From fw-nx@... Sat Nov 01 14:02:34 2003 Return-Path: X-Sender: fw-nx@... X-Apparently-To: mysterylights@yahoogroups.com Received: (qmail 99435 invoked from network); 1 Nov 2003 22:02:33 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.218) by m5.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 1 Nov 2003 22:02:33 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO smtpzilla1.xs4all.nl) (194.109.127.137) by mta3.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 1 Nov 2003 22:02:33 -0000 Received: from tm616316 (213-84-215-93.adsl.xs4all.nl [213.84.215.93]) by smtpzilla1.xs4all.nl (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id hA1M2PQe057457 for ; Sat, 1 Nov 2003 23:02:27 +0100 (CET) Date: Sat, 01 Nov 2003 23:02:14 +0100 To: mysterylights@yahoogroups.com Subject: Analysis of A Photograph of A High Speed Ball of Light Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=utf-8 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Message-ID: User-Agent: Opera7.21/Win32 M2 build 3218 From: Frits Westra Reply-To: fw-nx@... X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=162873989 X-Yahoo-Profile: parodynl NARCAP Technical Report - 7 Analysis of A Photograph of A High Speed Ball of Light Richard F. Haines Copyright 2003 http://www.narcap.org/REPORTS/TR7.htm Abstract This pilot sighting report and color photograph of an unidentified aerial phenomena (UAP) called for a number of different forensic methods including photo-analysis, aircraft window study, camera-lens-film analyses, and evaluation of reporter credibility. The single frame, Kodak color, copy negative was submitted for examination by one of the several eye-witnesses. This paper describes the results of these analyses. It is concluded that: (1) whatever the UAP was it was probably in sub-sonic flight. If the UAP was travelling at subsonic speed the estimated total sighting duration and/or its estimated distance from the witness are clearly in error by a factor of two or more, (2) no evidence of a hoax or double exposure was found nor were any bolides, meteorites, or other unidentified aerial phenomena reported for that time and place, (3) the luminance of the main body of the object and immediately adjacent tail area were so high they fully saturated (exposed) the relatively “slow” film. This may explain why the photograph does not correspond closely to what was seen, (4) the film’s optical density, as measured along the length of the white tail behind the UAP, changed in a peculiar fashion and is not characteristic of reflected sunlight off water droplet vapor, and (5) interesting micro-details were discovered that suggest the possibility of some type of energy emissions extending from the UAP but not necessarily in the direction of its flight. The nature of the UAP and constitution of its atmospheric trail remains unknown at this time. --[View full report with pics at above URL]------