
August 21st, 2008 at 5:26 am
The compendium of STS footage is certainly interesting, but I think this guy has a little too much David Sereda in his diet. The tether footage has the potential to mystify and leave people awe struck if they’re not careful, but in my opinion that particular piece of video is of such poor quality it’s almost like looking at a rorschach. Do you see flying doughnuts or “dropa stones”? If you ask me it’s nothing more than light reflecting debris and airy discs, as I understand them at least. As for the objects in question passing behind the tether, I think that much is unmistakable; it certainly appears that they are in the video, and I disagree with those who say otherwise (Edgar Mitchell). That event certainly does take place in the video based on what we can see, but whether it actually happened or not is another question. In my opinion it’s another illusion due to the poor quality of the film. The tether itself in the video seems to have a “bevel” of sorts along the right side of it. That’s more than just a small artifact.
As far as peculiar NASA footage goes I’m a bit more partial to the footage Dr. Jack Kasher likes to mention. We’ve all seen it I’m sure. Something appears to be fired from the bottom left of the screen post a bright flash, and darts at a slow moving object toward the upper middle of the screen. As a result the object takes off in the opposite direction before a collision could take place. I find that more interesting than the tether footage. The video quality doesn’t throw what took place into question, and an observable interaction takes place. The explanations thrown out there regarding that footage have all been bunk to me. It collided with debris or an ice particle? Oh it did? Then why did it take off in the other direction going faster than it was pre-collision? That disobeys the laws of physics.
And for your question, “Real what?”
Trolls of course! The one on the right looks like one I’ve seen on a dashboard before.
August 21st, 2008 at 10:34 am
I really can’t add much after the intelligent post of 111luminate, but only agree that the second image you include clearly illustrates the dangers of trying to find meaning and patterns in the artifacts produced by enhancing poor-quality videos.
On a side note Greg, I wanted to let you know I’m currently reading your Project Beta. Kudos sir for a really REALLY interesting and thorough journalistic investigation. Of course the text has created hundreds of questions in my head. For example, do we know if some of the staff working at Thunder Scientific was on the payroll of the AFOSI and/or the NSA to keep an eye (or something more) on Bennewitz?
And something else I can’t get my head around is, if Bennewitz was so convinced of the malevolent intentions of the Aliens (or “Alien” as he named them, maybe alluding to a collective/ hive mind species), then why o why did he wanted to chat and befriend them using his home-made equipment??
August 21st, 2008 at 10:43 am
111luminate,
I agree that there are far more interesting videos of anomalous objects from space missions. This one reminded me particularly of a book I have somewhere that takes lunar surface photos from the Apollo missions and “proves” that there is alien writing all over the place in the soil. As I remember, it sort of looks like graffiti, and the moon people (or whoever left it there) write in English on occasion.
August 21st, 2008 at 10:55 am
RPJ,
Perhaps if the objects appeared to be interacting with each other, or reacting to something offscreen, it might be more interesting.
Glad you’re enjoying the book. I never encountered anything to indicate that someone at Paul Bennewitz’ own company was keeping an eye on him. Since the building so close to Kirtland AFB (actually right near one of the main entrances) it would have been a simple task to watch him and others without their knowledge.
I’m not sure why he wanted to chat up the “aliens.” All I can remember is that anything he could find which supported his theories was pounced upon as proof, and I suppose that would include any supposed “enemy fraternization.” Maybe he thought that they were just dumb about this, or were so confident of victory that communicating with one human was no problem i.e.”Resistance Is Futile!”
August 21st, 2008 at 11:28 am
Dude,I’m not sure,but I think you won. Too bad this guy is a lunitic;)
August 21st, 2008 at 11:47 am
One of the two new “UFO Hunters” television programs, dedicated to the topic of whether NASA had knowledge of UFOs, had an extended segment on this footage. Between an individual who has built an exact replica of the shuttle cockpit to a scientist trained in optics, all of the effects seen in the video are not only explained, but duplicated, enough to achieve consensus among even UFO true believers that the tape does not show UFOs. You are exactly right about the optics of the camera being the cause of the shape… the scientist was able to take objects of different shapes and show how all were captured as a round shape on the test camera they used. I think you should submit a copy of the program then ask for your ten grand.
Meanwhile, on the same program, the other famous footage from another shuttle flight where we see a moving object change course 45 degrees just in time to avoid another object, had at least one scientist convinced it was not natural phenomena, but it’s this one this guy is promoting… sigh…
August 21st, 2008 at 12:13 pm
Looks like “Winfree turbulence” to me: Professor Art Winfree discovered the secret of self-sustaining excitable media as torus scroll rings. Winfree argues in his book “When Time Breaks Down” (1987): The math is intractable since it’s quantum chaos, relying on the same discrete “noise” that this computer enhancement produces. I recommend his section titled, “Transmutation,” p. 239 which leads to “Vortex Atoms and Cosmic Strings.” He’s carrying on Fort’s great tradition of teleporting whirlwinds:
“These tubes of ‘false vacuum’ are supposed to form closed rings, possibly interlinked and knotted, occasionally colliding and reconnecting much as do the singular filaments of excitable media.” (p. 245)
“Each kind of organizing center is woven in its own distinctive way from fibers of phase singularity, as though from the funnels of chemical tornados.” (p. 246)
August 21st, 2008 at 2:31 pm
Well, as someone who is sick of hearing skeptical dogmatists constantly bring up Randi’s challenge as the final retort whenever they’ve lost an argument I’m happy to see this. The Daily Grail did a fantastic expose on Randi’s challenge. It’s a total crock with tons of outs. I bet this challenge is the same as is Victor Zamit’s challenge.
August 22nd, 2008 at 8:44 pm
This whole thing looks like just another stupid joke to me.
Logically speaking, since absolutely no proof was given to demonstrate that the photographs show any evidence of artificial, intelligently controlled objects, therefore there is nothing to disprove where nothing has been proven to start with.
If the person who offered this so-called challenge does not even know how to give a proper proof or recognize faulty logic in their methodology, how in the world are they ever going to be in a position to recognize a proper disproof when they see it?
August 25th, 2008 at 9:33 pm
alcalde,
Yes, I’ve seen that other segment. The object moves in a strange way, but that’s about all you can say about it. Theories have been advanced about booster rockets firing, etc. but nothing conclusive as far as I know. Bascially it leaves us with nothing again!
August 25th, 2008 at 9:36 pm
Drew,
The “toruslike” shapes are due to the physical properties of the camera optics, so I don’t see how your comment relates to anything in the post.
August 25th, 2008 at 9:39 pm
Ben,
Yeah, Randi’s challenge is based on his own proof, not peer-reviewed proof. “Experiment until you get the results you want, and massage the data until it does” is his (and to some extent, CSICOP’s) guiding philosophy.
August 25th, 2008 at 9:41 pm
The Sage,
I hope it’s not a joke, because that would make it much funnier, and even if it is, someone who takes it seriously is going to have to jump through so many hoops for that elusive 10 grand that they will become the joke.