CONTENTS:

BACKGROUND:
LENS FOCAL LENGTH:
EXPOSURE TIME:
IMAGE DENSITY:
OBJECT TIME ON FILM:
ROTATION ANGLE:
HEADING & ISOMETRIC DRAWINGS:
SIZE CORRECTIONS:
FUSELAGE LENGTH:
OBJECT LOCATION:
OBJECT RESOLUTION:
WIND DRIFT & DRAG COEFFICIENT:
IR & HEAT EMISSIONS:
AIR DISTORTION:
OBJECT'S TWISTING MOTION:
BLADES AND FANS:
LANDING SITE:
AURORA DIFFERENCES:
FINDINGS:

     In the late evening of August 11, 1997 (a moonless night, after midnight, when the Perseid Meteor shower reached peak) in the '4 Peaks Wilderness Area'(a desert area near Phoenix Arizona) a photograph was taken that captured the image of an object that was well defined and moving sidereally (moving in the same direction and speed as the stars in the picture background). The object had no running lights on and made no sounds noticeable in the quite desert night. There were two people present when the photograph was taken and the picture parameters were recorded. Since then a number of specialists have been shown the pictures to find out what the object was, but to no avail.

(the original picture on the left and a magnified image of the plane is shown on the right)
(the plane can be seen in the original picture 1/3 from right side and 2/3 below the top and below the meteor trail)

     From the photograph the object can be seen to be silhouetted by the stars and lower atmosphere behind it. Upon examination of the photograph through a loupe or microscope the object takes on the appearance of a delta wing aircraft. While the images on the photograph (and resulting slide) do not exhibit the fine detail shown on the negative they do show sufficient detail to allow the following determinations be made. The picture and slide have been augmented with a number of high resolution digital images taken using different colored spectral lights (used to enhance different information in the negative). The following sections scientifically examine the evidence available in the picture to determine independently the object's parameters and characteristics.

LENS FOCAL LENGTH (of the Camera used to take the picture):

     This section starts by using the star images on the slide (or the photograph) to determine the focal length of the lens that took the picture. This information will then be used to determine the exposure time of the photograph, and so on.

     First, measure the overall angular dimensions of the slide (the slide holder needs to be removed first), using the star field as a guide (and any good star atlas - Sky Atlas 2000 by Wil Tirion, Sky Publishing. Co., Belmont, MA, 1981). This gives the approximate field photographed on the negative - 27 by 40 degrees. As the dimensions of the 35mm slide is known (24mm x 36mm) the focal length of the lens that took the picture can be calculated. Or it can be looked up - The Amateur Astronomer's Handbook (third edition) by James Muirden, Harper & Row, New York, 1983, Chapter 22, page 345. The focal of the lens works out to be 51 mm (the actual lens used was a Nikon - AF Nikkor 50mm f1.8) using just the references.

EXPOSURE TIME (the photograph was a time exposure picture by the author, trying to capture the streak of a meteor):

     As there was no coma present near the edges of the picture the lens "f" ratio was less than f2 (this is true for most non-Schmidt lenses). The opening of a f2 lens with a focal length of 50mm is 25mm (the actual F/D ratio used was f2.8). Going back to the above reference, on page 341 Table XI - Exposure Times, allows the calculation of the length of the exposure. A 25mm diameter lens using a very fast film will just capture a 12.25 magnitude star in a ten minute exposure.

     The film used was Kodak Royal Gold with an ASA of 1000. From the slide stars between a 12th and 13th magnitude were just visible (stars magnitudes were matched against the Hubble Guide Star catalog list). By using the fact that magnitudes are logarithmic and the ratio is 2.512 difference per magnitude, an 8.5 minute exposure on fast film will just capture 12.1 magnitude stars. If speed and reciprocal factors are taken into consideration then the faintest magnitude possible increases to 13.0 for 8.5 minutes.

     From slide measurements the lens focal length was determined, with this and knowing the faintest magnitude stars recorded the length of the exposure time was calculated to be at least eight minutes (the actual time exposure was 8m 34s).

     If you look at the picture in the last section you will see there is a yellow-orange star just below the plane and in front of its left wing almost touching the wing. This star is a 9.8 magnitude star, Tycho-2 # 4483-00659-1. The bright star above, and almost touching, the nose is an 8.8 magnitude star, Tycho-2 # 4483-00813-1. Straight out in front of the plane's nose on the right edge of the picture is a 7.9 magnitude star, Tycho-2 # 4482-00510-1. The stars around the top of the rear tail section range from 11.2 to 13.0 in magnitude. Its not clear if any 13 magnitude stars were actually recorded as the film grain size limited the size of the diffraction spot. However, there were 13.0 magnitude stars in the area of the tail section according to the Hubble Guide Star catalog.

IMAGE DENSITY (of the original negative itself):

     The density of the slide as well as the negative was measured to determine if the object had been at its position the entire time or just part of the exposure time. The density was measured from a single digital taken of the negative in white light. Then three similar sized portions of the image were cropped out. One was the area around the meteor trail. Another was the area at the edge of the frame where an unexposed section of the negative was digitized. The third area included the object. These three cropped images were converted to 256 level grey scale images.

     The density of the background sky at a number of points between any stars was measured. Then the density at the edge was measured at a number of places (this is where no light reached the film during the exposure). Then the density of the film where the object was located was measured at several points. The film density  of the object was identical to the density measurements found on the edge of the film.

     The pure white level had a pixel value of zero (0). The all black level had a pixel value of 255. The edge of the film and the object both had pixel values of one (1). The starless dark sky had a pixel value of 37 (the overall average sky background pixel value was about 60). The meteor trail and some of the brighter stars had pixel values of 255 (all black). The edge of the film did not have a pixel value of zero (pure white) because the film base material had a light orange color (Kodak Royal Gold Film).

     The film took on a background density increase of one (1) pixel value every 14 seconds of exposure time, which yielded the fog level shown by the end of the 8.5 minute photograph. If the reciprocal failure of the film is taken into account (it was 0.8 for this film) then the pixel values would change by one (1) every 8.3 seconds at the beginning of the exposure and every 27 seconds by the end of the exposure.

     The density of the starless sky back ground indicated 15% film fogging from sky glow over the 8.5 minute exposure. The object was photographed high (50 degrees up) in a North-East (15 degrees true) direction where it was very dark, many miles from any cities or towns. There was no reflection or light pollution from Phoenix, Scottsdale, or Mesa which were located in a South-West direction.

OBJECT TIME ON FILM (how long the object was recorded – determined from the film density ratio):

     The density results showed that the object was a stationary image for the entire duration of the photograph. If the object had moved into or out of the picture during the exposure the density of the object would be noticeably greater then the density on the film edge (in the unexposed film area).

     For every 8.3 (to 27 near the end of the exposure) seconds that the object was not at the position shown on the photograph the image density of the object would have increased by one pixel value (above the edge value of one). As there was no difference in the image density from the edge density, the object had to have been at the same position on the film during the entire exposure.

ROTATION ANGLE (the look angle from the authors location to the object):

(original pages used to calculate the rotation and direction of object)

     If the object was in a level position (with respect to the surface of the Earth) then the displacement angle of the fuselage axis to the East/West axis would be the same displacement angle as the wing-tip to wing-tip angle made with the North/South axis. If the object was not level then these two displacements would not be the same.

     From the slide the wing-tip angle was found to be 19.3 degrees, and the fuselage axis angle was estimated to be 19.5 degrees. From this, the object exhibited a nose angle off of level by no more then 0.2 degrees. As the wing-tip angle was easier to measure then the fuselage axis angle, the nose angle error could be anywhere between 0.2 and 0.0 degrees.

HEADING & ISOMETRIC DRAWINGS:

     Now that the displacement angle was known (19.3 degrees) the heading could be determined. It was found to be 265.6 degrees true. The angles allowed the object to be rotated and translated so that normal images could be projected. The results are the two isometric drawings.

SIZE CORRECTIONS:

     From the slide the image length of the object was measured (using a calibrated reticule on a high power microscope) to be 0.323 degrees. This was measured from the line of sight angle. The object was not perpendicular to the line of sight so the rotation angle was necessary to determined perpendicular measurements which would allow the calculation of the correction factors.

     Because of the displacement (rotation here) angle the length of the fuselage measured on the photograph was 6% shorter then if viewed side on. This yielded a horizontal correction factor of 1.06x. The wings and tail on the other hand after translation yielded a vertical correction factor of 1.26x. These factors had to be applied to the measurements from the photograph to arrive at the object's actual lengths.

FUSELAGE LENGTH:

(the image quality directly off of the negative was much better then the paper copies presented here)

     The image was enhanced using a variety of techniques. Each technique only enhanced one aspect of the object. It was possible to measure the size of the canopy, pilot's helmet, and the pilot's upper torso with different levels of enhancement. These angular measurements were ratioed to the length of the fuselage. The ratios were carried out independently of each other. The measurements and ratios allowed the actual length of the fuselage to be calculated. The various methods yielded lengths ranging from 31.6 feet to 34 feet. The final length was arrived at using a statistical approach with these results. This yielded the corrected length of the fuselage to be about 32 feet.

OBJECT LOCATION:

(topo map of the Four Peaks Area, picture of direction to object, sky may of object against sky)

     From the star back ground and knowing that the camera was east of Phoenix, Arizona (in the 4 Peaks Wilderness Area - just off of State Route 87) and the time and date (07:45 GMT 08/12/1997) the altitude of the object can be readily determined. This was 49.7 degrees, with a line of sight heading of 14.7 degrees at the beginning of the photograph. The camera was piggy-backed on the top of a C-8 telescope using a fork mount which was tracking the star area being photographed (the camera was nearly upside down here).

     Now that the vertical sight angle is known along with the size of the object, its altitude above the camera can be determined. this was calculated to be 4075' above the camera (an altitude of 4215' above the desert floor, where the object was photographed, as the grade there was 140' below the camera's location). The sight distance was found to be 5345'. This information was plotted on a topo map (US geological Survey: MINE MT, Arizona - 7.5 minute map).

     The objects position was calculated to be: latitude 33d 40' 43", longitude 111d 28' 52".

OBJECT RESOLUTION:

     On the photograph the image of the object was fairly sharp. This detail continued even under high power (160x) observation of the image (this was easier to see on the digital image more so then on the photograph or slide because of reproduction losses). The fuzzy transition edge around the image was very small, compared to the size of the object.

     The image of the pilot's helmet was so sharp (in the original negative) that the object's twisting motion had to be less then the dimension of the helmet or the pilot's image would have been badly blurred. The helmet measured 0.009 degrees. The fuzzy edge around the object was also measured and found to be of this order of magnitude as well. The viewing angle was looking up (at a 49.7 degree angle) under and to the Port side of the object. The edge of the wing-tips were also well defined.

     These results indicate that the object had to have remained very still for the duration of the photograph.

WIND DRIFT & DRAG COEFFICIENT:

     There was a slight wind blowing the night the photograph was taken. It was blowing from the South-East to the North-West at less then two (2) statue miles per hour. The upper air speed and direction was determined from the recorded motion of the clouds - before and after the photograph was taken. The wind is thought to have caused the steady horizontal motion of the object (7.5'/minute in a westerly direction). The actual object drift would have been in a North Westerly direction but the camera only saw the westerly component.

     The actual drift velocity to the North-West was around 10.6'/minute. This drag motion is about 1/10 the wind speed. From this the low speed drag coefficient is shown to be very low. This horizontal motion had been corrected for in the camera tracking system, so this motion caused no image blurring.

IR & HEAT EMISSIONS:

(from left: negative, red image, green image, yellow image, green reversed, yellow reversed, white image reversed)

     The film used had sensitivity into the near IR and near UV. The red emulsion would have recorded any heat emission from the object. The high ASA rating and the length of the exposure was sufficient to make the image of even a small light on the plane (like a small birthday candle) the size of one of the large stars near the object (in the red emulsion layer). What was found was that the red layer was almost completely unexposed (as if there was no IR or red light coming from or around the object).

     This indicates that there was no appreciable heat emanating from the object or around it.

AIR DISTORTION:

     The search for heat/turbulence was carried one step further. A special distortion filter (Equalization) was applied to the digital image of the object. This technique was sensitive enough to detect temperature differences of 200 F above ambient (at the altitude of the object). The area within few inches to a few hundred feet of the object was carefully inspected. There was no visible signs of distortion found anywhere around the object.

     This meant that there were no hot exhaust gases and no vent/deflector heat present.

OBJECT'S TWISTING MOTION:

     The object was inspected for any horizontal rotation/motion. Such motion would be associated with the erratic swinging and twisting motion of jet deflector aircraft (such as the Harrier) every few seconds in the hover mode. If there had been much twisting or rotation then the image of the pilot and wing tips would have been lost due to blurring, which it wasn't. From the above findings positional displacements longer then 8.3 seconds would have caused a doubling of the image density in the wing, tail and canopy areas. This density increase was not found.

     No other non-sidereal motion was detected that was greater then 0.01 degrees in magnitude.

BLADES AND FANS:

     No propellers or blades were detected on or about the object. No holes through the wings were observed (the entire under side of the Port wing was clearly visible).

     This eliminated the object using rotors, wing hover fans, or blades to maintain its vertical position (hovering).

LANDING SITE:

     The information on location, heading, and wind drift allows the fixing of a vector triangle. From this information the object was back tracked to a possible landing site location (the nose wheel and other landing gear was clearly seen to be still down and the craft was observed to be slowly rising - 4.4'/minute - at the time the photograph was taken). 

AURORA DIFFERENCES:

     The isometric drawings are very similar in shape to the Aurora aircraft with two noticeable exceptions. The first, is the long 'blow off' canopy on the object. The second, is that the object is only 30% of the length of an Aurora. The 1997 edition of Janes Aircraft was searched for a match to this shape but none was found.

     The object appeared to be painted black. The cockpit and nose wheel were illuminated by the background stars, the wing landing gear was illuminated by diffused background light.

FINDINGS:

1. The object was a single manned aircraft operating in a stealth mode (the pilot's helmet and upper torso were visible).

2. There were no blades, fans or other craft around or on the object (an area up to ten degrees around the object was scanned - this included looking for duct holes through the wings).

3. There was no distortion of the air anywhere around the object (which is seen with jet exhaust, jet deflector aircraft, and helicopters).

4. There were no lights visible on the object from the angle of sight, nor were there any detectable near IR or near UV emissions.

5. There were no flame, exhaust, or other heat emissions above 200 F detected - from, on, or around the object (a several hundred foot area around the object was inspected).

6. The was no horizontal twisting or turning motion of the object during the 8.5 minute exposure (this type of motion is synonymous with all deflector hover craft).

7. The object hovered at an altitude of 4215' for a period of 8.5 minutes (it exhibited sidereal motion from the line of sight - rising at 4.4'/minute).

8. The object had no detectable propulsion system, and no conventional means of maintaining the stable hover position photographed.

9. The object was shaped very similar to the Aurora, but smaller and with a 'blow off' type canopy.

10. The airfoil appeared to be designed for flight up to Mach 2 with a very low drag coefficient (the canopy appeared to be the limiting speed factor).

11. An experimental Force Plate propulsion system could have produce the observed conditions. When these plates are facing down toward the Earth they exert an anti-gravity effect and allow whatever they are fastened to hover. When facing parallel to the Earth they produce an acceleration (increasing speed) parallel to the Earth in whatever they are fastened (the speed will increase without limit until the craft melts, unless the power to these plates is reduced or turned off). These plates run off of low current high voltage that can be supplied from batteries (these plates can also be set up to produce all needed operating power). Refer to the authors papers describing these effects.

Cingular