FWD: (IUFO) UFO-botsing boven Israel bevestigd
- Hallo allemaal,
Zo'n eerste bijdrage aan deze glimmend nieuwe mailing list moet
natuurlijk wel een goeie zijn. Via via afkomstig van IUFO.
ISRAELI MID-AIR UFO EXPLOSION ANALYZED- IT'S THE REAL THING
by Barry Chamish
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
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
TEXT OF THE MUFON REPORT:
Date: Tue, 19 Jan 1999 23:39:44 -0800
From: Jeff Sainio <jsainio@...>
Subject: my report
I left out the stills from the video, as you've already seen them.
The paper copy has already been sent.
Rosh Haayin, central Israel
Events as reported to me from Barry Chamish (chamish@...):
`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
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.
MUFON Staff Photoanalyst
7206 W. Wabash
Milwaukee WI 53223-2609