Maui Optical Tracking Facility Five Lights UFO. [Plane + Slow Camera]

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Metabunk 2019-02-09 09-02-25.jpg

From: https://silvarecord.com/2019/02/09/chris-mellon-airforce-ufo-video/
Mellon:
I had a friend who was a colleague at that time on the Senate Intelligence staff and he was doing some oversight at Maui Optical Tracking Facility, which does space surveillance, and I said that ‘While you’re out there, you know they’re civilian nice guys, why don’t you just ask them?’ – ‘You ever see any strange really anomalous stuff you can’t identify?’ And so he called me up, he said, ‘You know I asked that question. Sure enough there’s the tape right here,’
Content from External Source
silvarecord-loop.gif
Source: https://videopress.com/v/dyPCtZ74


The video shows what looks like three bright streaks and two dim streak move across the sky. At one point there's a flash. Suggestions given are a much of meteorites, or some kind of advanced technology craft, possibly alien.

However, I think it might just be the landing lights of a plane, smeared out by the long exposure of the old night camera. Something like an MD-80 perhaps, with the triangle of big lights, and two smaller lights.



Or a C5


Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J73iTlp3sQY
Nighttime footage of a "UFO" looks likes the landing lights of a plane. But why can't you see the plane? Is it invisible? The answer seems to be frame-to-frame persistence which is used to magnify the light from the stars in the astronomical camera. Here I simulate this with the "Echo" effect in Adobe Aftereffects, showing how it can duplicate both the trails, and seeing stars through the "Invisible" plane
Content from External Source
I mocked up the scene in Aftereffects, creating a very similar effect with image persistence from frame to frame.
Metabunk 2019-02-10 11-22-16.jpg
 
Last edited:

deirdre

Senior Member.
This guy did an analysis in 1996

Because I had to locate the telescope operators by asking for help from other people, it took well over a month to get the "real data." The crucial information turned out to be far different from what I had been led to believe. I had been told by LaMonica that the angular elevation was low, maybe several degrees ("near the horizon"). However, I learned from the operators that the actual angular elevation was much greater and, in fact, was nearly straight up (85 degrees). I also learned that the telescope was about 10,000 ft above mean sea level (AMSL).

This put a whole new light on the matter. It took me all of five minutes (or less) to determine that under this circumstance the lights could be on an aircraft of some nominal wingspan traveling at several hundred mph at a reasonable cruising altitude above the telescope. In fact, any combination of wingspan, W in ft, speed S in ft/sec and height H in ft AMSL which obeys the relations S/(H-10,000) = 0.032 rad/sec and W/[H-10,000] = 0.01 rad would work. (Note: since the telescope is at 10,000 ft AMSL, the assumed H should be no lower than, say, 11,000 ft. Also, the assumed H should be no greater than 45,000 ft which is an upper altitude for typical aircraft). For example, if H = 20,000 ft AMSL the wingspan could be W = 0.01 x (20,000 - 10,000) = 100 ft and the speed could be S = 0.032 (20,000 - 10,000) = 320 ft/sec or 220 mph. Similarly, the video would be consistent with a plane having a wingspan of W = 40 ft and a speed of S = 128 ft/sec = 87 mph providing it were flying only about 4,000 ft above the telescope at H = 14,000 ft AMSL. Naturally there are many (an infinite) number of possible combinations of W, S and H that would satisfy the requirements of the video.

The telescope operators told me that, upon seeing the video, they had immediately suspected that it was an airplane, but then they questioned that explanation because they rarely, if ever, see an airplane overflying the telescope installation. One of the men called the FAA to find out if there was any record of an airplane scheduled to fly over Mt. Haleakala at the time of the video. He was told there was no such record (no air route passes over the mountain). Of course, an aircraft could have flown over the mountain without the FAA having a record of its exact flight path.
Content from External Source
he gives other data in the article too
As soon as the camera crew set up the TV monitor and video machine I began running the video over and over. Text at the beginning of the video stated that it was taken by a GEODS telescope during the year 1993 on day 335 at 032444Z (335th day of the year, December 1, at Greenwich Mean Time of 3:22:24 AM which corresponds to 5:22:24 PM, November 30 in Hawaii).
Content from External Source
http://www.brumac.mysite.com/NIGHTLINEUFO/NIGHTLINEUFO.html


edit add: archive link http://archive.fo/bkOwo
 
Last edited:

deirdre

Senior Member.
oh i see in Chris Mellons [the] link he is trying to use Mcabees Nightline footage to sow doubt

[edit add: apologies, i thought that was the To The Stars website.]

Dr. Bruce Maccabee also commented on the video, back in the 1990s:

Dr. Bruce Maccabee: “This thing is not going fast enough to be a meteor unless you assume that it’s so high up that it’s beyond the atmosphere. At which point it wouldn’t be glowing, and you couldn’t see it.”

Interviewer: “Because meteors don’t glow in space, they’re glowing because they’re burning up in the atmosphere.”

Dr. Bruce Maccabee: “That’s right.”

Interviewer: “So does this intrigue you? Or what does it do?”

Dr. Bruce Maccabee: “Oh yeah. This is up at the top as far as credibility and pretty far up there in terms of strangeness.”

Interviewer: “So if you had to classify this in a case folder, how would you classify it?”

Dr. Bruce Maccabee: “With a big question mark.”
Content from External Source


But my above link IS Maccabee

The Nightline UFO Video: No Longer a Question Mark
by Bruce Maccabee
Content from External Source
http://www.brumac.mysite.com/NIGHTLINEUFO/NIGHTLINEUFO.html
 
Last edited:

jarlrmai

Senior Member
The 2 less bright central lights do seem to alternate.

There are 3 bright solid lights I would guess wing and nose and 2 less bright alternating lights maybe on the fuselage or on the near part of the wing,

Might help with ID the C5 seems to have 1 central beacon (flashing light), I wish there was some sort of published light pattern DB for aircraft.
 
Last edited:

deirdre

Senior Member.
i know a bit off topic... but...
Text at the beginning of the video stated that it was taken by a GEODS telescope during the year 1993 on day 335 at 032444Z (335th day of the year, December 1, at Greenwich Mean Time of 3:22:24 AM which corresponds to 5:22:24 PM, November 30 in Hawaii).

is this time possible? i'm confused why we are seeing black sky and stars before sunset.

this site says sunset was 5:44pm.
https://www.almanac.com/astronomy/sun-rise-and-set/zipcode/96761/1993-11-30
 

Rory

Senior Member.
Bruce Maccabee's conclusion:
In this case it appears that an airplane would be consistent with the observational evidence. Although I can not prove there was an airplane flying over the telescope, there is no reason to believe that an airplane could not have done so. Since there is no evidence in the video which conclusively contradicts the airplane hypothesis there is no good reason to claim that the lights were something else. Weeks after the show I reported to LaMonica that the lights were probably on an airplane. So far as I know, this information was never conveyed to the audience of Nightline.

http://www.brumac.mysite.com/NIGHTLINEUFO/NIGHTLINEUFO.html
Content from External Source
Maccabee has also commented on the silvarecord article.

One thing: why does Maccabee write that 032444 corresponds to 3:22:24am?
Text at the beginning of the video stated that it was taken by a GEODS telescope during the year 1993 on day 335 at 032444Z (335th day of the year, December 1, at Greenwich Mean Time of 3:22:24 AM which corresponds to 5:22:24 PM, November 30 in Hawaii).
Content from External Source
 
Last edited:

Trailblazer

Moderator
Staff member
From the Silva Record article:




“These two stars can clearly be seen between the streaks of light… to me this rules out a large structured body.
Content from External Source
Surely that can just be explained by image persistence, the same effect that blurs out the lights into streaks?

5:22pm is before sunset on that date. Is it meant to be visible-light footage?
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Surely that can just be explained by image persistence, the same effect that blurs out the lights into streaks?
Yes, which is what I said in my video:
Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J73iTlp3sQY
Nighttime footage of a "UFO" looks likes the landing lights of a plane. But why can't you see the plane? Is it invisible? The answer seems to be frame-to-frame persistence which is used to magnify the light from the stars in the astronomical camera. Here I simulate this with the "Echo" effect in Adobe Aftereffects, showing how it can duplicate both the trails, and seeing stars through the "Invisible" plane
Content from External Source
See around 3:50 for demo
 

deirdre

Senior Member.
Surely that can just be explained by image persistence, the same effect that blurs out the lights into streaks?
that's what Mick's OP explanation video shows.

I think Maccabee is saying that too in his above article, i didn't add that part because it is a long article
The failure of one star image in particular to disappear when it passed between the upper and middle bright lights (where the wing of an aircraft would block the star) was obvious to both of us, as it had been to Jay. This seemed to be strong evidence that the lights were not connected by an opaque body, namely, the wing of an airplane. However, I pointed out that we couldn't be certain because the failure of the star image to dim very briefly might have been some artifact of the camera electronics or the recording mechanism about which we knew next to nothing. As an example of the possible effect of the camera operation on the recording of a star that is momentarily blocked by a wing, imagine a 10 ft wide wing and a wing speed of 300 mph which is 440 ft/sec. The star image could be blocked by the wing for about 10/440 = 0.023 sec. The typical camera frame rate is 0.03 sec per frame. Thus the blockage would occur during one frame time which was too short to be observed under the circumstances - viewing on a (analogue) TV monitor with electronic noise and "twinkling" of the star causing brightness fluctuations at all times.
Content from External Source
http://www.brumac.mysite.com/NIGHTLINEUFO/NIGHTLINEUFO.html
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
I don't think I would have bothered if I'd seen Macabee's article from the start. I thought this was newly revealed footage at first.
 

Tim Printy

Member
Trying to figure out how we see stars if the time was listed as 5:22 PM HST. I would love to have an instrument that can see stars during the daytime. I wonder what filter they were using (I am just joking here)? This indicates the time Macabee listed is probably not correct or misinterpreted. It could have been 3:22 AM HST and not 3:22 AM UTC. One would think that the telescope would have the location in the sky they were looking (RA/DEC or AZ/ALT). I tried to figure out the star patterns and I could not. I did not try too hard but I am guessing that this is in the milky way region based on the statement the scope was nearly overhead and the number of stars visible (assuming 3:22 UTC). Lots of missing data from this.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Mellon brought it up again on the recent Joe Rogan podcast:


So once you got into government, and once you were I mean, you were there, you're basically there, you have to start asking questions like, what did you wait a while, like, how long did you ask for your money? What do you guys know?

Well, for a long time, I waited. Very rarely I look for openings, I look for opportunities. So, for example, you know, the stigma is is so great that you're reluctant, obviously to to raise that issue. A couple of times, there were some natural opportunities. So one of my colleagues on the Intelligence Committee was trips, meetings, and he went to the Maui space optical tracking facility. And I said to him, while you are there, why don't you just check and see, do they ever see anything where they can't explain and so forth? So he did. And Pete called me up and said, hey, you wouldn't believe this. I've got this videotape here. And it's shows these weird things. And so I talked to the Air Force people, they sent the tape to us. Turns out it was totally unclassified. I showed it to Senator Cohen, and some others, and it ended up on national TV, actually, but but didn't generate any further response. Everybody just kind of threw their hands up in the air and said, Well, you know, that's interesting, but we don't know what to do with it. It was Ted Koppel's Nightline show, that this tape was played on. It showed sort of five objects moving parallel to the ground, possibly in formation. They're in the atmosphere, because they're burning, they're interacting with something. There's plasma coming off them, which wouldn't presumably be happening in space, but they seem to be too slow to be meteorites. So it was mystifying and difficult to explain. Never did get an answer. Occasionally, something like that would happen. By and large, the issue almost never arose
Content from External Source
It's unfortunate he continue to use this as his go-to story.
 
Last edited:
Top