Solid light beams (Bill Chalker, Michael Swords, and Ray Stanford)

[Constance]

Three researchers working on solid light beam sightings. Long and very interesting article. Here are some snippets:

Bill Chalker: "A striking example of this is the fascinating 1960 Red Bluff California case where official attitudes caused a UFO witness, a highway patrol officer, to not initially describe the “light beam projected by the object seemed like what would be described today, as a big, fat laser beam. That is, it did not spread out or diffuse “properly.” But worse than that, the beam seemed to have an “end" to it,” wrote Mike Swords. Here was a remarkable example of what many researchers have called “solid light” in action. In writing this Dr. Swords touched upon a critical issue. He highlighted that Dr. James McDonald did manage to draw out this remarkable detail, because he was actually interested in what the witnesses reported, rather than conducting a myopic debunking exercise. Genuine scientific skepticism, driven by a desire to question and carefully investigate an experience can potentially yield scientific breakthroughs. We now know that there are many such cases of “this peculiar sawed-off light” or “solid light.”

Indeed Michael Sword’s indicated in an endnote in “UFOs and Government” that “sawed-off light” cases are “a peculiar feature of a smallish set of “high strangeness” UFO encounters. As these encounters are widely spread across the world, this feature is suprising and difficult to explain on sociological grounds.” He indicated he had some 44 cases in his own files.

I had been studying these sorts of “solid light” cases for decades so I naturally contacted Mike about his collection."


Michael Swords:
“Bill Chalker wrote the other day. He's contemplating making a review of so-called "solid light" UFO cases, and I welcome that. Bill's a hard-science-trained ufologist and might just be able to make some sense of a real puzzlement in this field. He asked me if I'd scour my files for such cases [since I'd foolishly admitted to having around 44 of such things], and so I did, making a list for him to pursue and build his analysis more robustly [Bill already had a bigger bunch than that].”

Mike further stated, “In my understanding the term "solid light" came from witness testimony--- the light beam seemed "solid"; it was as if the beam extended like a solid tube, etc. This phrase stuck but is probably a bad one. The light effects that we're witnessing in these cases behave not like solids but like "regular" light which is abnormally "contained" somehow. Things don't seem to be "impacted" by these beams, only illuminated by them. The things [generally] seem to be more like spatially-constrained lasers [admittedly of wide diameter] than anything solid, and might well be more like tubes [i.e. hollow] than "full" beams.”


Chalker: "This strange affair has several defined stages, but the evident discontinuities in awareness, argue both for a surreal, dream like quality and also reflect the paradoxical reality of some of the stranger elements of the UFO phenomenon. The extraordinary behaviour of the "light beams" behaving as both "solid" and "liquid" has been reported elsewhere in Australia and overseas. The apparent display quality to episodes in the incident is reflected in many cases. There seems to have been a number of gaps in the time sequence. The apparent plight of the people on the beach is provocative, and one I am trying to unravel. This is clearly a case that would benefit from further in depth enquiry."


"The ongoing investigation has continued to energise my interest in solid light cases and I have been attempting to drag all my solid light cases together with a view to create a catalogue of such cases, building on the early SOBEPS catalogue of the 1970s.

“I was also intrigued with a UFO film taken by Ray Stanford, covered in Chris Lambright's recent e-book "X Descending". Because I had some previous contact with Ray back in the 1970s and early 1980s and talked to him briefly at the 1987 Washington DC MUFON symposium, I renewed our acquaintance. This lead to some extensive email exchanges in which he elaborated on the "new film", beyond the "air spike"/Leik Myrabo connection which Chris has understandably focused on.

“Instead I focused on a different part of the same footage which appears to show a "solid light" projection event."


“Apart from many other cases I was also drawn towards a Chinese event I located that occurred in 1998 at a desert Air Force base, involving a Chinese Air Force F-6 pursuit. The possibly striking confirmation of Zhao Xu, who is described as a famous Chinese Defence expert in unmanned aircraft, as one of the various high level witnesses, who mentioned "Surprisingly these two light beams of light were not as we normally see light beams, as has been according to the distance and spread, but as two light-emitting entities, sticking out from the bottom of the UFO ending on a certain length. At least today we have not got control of this sort of light technology." Radar detection was also involved. Given this comment was made by a defence specialist* I suspect some Chinese military science investigation and research since then.


"Now Jun Chen of Fudan University in Shanghai, China, and colleagues, have shown that it is possible to create exotic beams that would pull rather than push on an object. For tiny particles with dimensions of a thousandth of a millimetre or so, this would result in the particle being drawn back towards the beam.

Hmm ... I wonder what inspired them? Perhaps the Zhao Xu and General Li 1998 UFO observation? Seems to me that maybe someone within our more clandestine scientific community is already trawling through "solid light" UFO cases?

The wider worldwide picture of “solid light” type cases appear to suggest that such events are a valid part of the UFO phenomenon. I look forward to contributing to the elaboration of our understanding of this fascinating aspect of the UFO mystery."


SCIENCE and the UFO CONTROVERSY

 

[Heidi Lemmer]

Attempted to transcribe this from an interview http://www.blogtalkradio.com/memphisufo.rss Dec 28,2011
interview with Stanford.

He's describing one event which includes a beam of light:
"Just before it would pulse you would see on the film a ball of light build up and there would be this ball of light and all of a sudden, boom, it becomes a column of plasma, we're not talking about a laser, here's how we know. At one point, just before the object rotated around 90 degrees and started going vertically, it has this plasma beam to the right, two bright blue seemingly plasma thrusts fired off the bottom of the mothership and it started rising and you see the plasma beam stay with it. It's pushing plasma along but it becomes curved because it's out there where it was before, now when it moves up, however, it continues, so it proved it's not a laser beam illuminating the atmosphere, it's evidence that it's an actual plasma beam coming out of the area of the so called mothership and being conducted out this column, an it has it's own plasma confinement due to the high energy emission. "

 

[Heidi Lemmer]

This listing starts off saying

" In these cases we have no physical changes of the water" http://www.waterufo.net/beanoflight.php
This is a description I see often.

 

[Heidi Lemmer]

Also at this sight http://www.auforn.com/Simon_Harvey-Wilson_6.htm "The obvious suggestion is that these UFO light beams are just spotlights, like those on police helicopters. However, they are sometimes described as extending or retracting slowly, whereas the light from a searchlight beam always projects at the speed of light, which at about one billion kilometres per hour, is unlikely to be described as 'slow' by any human witness. This suggests we are dealing with something more complicated than spotlights" which lends to the description of Stanfords detailed analysis of what the beam does while being filmed.

 

[Heidi Lemmer]

Another , Robert L. Schroeder, author of “Solving the UFO Enigma: How Modern Physics is Revealing the Technology of UFOs"

"Schroeder’s ultimate goal is to use concepts from modern physics to explain the technology behind UFOs and to understand how beings from outer space could be entering Earth’s atmosphere. His interests are twofold: first, he aims to understand cutting-edge physics theories, which, if proved, would provide convincing evidence for his ideas. Second, he hopes to stimulate interest among experts who could gather spectrographic data and radiation data from UFO encounters.
Two of the main theories that he hopes will be proven are M-theory and Warped Geometry. Basically, M-theory is a theory in which the world has 11 dimensions and our universe lies on a four-dimensional space-time membrane. Parallel to this membrane lies another membrane. According to another important theory, Warped Geometry, gravitons (gravity particles) tend toward this other membrane. This makes gravity much stronger in the space between the membranes or “the bulk.” Schroeder is optimistic that research being conducted at the Large Hadron Collider at CERN will prove these theories soon.
“This is the first time that science may be able to explain the physics of UFOs,” said Schroeder In his presentation, he explained a few common observations about UFO sightings and how they may be explained with modern physics.”
First, UFOs appear to have magnetic fields. Many people have reported wildly spinning compasses in the presence of UFOs. Schroeder believes that Kaluza-Klein gravitons, a type of particle that is thought to exist, create micro black holes around the UFO, giving it a magnetic field.
Second, UFO reports from around the world have described discs with an “attractive gravity.” In other words, objects and even bodies of water are actually drawn toward the UFO. Schroeder feels this can also be explained by Kaluza-Klein gravitons, which would attract objects with a gravity of their own.
Third, Schroeder points to the observations of Paul Hill, a NASA scientist in the 1950s and 60s. Hill observed that there was evidence of gamma rays, x-rays and high frequency light emissions around UFOs. Schroeder explains that the decay of the aforementioned micro black holes would cause Hawking Radiation to be emitted.
Next, many people who have spotted UFOs describe partial or complete transparency. This could be explained because the UFO could be leaving our membrane and traveling through the bulk, resulting in transparency as it disappears.
Finally, one of the most enduring images of UFOs is that of a floating orb. How exactly do they float? Schroeder thinks that the micro black hole decay is emitted in the form of non-gravity particles onto our membrane. This would make it so that graviton exchange between the Earth and the craft would not occur, thus rendering the UFO “anti-gravitational.”
The Towers · Physics points to UFOs

 

[Burnt State]

I believe that the hallmarks of actual alien technology operating in our midsts should be more than just distant balls of light doing strange and impossible maneuvers (by our standards) on radar. Instead we should see really wild, magical elements such as X-Ray light beams, light tubes and then they should interact with us and our technology with utterly incredible, sci fi logic.

This former thread didn't get much action but it details another excellent light beam case, and what light beams can do, from 1973 - Onilson Papero's story.
Abduction Narratives with Alien Technology | The Paracast Community Forums

Light beams also were a central feature of the Brazilian Colares case where light was again doing incredible things indoors and people believed the light was sucking their blood. Light penetrating walls and ground are also a curiosity. Why do we not hear more about these examples of a very advanced, comparatively surreal, technology at work?

 

[Burnt State]

Also at this sight http://www.auforn.com/Simon_Harvey-Wilson_6.htm "The obvious suggestion is that these UFO light beams are just spotlights, like those on police helicopters. However, they are sometimes described as extending or retracting slowly, whereas the light from a searchlight beam always projects at the speed of light, which at about one billion kilometres per hour, is unlikely to be described as 'slow' by any human witness. This suggests we are dealing with something more complicated than spotlights" which lends to the description of Stanfords detailed analysis of what the beam does while being filmed.

This is interesting content here as it brings together a number of threads and instructive as well, as buried in the middle of the discussion is Corso and Buff Ledge - both known hoaxed material. However, these stories repeat online unchallenged and worm their way back into ufo discussion over and over again as that's the way ufology rolls.

 

[Heidi Lemmer]

Although this is more an overall analysis of the energy from the craft it's very detailed http://www.hyper.net/ufo/physics.html

"To the degree that the engineering characteristics of UFOs can be estimated by empirical observation, in this reviewer's opinion the above-referenced, recently-published book by Paul Hill provides the most reliable, concise summary of engineering-type data available.1 The data were compiled over decades of research by a Chief Scientist-Manager at NASA Langley Research Center2 who acted as an informal clearinghouse for UFO-related data. The strength of the compilation lies in its thoughtful separation of wheat from chaff, and the analysis of the former into coherent patterns, including detailed calculations. Perhaps surprising to the casually interested, under careful examination the observations, rather than defying the laws of physics as naive interpretation might suggest, instead appear to be solidly commensurate with them, as the following discussion shows.

One of the most consistently-observed characteristics of UFO flight is a ubiquitous pattern in which they tilt to perform all maneuvers. Specifically, they sit level to hover, tilt forward to move forward, tilt backward to stop, bank to turn, and descend by "falling-leaf" or "silver-dollar-wobble" motions. Detailed analysis by Hill shows that such motion is inconsistent with aerodynamic requirements, but totally consistent with some form of repulsive force-field propulsion. Not satisfied with paper analyses alone, Hill arranged to have various forms of jet-supported and rotor-supported circular flying platforms built and tested. Hill himself acted as test pilot in early, originally-classified, versions, and found the above motions the most economical for control purposes. Pictures of these platforms are included in the text.

In an effort to examine the force-field propulsion hypothesis yet further, Hill analyzed a number of cases involving near-field interactions with an apparent craft in which some form of force was in evidence. These include examples in which a person or vehicle was affected, tree branches were parted or broken, roof tiles were dislodged, objects were deflected and ground or water were disturbed. Under close analysis the subtleties of these interactions combine to point unequivocally to a repulsive force field surrounding the craft, while discriminating against propulsion mechanisms involving jet action, pure electric or magnetic effects, or the emission of energetic particles or radiation (although the latter may accompany the propulsive mechanism as a secondary effect). Further detailed investigation indicates that the particular form of force field propulsion that satisfied observational constraints is what Hill labels a directed acceleration field; that is, a field that is, in general, gravitational-like in nature, and, in particular, gravity-canceling.3 Such a field acts on all masses in its sphere of influence as does a gravitational field. Corollary to this conclusion is that observed accelerations ~100g relative to the environment could be sustained without on-board high-g forces.

One of the consequences of the above identification of field propulsion type by Hill is his conclusion, supported by detailed calculation, computer simulation and wind-tunnel studies, that supersonic flight through the atmosphere without sonic booms is easily engineered. Manipulation of the acceleration-type force field would, even at supersonic speeds, result in a constant-pressure, compression-free zone without shockwave in which the vehicle is surrounded by a subsonic flow-pattern of streamlines, and subsonic velocity ratios. An additional benefit of such field control is that drops of moisture, rain, dust, insects, or other low-velocity objects would follow streamline paths around the craft rather than impact it.

Another puzzle resolved by Hill's analysis is that craft observed to travel continuously at Mach 4 or 5 do not appear to generate temperatures sufficiently high to be destructive to known materials. In other words, UFOs appear to prevent high aerodynamic heating rates rather than permitting a heating problem to arise, then surviving it with heat-resistant materials as is the case of the NASA Space Shuttle, whose surface temperatures can reach 1300°C. The resolution of this potential problem is shown by Hill to derive from the fact that the force-field control that results in the prevention of shockwave drag as discussed above is also effective in preventing aerodynamic heating. In effect the airflow approaches, then springs away from the craft, depositing no energy in the process.

A further example of the type of correlation that emerges from Hill's analytical approach is provided by an analysis of the economy of various flight-path profiles. It is shown that high-angle, high-acceleration departures on ballistic-arc trajectories with high-speed coast segments are more efficient than, for example, intermediate-level, horizontal-path trips, both in terms of required impulse-per-unit-mass and time-of-flight parameters. This he correlates with the observation that UFO departures are of the dramatically high-angle, high-acceleration type.

Also of interest is Hill's analysis of the spectra and intensity of an apparent plasma sheath surrounding such craft, the details of which correlate with what one would expect in terms of it being a secondary effect associated with the propulsion system; for example, a blue shift and intensity increase during a "power-up" phase, and the opposite during hover and landing maneuvers. An additional fine point that emerges from this analysis is resolution of the paradox that observation on a direct line-of-sight to a near part of the craft can reveal a metallic-like structure while the attempt to observe the outline of the craft, necessarily by an oblique line-of-sight, results in an indistinct blur. Analysis shows this to be a reasonable outcome of an expected re-absorption of reflected light by the surrounding plasma in the longer-length path associated with the more oblique view.

Another typical nugget of information is found in Hill's discussion of the results of the analysis of a possible UFO artifact, the famous Ubatuba magnesium fragments, claimed to have originated from an exploded unidentified craft near Ubatuba, Brazil. Laboratory analysis of the samples found the magnesium to be not only of exceptional purity, and anomalous in its trace composition of other elements, but 6.7% denser than ordinary pure magnesium, a figure well beyond the experimental error of the measurement. Hill's calculation shows that this observation can be accounted for by assuming that the sample contained only the pure isotope Mg-26, rather than the naturally-occurring distribution among isotopes Mg-24, Mg-25, and Mg-26. Since the only isotope separation on a significant scale in terrestrial manufacture is that of uranium, such a result must be considered at least anomalous, and possibly as evidence for extraterrestrial manufacture. (editor's note: a recent analysis of the "Ubatuba magnesium" can be found in Composition Analysis of the Brazil Magnesium by Peter Sturrock, JSE, 15, 69-95, 2001)

Additional calculations concerning the parameters of interstellar travel (including relativistic effects), and the energetics of such travel, have been performed and are included in tabular and graphical form. The wealth of material in these sections, along with discussion of the broad implications of this material, reveal the dedication and thoroughness of Hill's approach to his self-assigned task.

In the final analysis, one must conclude that Hill has assembled as good a case as can be made on the basis of presently available data that the observation of some "unconventional flying objects" is compatible with the presence of engineered platforms weighing in at something around 30 tons, which are capable of 100-g accelerations and 9000-mph speeds in the atmosphere. Perhaps more important for the technical reader, however, is Hill's supporting argumentation, based on solid analysis, that these platforms, although exhibiting the application of physics and engineering principles clearly beyond our present-day capabilities, do not appear to defy these principles in any fundamental way. "

H.E. Puthoff, Ph.D.
Institute for Advanced Studies at Austin
4030 W. Braker Lane, Ste. 300
Austin, TX 78759

 

[Open-Minded-Earthling]

Attempted to transcribe this from an interview http://www.blogtalkradio.com/memphisufo.rss Dec 28,2011
interview with Stanford.

He's describing one event which includes a beam of light:
"Just before it would pulse you would see on the film a ball of light build up and there would be this ball of light and all of a sudden, boom, it becomes a column of plasma, we're not talking about a laser, here's how we know. At one point, just before the object rotated around 90 degrees and started going vertically, it has this plasma beam to the right, two bright blue seemingly plasma thrusts fired off the bottom of the mothership and it started rising and you see the plasma beam stay with it. It's pushing plasma along but it becomes curved because it's out there where it was before, now when it moves up, however, it continues, so it proved it's not a laser beam illuminating the atmosphere, it's evidence that it's an actual plasma beam coming out of the area of the so called mothership and being conducted out this column, an it has it's own plasma confinement due to the high energy emission. "

This same "radio show" AND SAME EXAMPLE Heidi is using above just shows how incredibly outlandish and impossible some of Ray's claims are. When I learn someone claims the impossible, then I know something is wrong and fabricating stories and/or fraudulent claims or pure fantasy is at hand...

At the 26 minute mark Ray begins to discuss his sighting of a giant Mothership on his return from NYC. He is flying at 39,000 feet and he FILMS [this will be micro 8mm size] a Mothership that is between 50-150 miles away. He says their analysis showed this Mothership to be 14,000 feet long at an altitude of 100,000 feet.

This is BS. This is NOT possible. Why? There is NO WAY to get any decent resolution of such objects even 10 miles away! Now, Ray is talking about an object between 50-150 miles away AND 12 miles higher in altitude. There is NO WAY to resolve this object into any possible meaning or interpretation at that distance. It is impossible. It is well beyond the KNOWN specifications of the 8mm film to do this! Ray is engaging in falsehoods. [He did not even own his fancy Canon Super 8mm 10x film camera, because it was not even made in 1977.]

The HUMAN EYE also can NOT see much detail of an object that is 50-150 miles away even if it is 14,000 feet long. Also, Ray said these objects were at 100,000 feet in altitude [later in interview], and that is also well above cloud cover.

What Ray may be describing is high altitude sprites. Just search for images using those words: high altitude sprites

Not sure if this link will work:

sprites high in atmosphere - - Yahoo Image Search Results

Another HUGE problem with all of this is he says the film was taken during daylight too! Ray is either creating optical illusions through the lens, lens filter, and window optics on the plane, or he is filming some natural phenomena and twisting it into ET's Mothership with his "insane" [not sane] stories, imo. Or, he is hiding his pure fantasy fabrications and deceptions by not allowing anyone to independently analyze the film, and/or it is a hoax done by Ray with help from probable disinformation unidentified "special interests".

It's simply BS. Imo.

 

[Heidi Lemmer]

This same "radio show" AND SAME EXAMPLE Heidi is using above just shows how incredibly outlandish and impossible some of Ray's claims are. When I learn someone claims the impossible, then I know something is wrong and fabricating stories and/or fraudulent claims or pure fantasy is at hand...

At the 26 minute mark Ray begins to discuss his sighting of a giant Mothership on his return from NYC. He is flying at 39,000 feet and he FILMS [this will be micro 8mm size] a Mothership that is between 50-150 miles away. He says their analysis showed this Mothership to be 14,000 feet long at an altitude of 100,000 feet.

This is BS. This is NOT possible. Why? There is NO WAY to get any decent resolution of such objects even 10 miles away! Now, Ray is talking about an object between 50-150 miles away AND 12 miles higher in altitude. There is NO WAY to resolve this object into any possible meaning or interpretation at that distance. It is impossible. It is well beyond the KNOWN specifications of the 8mm film to do this! Ray is engaging in falsehoods. [He did not even own his fancy Canon Super 8mm 10x film camera, because it was not even made in 1977.]

The HUMAN EYE also can NOT see much detail of an object that is 50-150 miles away even if it is 14,000 feet long. Also, Ray said these objects were at 100,000 feet in altitude [later in interview], and that is also well above cloud cover.

What Ray may be describing is high altitude sprites. Just search for images using those words: high altitude sprites

Not sure if this link will work:

sprites high in atmosphere - - Yahoo Image Search Results

Another HUGE problem with all of this is he says the film was taken during daylight too! Ray is either creating optical illusions through the lens, lens filter, and window optics on the plane, or he is filming some natural phenomena and twisting it into ET's Mothership with his "insane" [not sane] stories, imo. Or, he is hiding his pure fantasy fabrications and deceptions by not allowing anyone to independently analyze the film, and/or it is a hoax done by Ray with help from probable disinformation unidentified "special interests".

It's simply BS. Imo.

I'm not going to argue Ray Stanford with you. I neither have the science education nor the camera/photo analysis education to debate the merits. The purpose of the description above was that it replicated what other scientists are studying regarding UFO's. And I also will not disregard someone who is considered credible by people I consider credible. I will not debate this either. So , I'm asking politely, get off my back on your issue with Ray Stanford. Following me around from thread to thread is the real B.S here.

 

[Open-Minded-Earthling]

I neither have the science education nor the camera/photo analysis education to debate the merits. The purpose of the description above was that it replicated what other scientists are studying regarding UFO's.

What other scientists? Are these people peer reviewed and respected within a known established science? The address reference you provided is a known location for UFO people to use that seems to be "science", but I don't think it is accepted science beyond the UFO community. It's an isolated group of UFO people not really considered legitimate within the "at large" scientific community on the topic of UFO's and atmospheric flight. That does not mean these people are stupid or have low IQ's. I'm only suggesting one needs to take a very cautious approach when considering whatever "science ideas" are being promoted from such an address location you provided. Especially, as you admit yourself that you're not a scientist either.

I'm not posting for your benefit Heidi. I post for other present and future readers here. If you happen to bring-up a subject I think needs some alternative viewpoints, then I will do it. I provide evidence for my ideas. I do have the photography background to comment with some authority about it, but I'm not posting that information for you! I'm not trying to debate that with you. I know both you and Constance post for reasons that do not match what I think, but there is room for everyone here whether we agree or not.

Btw, the photography information I"ve posted is not difficult to understand. I've given youtube examples you can just watch with your own eyes that make my points for me. You don't need anything more than eyesight to judge for yourself.

Now, here is some more technical information someone else [obviously not meant for you Heidi] that may also be interested in about the resolution of Super 8mm film. I will post the formula in another thread topic I will be starting about this subject, but this is interesting...

[The information below is sourced online and is subject to corrections, and I've modified the wording and numbers to be more accurate as best I can. Any mistakes will hopefully be found and corrected by someone. Thanks for double checking...]

You can convert anything to HD level, but it just means that you convert the grain & the washout color to higher resolution with absolutely no gain in quality.

Beside film resolution, it also depends on the contrast level of exposure on the film emulsion that affect the resolving power, along with camera lenses quality, processing chemicals, and digital conversion.

Kodachrome resolving power is typically between 40~80 lp/mm (line pairs per millimeter for low contrast to high contrast) for typical conditions.

Line pairs aren't the same as pixels but for comparison sake we will stick to the standard 2 pixels per line pair.

HDTV is 1920 x 1080 = 2073600 pixels

Kodachrome at 80 lp/mm, (5.79mm * 80 * 2) x (4.01mm * 80 * 2) = 926 x 642 = 594492 pixels

Kodachrome at 40 lp/mm, (5.79mm * 40 * 2) x (4.01mm * 40 * 2) = 463 x 321 = 148623 pixels

[These Super 8mm film dimensions above are only the size of the actual film image exposure surface measurements only! It is not including the entire surface area that is NOT exposed. Only the exposed image surface area should be calculated. Source from Wiki online.]

In real world tests with the best of lenses & chemicals that were used to test the actual resolving power for Kodachrome is somewhere around 40~80 lp/mm. (Anyone know differently?) Therefore HDTV format grain is at least 3.5 to 14 x the quality of Super 8 mm format, and the sharpness of digital over that of film is unparalleled, and so is the superb color of digital.

HD 1920 x 1080 can be about 14 times the resolution of Super 8mm with typically much sharper image focus and a far more accurate and beautiful color range.

 

[Heidi Lemmer]

What other scientists? Are these people peer reviewed and respected within a known established science? The address reference you provided is a known location for UFO people to use that seems to be "science", but I don't think it is accepted science beyond the UFO community. It's an isolated group of UFO people not really considered legitimate within the "at large" scientific community on the topic of UFO's and atmospheric flight. That does not mean these people are stupid or have low IQ's. I'm only suggesting one needs to take a very cautious approach when considering whatever "science ideas" are being promoted from such an address location you provided. Especially, as you admit yourself that you're not a scientist either.

I'm not posting for your benefit Heidi. I post for other present and future readers here. If you happen to bring-up a subject I think needs some alternative viewpoints, then I will do it. I provide evidence for my ideas. I do have the photography background to comment with some authority about it, but I'm not posting that information for you! I'm not trying to debate that with you. I know both you and Constance post for reasons that do not match what I think, but there is room for everyone here whether we agree or not.

Btw, the photography information I"ve posted is not difficult to understand. I've given youtube examples you can just watch with your own eyes that make my points for me. You don't need anything more than eyesight to judge for yourself.

Now, here is some more technical information someone else [obviously not meant for you Heidi] that may also be interested in about the resolution of Super 8mm film. I will post the formula in another thread topic I will be starting about this subject, but this is interesting...

[The information below is sourced online and is subject to corrections, and I've modified the wording and numbers to be more accurate as best I can. Any mistakes will hopefully be found and corrected by someone. Thanks for double checking...]

You can convert anything to HD level, but it just means that you convert the grain & the washout color to higher resolution with absolutely no gain in quality.

Beside film resolution, it also depends on the contrast level of exposure on the film emulsion that affect the resolving power, along with camera lenses quality, processing chemicals, and digital conversion.

Kodachrome resolving power is typically between 40~80 lp/mm (line pairs per millimeter for low contrast to high contrast) for typical conditions.

Line pairs aren't the same as pixels but for comparison sake we will stick to the standard 2 pixels per line pair.

HDTV is 1920 x 1080 = 2073600 pixels

Kodachrome at 80 lp/mm, (5.79mm * 80 * 2) x (4.01mm * 80 * 2) = 926 x 642 = 594492 pixels

Kodachrome at 40 lp/mm, (5.79mm * 40 * 2) x (4.01mm * 40 * 2) = 463 x 321 = 148623 pixels

[These Super 8mm film dimensions above are only the size of the actual film image exposure surface measurements only! It is not including the entire surface area that is NOT exposed. Only the exposed image surface area should be calculated. Source from Wiki online.]

In real world tests with the best of lenses & chemicals that were used to test the actual resolving power for Kodachrome is somewhere around 40~80 lp/mm. (Anyone know differently?) Therefore HDTV format grain is at least 3.5 to 14 x the quality of Super 8 mm format, and the sharpness of digital over that of film is unparalleled, and so is the superb color of digital.

HD 1920 x 1080 can be about 14 times the resolution of Super 8mm with typically much sharper image focus and a far more accurate and beautiful color range.

I'm sorry but I don't know who you are. You claim to have these various subjects studied and grasped and yet in the James Fox thread refer to Wikipedia as your source for camera related info. That's nice.....except I'd rather consider a man's 50 plus years as a researcher in the field more valuable than an anonymous poster. This thread is about light beams. My post was a description by Mr. Stanford on what that light could be. And yet you follow over to this thread to present another case, quoting from me, as your basis to slam Stanford once again. You say you'd like to educate everyone here. That's nice. I feel so lucky to have your special kind of knowledge, to be saved, to watch everyone else BE SAVED!!!! You have an agenda here. Maybe others have noticed it, maybe not. I'm not sure if anything can really be done seeing as how you started as another name and then switched to this name. There's really nothing to prevent you from getting the next name. There's something wrong here. I've considered taking my toys and going home.....is this really all that interesting when along you come spamming your diatribe over every thread? Not really.

 

[Christopher O'Brien]

Good job dissecting our stalker Heidi! If a poster is unwilling to state who they are—especially someone so rabid and obviously agenda-driven w/ their posts and changing personas—I don't care what they say or what they post: IMO they exemplify the problem and are not to be taken seriously. At least not by me...
FWIW: I really don't want to get involved here. Ray has his own agenda, i.e., presenting his analysis of his purported "data" to scientists from appropriate disciplines who might gain new insight from a new X-Ray perspective.
I don't believe any of this! Nada. As far as I'm concerned, this whole area of inquiry is nothing but egos, posturing and attempted one-upmanship. It's all a bunch of BS! Data talks and all the BS walks off the frickin plank. As soon as someone comes up w/ the hard, scientific goods, then I'll REALLY pay attention. In the meantime, I'm keeping my eye on several individuals (and a couple of groups) that seem to be on the right track. Ray is near the top of my list. Sorry if you think I'm a devote, it's your personal problem and you'll find a way to deal with it.

Is there some part of this that you do not understand? Oh good — I thought so...

 

[boomerang]

The seemingly solid beam or cone of light is one of those recurrently observed aspects of the UFO experience, like missing time, feelings of unnaturally quiet surroundings etc. I wish we could find a way of compiling a list of these, as there are so few constants in general and the ones we have are especially intriguing.

 

[Open-Minded-Earthling]

The seemingly solid beam or cone of light is one of those recurrently observed aspects of the UFO experience, like missing time, feelings of unnaturally quiet surroundings etc. I wish we could find a way of compiling a list of these, as there are so few constants in general and the ones we have are especially intriguing.

Stanford is giving a description of something that is 50-150 miles away through an airplane window. Its maximum length, Ray claims, is about 14,000 feet long. We're not told the width of this "MotherShip". It's also another 12 miles higher than the airplane at 100,000 feet in altitude. All that information is "accurate" [according to Stanford] in that it comes from Ray's own mouth about this exact 'same event' you're discussing when including Heidi's quote of Ray's description.

Do you think the Human Eye can see all these details in daylight that far away?

 

[Open-Minded-Earthling]

I'm sorry but I don't know who you are. You claim to have these various subjects studied and grasped and yet in the James Fox thread refer to Wikipedia as your source for camera related info. [...]

The Super 8mm vs digital conversion information came from several other experts at photography and video forums. I'm confident the information is accurate enough for the purposes and meaning given in my posts about it. I've asked anyone to double-check the numbers and offer corrections too! Be my guest... Lol.

The Wiki source was 'only' for the actual exposure image size measurements, because someone had found an excellent graphic that shows the dimensions accurately of the actual exposed surface measurements. I don't think someone is forging or lying about this, but you can believe whatever you want about it.

I gave three Super 8mm examples from youtube, and two are with better film cameras than what Ray had in 1977. The rocket launch is probably with a film camera nearing the quality of what Ray had used. These are simply see with your own eyes proofs. You don't need any technical skills to use your eyes. Just look and see!

I do have the darkroom photographic experience to know what can be done with color and black and white on a film size that is 37 times LARGER than the exposed surface area of the Super 8mm film size. That's what is typically known as a 35mm camera. Many professional photographers use this same type of camera.

Yeah, I KNOW what I'm talking about considering I own a Super 8mm camera too, and I own the projector and display screen too. I have dozens of reels of this same film type, so I personally know what this film is all about.

You don't seem to have any experience with photography, analog or digital, but you're going out of your way to be critical of my knowledge. Interesting.

Here is the Wiki information I used:

File:8mm and super8.png - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The reason I posted this information to this thread to begin with is I don't think it is plausible for anyone to film [Super 8mm] and see MotherShips in the precise details described that are 50-150 miles away PLUS another 12 miles higher in altitude. I've given "my proof", and so any reader can decide for themselves by researching this subject further. I suggest just simply start by watching the 3 youtube videos.

The 3 videos can be found here:

James Fox | Page 2 | The Paracast Community Forums

Someone else thinks I may be onto something...

Generally speaking, the ability of an 8mm emulsion frame to record fine detail is going to stink.

At 50-150 miles away it is worthless crap. Gibberish. Drivel. Even if it is 14,000 feet long. This is far worse than seeing a Mirage in the Desert. Ray Stanford is one of the Mirage Men. Seems he does much better in the visible realm seeing dinosaur tracks within normal eyesight range. All my firm opinion. It's debatable I'm sure.

 

[Open-Minded-Earthling]

I won't be responding to anymore personal attacks on this thread. IF you've got some information about Human Eyesight seeing small and larger sized objects at 50-150 miles away, then go for it. Same goes for analyzing the Super 8mm film too. Otherwise, I won't be back to post here anytime soon, so Heidi and Constance can fill-in whatever posts they want to add without any interruptions from me.

FWIW: I really don't want to get involved here. Ray has his own agenda, i.e., presenting his analysis of his purported "data" to scientists from appropriate disciplines who might gain new insight from a new X-Ray perspective.
I don't believe any of this! Nada. As far as I'm concerned, this whole area of inquiry is nothing but egos, posturing and attempted one-upmanship. It's all a bunch of BS! Data talks and all the BS walks off the frickin plank. As soon as someone comes up w/ the hard, scientific goods, then I'll REALLY pay attention.

Chris, you've gone on the attack personally, so it's only fair that I can respond.

Maybe you need to pay attention to your good friend Tracy Torme. I do not think Tracy is ego driven. He's not trying to one-up Ray Stanford. He tried to work with Ray, but he said if Ray has anything to do with the 701 movie... He's out!

I respect Tracy Torme, and I certainly agree with his opinions about Ray. I stand on Tracy's side, so we know where we stand. It's no surprise you want to color this your way, but I'm just in lockstep with Tracy Torme on this one. Thank the ET God's Tracy Torme is smart enough to smell the stink all over this "chosen one" and eject Ray Stanford to not have anything to do with the 701 movie despite serious and lengthy attempts to work with Ray through James Fox too!

People should definitely listen to this interview with Tracy Torme. Just go to the 10 minute mark and listen for the next 7 minutes. It's a fantastic interview, and you'll learn all about the upcoming 701 movie too.

Direct audio download here of Tracy Torme with Dark Matters Radio and Decker:

Torme will be on DMR | The Paracast Community Forums


I'm out of this thread for now. Too much personal attacking with the typical ZERO evidence to refute or disprove or debate what I've posted here about the extreme limitations of Super 8mm and Human Eyesight at the 50-150 mile range seeing details of a 14,000 foot long "mothership" or the much smaller triangles "flying" into the Mothership too.

Btw, the film camera could not possibly even resolve and show such small triangle shaped aircraft at that 50-150 mile range and 12 miles higher into the atmosphere at 100,000 feet. No way in hellfire except inside Ray's hellfire. Imo.

 

[Heidi Lemmer]

I won't be responding to anymore personal attacks on this thread. IF you've got some information about Human Eyesight seeing small and larger sized objects at 50-150 miles away, then go for it. Same goes for analyzing the Super 8mm film too. Otherwise, I won't be back to post here anytime soon, so Heidi and Constance can fill-in whatever posts they want to add without any interruptions from me.

Chris, you've gone on the attack personally, so it's only fair that I can respond.

Maybe you need to pay attention to your good friend Tracy Torme. I do not think Tracy is ego driven. He's not trying to one-up Ray Stanford. He tried to work with Ray, but he said if Ray has anything to do with the 701 movie... He's out!

I respect Tracy Torme, and I certainly agree with his opinions about Ray. I stand on Tracy's side, so we know where we stand. It's no surprise you want to color this your way, but I'm just in lockstep with Tracy Torme on this one. Thank the ET God's Tracy Torme is smart enough to smell the stink all over this "chosen one" and eject Ray Stanford to not have anything to do with the 701 movie despite serious and lengthy attempts to work with Ray through James Fox too!

People should definitely listen to this interview with Tracy Torme. Just go to the 10 minute mark and listen for the next 7 minutes. It's a fantastic interview, and you'll learn all about the upcoming 701 movie too.

Direct audio download here of Tracy Torme with Dark Matters Radio and Decker:


I'm out of this thread for now. Too much personal attacking with the typical ZERO evidence to refute or disprove or debate what I've posted here about the extreme limitations of Super 8mm and Human Eyesight at the 50-150 mile range seeing details of a 14,000 foot long "mothership" or the much smaller triangles "flying" into the Mothership too.

Btw, the film camera could not possibly even resolve and show such small triangle shaped aircraft at that 50-150 mile range and 12 miles higher into the atmosphere at 100,000 feet. No way in hellfire except inside Ray's hellfire. Imo.

Your getting "personally" called out because your a balls out liar, especially as your former name DissectionStalker. You also get into frenzied fruit loop spamming where you can't just state your opinion once but instead spam every thread. You write comments stated as fact and then later soften it to opinion and when your really in a "state" you use all caps as though you've become one with your keyboard. We as bloggers here have a right to know why conversations take on this "agenda" driven atmosphere and basically yank a good discussion into the realm of "OME." For other viewers, they can look up these cases themselves, but by the time you get done with someone you've thoroughly attempted to discredit them in a shoddy, at best, attempt, while only repeating parts of a story that work to shore up what you believe. That's common in debates but it's not credible. I can't tell you or anyone here that Stanford is credible or not. All I have to go on are others in the field that have seen his work and find it credible. It's , I assume, what's kept many in the field from commenting because they don't know either. For example, in the case you have dropped off here, unrelated to what we were discussing, you left out the fact that Ray took this film to the American Institure of Avionics Sub Committee at Cal Tech where 11 phd's analyzed it and came up with the estimates of distance. He didn't stop there, he then had several physicists look it over. So, having said that mouth full I'm not idiot enough to debate the veracity of Ray's claims, but hell, you are.
As to the Tracy Torme spat with Stanford, Chris responded in the After the Paracast portion of the show. Given where he's at right now that should be enough for all of us. Couple of things I thought we're interesting about the Torme interview. 701 will be part fictional/ part documentary. Can't see Stanford relinquishing his work under that heading. Second, Fox spent five days with Stanford. Stanford assisted him in shoring up his work on the Socorro case by going to the National Archives. That case is part of their documentary. And, although I'm too lazy to look it up, Fox did an Interview here that stated he was blown away by Ray's footage. As to the actual spat Torme and Stanford had, who gives a shit. Stanford's known to blow his fuse, ? and? That's the thing about your fruit loopy mind, you jumped all over this as validation that the guys nuts, has nothing, blah blah. Really?

 

[Heidi Lemmer]

Another thing worth mentioning that you fail to mention. Chris helped organize a conference in 2007 (?) with a hand picked guest list of I believe 150 people that watched a power point lecture from Stanford. I can't seem to find out anything on it on the net but what I didn't find, which is just as telling, is a lot of negative reviews. That's called 2 +2 thinking. Granted it's all I have but it's a start to pay attention. Also, back in last weeks threads, or was it the week before?, where I innocently stated the book I read by Chris Lambright, you remember, right? That was the book where Lambright spent several years researching the correlation between a Myrabo and Stanford's work. In one fell swoop you decided that Lambrights work had to be pure shit, made up, government dis-info and that Myrabo was clearly not credible, leaving the field having solved nothing. Wow. You spattered that nonsense everywhere. When you wrote that crap all I kept thinking about was the human aspect to all this, what would Lambright think about idiot's like you who spammed his name like that all over these threads? Naw, sorry bud, you don't deserve respect. You don't give it. In fact your an embarrassment here on this site. I also think it's very telling when you can't bother to read a book that you then spend the next week telling everyone is pure shit. So again, what's your agenda here?

 

[Open-Minded-Earthling]

And, although I'm too lazy to look it up, Fox did an Interview here that stated he was blown away by Ray's footage.

Oh no, not true, on the Paracast James Fox said he saw NO footage of that Super 8mm film. He was only allowed to see 2nd hand computer generated Still Images of the Super 8mm film he was questioned about.

As to the actual spat Torme and Stanford had, who gives a shit. Stanford's known to blow his fuse, ? and? That's the thing about your fruit loopy mind, you jumped all over this as validation that the guys nuts, has nothing, blah blah. Really?

Oh no, Tracy says Ray's got "nothing". It just "evaporates". As in nada, nothing real, but you're a believer. So. Hint, hint, I think Tracy has gotten the rundown directly from James Fox. They are partners and no doubt had a lot of discussions about Ray.

I know a lot about what Ray says he's got. It's sooo far "out there" it comes across as someone that is not sane with regard to his motherships and all kinds of other ufo encounters.

Jim Moseley wrote a book with Ray Stanford in it. Jim Moseley was on the Paracast many times. You do know Jim was a very good and trusted friend of Gene's over many decades too? I think Gene thinks very highly of Jim Moseley and respects his opinions too. He's been exposing these fraud or trickster artists, imo, just like he did with Ray here in a chapter titled:

Another Crackpot in the Ufological Pantry

Shockingly Close to the Truth: Confessions of a Grave-Robbing Ufologist - James W. Moseley, Karl T. Pflock - Google Books

It's from Jim Moseley's book: Shockingly Close to the Truth

Heidi, you seem sooo trusting of "the experts". I propose you investigate Jim Moseley's history with "ufology" to learn more about how reliable this field is vs real science with peer review.

It would be fascinating to read any articles Jim Moseley wrote about Ray too. He might just have a chance to outwit this trickster by being a better more honest trickster than Ray ever was. Imo.

For example, in the case you have dropped off here, unrelated to what we were discussing, you left out the fact that Ray took this film to the American Institure of Avionics Sub Committee at Cal Tech where 11 phd's analyzed it and came up with the estimates of distance. He didn't stop there, he then had several physicists look it over. So, having said that mouth full I'm not idiot enough to debate the veracity of Ray's claims, but hell, you are.

Oh, you're not idiot enough, but I am. You bet I am. Why?

Your little subcommittee of PhD's was a tiny sub-group of UFO believers or they were interested in that subject. You see, the accurate information is this was the subcommittee for: Anomalistic Aerial Phenomena. Sounds fancy, right?

Also, the big named professor at that meeting would have nothing to do with Ray's ideas, but Ray also made a point to get some personal digs into the professor and then Ray joked he died of a heart attack soon after. Ray's such a nice guy...

Oh, and Ray's physics buddies were Ray's hand-picked "physics experts" by Ray's designs.

It does not take an idiot to know Ray's stories do NOT add-up to the truth about his Super 8mm film referred to in this thread or about Human Eyesight too with small sized triangles vs a giant mothership described in great detail up to 150 miles away. Get real.