As you can clearly see…
Eye witness
2003
(presented at UFO, photoforum, Bienne)
Henry Carter, eye witness, gives the description of the Very Unusual Event he saw (and managed to photograph) on tuesday 17 June, 2003 near Cadillac in northern Michigan, USA:
"I'm not from this area, I was just in town for a few days visiting my brother who lives here. Anyway, I was driving back from the gas station on Farm road where I went to get a pack of cigarettes, on the way to pick up my nephew from tennis practice. I dropped him off at two [in the afternoon] and this was around 20 minutes later… ##### Anyway, I turned off the corner to go down… I forget the name of the road [ed. the name of the road in question is Fallton road] and in the middle of the road there was what I can only guess was a flying saucer… [ed. Carter is asked by Officer Greenway whether by flying saucer he means an extra-terrestrial vehicle] Yeah, a real martian space ship [ed. Carter is asked by officer Greenway whether he knows for a fact that the ship was from the planet mars] I don't know where they were from. They sure weren't like anything I've ever seen before though, so I can only guess that… Anyway, The flying saucer was hovering there, there were are few of those creatures [ed. Carter will describe supposed extra terrestrials later in the report, in a second interview relating to his experiences, the goal of this interview is to ask Mr. Cater to describe the photography of the event, to give our analysts more information for their forensic study of the picture, which will also be included in the report] standing by the ship, and the rest were off working on those strange piles of dirt. [ed. the piles of dirt can clearly be seen in the right side of the photograph]. They had some sort of machine with them. I stepped out of my car, and was setting up my camera and tripod… [ed. Officer Greenway asked Carter to specify] Well, I'm an amateur photographer, so I have pretty good equipment: I had my Hasselblad with me that day, I think I had the 60mm lens on it. I must have been ƒ11 @ 1/250th. Anyway, they weren't scared by me at all, and continued working while I was setting up my camera, finding the right perspective, checking the framing of the image, measuring the light, moving the camera a few feet to the left for a better composition, adjusting the tripod to make sure the camera is level, setting the speed and aperture, focusing on the flying saucer. They must have realized at that point that I was getting just about ready to take the picture because all of a sudden, the headed back to the ship, amazingly fast, I remember the machine, must have been some sort of digger, it was amazing, it folded up into a little colored ball, about the size of a soccer ball, and the little guys, well, they're about the size of children, they kicked the ball along with them and up into the ship. ######## Anyway, just when I was pressing the shutter release, at that decisive moment, the door closed and the ship zoomed up, amazingly fast, about #######, and all I got in the picture was the puff of dust that rose up from the dirt road. If you look closely, in the sky, you can see the ship, in the distance, to the right of the road, above the electricity or telephone pole in the distance. It's there alright, but it's so tiny that I don't think anyone would really recognize it but me. The only other person who might have send it is the guy who lived in the house you can see behind the trees on the left side of the photograph [ed. Mr. H. Edgerton who lived in that house refuses to talk to us, so we cannot include his testimony in the report]
Henry Cater Thursday 03 July 2003
Preliminary Conclusions Very Unusual Event HC20030517-P
A number of tentative conclusions are offered as a result of this investigation:
(1) There is no firm evidence of a double exposure or other deliberate hoax in the negative which Mr. CArter provided us, although he neglected to submit the entire roll of film as is customary.
As many writers have said before, the credibility of a purported VUE photograph rests far more upon the credability of the photographer than upon all of the technical characteristics and details producing the photograph. But when the credability of the eye witness is found to be high and no evidence of fraud or hoax is found it is more reasonable to accept the photograph at least as what it purports to be, evidence of an interesting, if unknown, phenomenon of some kind. Iit is, however, beyond the scope of this report to weigh in on the credibility of Mr. Carter's testimony or the nature of the event he claims to have witnessed and photographed. This report only aims to prove or disprove whether the photographic evidence coincides with Mr. Carter's testimony, though no definitive opinion can be given as to whether the former confirms the later.
(2) The depicted scene is in agreement with Mr. Carters assertions as to the time and location of the photograph. Structural analysis also agrees with Carter's information about the camera, lens, and flim used, as well as other technical details concerning the taking of the picture - with the exception of the assertion that the image was taken with the camera mounted on a tripod. The image shows a slight motion-blur consistent with a hand- held shot.
(3) The resolving power of the lens and film are not sufficient to make any definitive analysis of the image to confirm or deny tracks, prints, or other traces of activity reported in the moment before the photograph was taken.
(4) The structure of the 'cloud' in the center of the image is consistent with sunlight reflected off of dust at these angles. No evidence supports the notion that the particles posssessed directional reflectivity or some other non-mundane characteristic.
(5) The VUE object's visual appearance as described by Mr. Carter does not match the appearance of the photograph, although this does not automatically suggest that a fake. This difference may be because the total reflectance of the VUE object, and (while it's form is unknown) it's angle relative to the sun was such that no detail was captured on the relatively "slow" film. Computer assisted enhancement of the area did not reveal any significant detail within the central core of the 'spot'.
(6) No micro-structure details could be discovered in the image of the VUE object. The nature of the VUE object has not been identified as of this date. Short of a definitive answer, the possible explanations of the origin of this mark supposedly showing the VUE object are:
(6a) The mark in question is a photograph of an aircraft (of terrestrial or extra-terrestrial origin), bird, weather-balloon, or other flying object.
(6b) The mark in question is an image of dust or other debris in teh scene
(6c) The mark in question is a trace of dust or other debris in the camera
(6d) The mark in question is an imperfection in the film
(6e) The mark in question is a trace of dust or other debris acquired during the development, printing, or other treatment of the film / image.
(6f) None of the above.
Though Mr. Carter's photograph does not give enough information to confirm or deny his assertion as to the nature of the VUE object supposedly depicted in said photograph, our investigation and analysis has yeilded other, tangentially related photographic phenomena, for which we have not yet developed a satisfactory hypothesis:
Our testing and analysis process involves making test images with various lenses, cameras, film, and conditions, in order to carry out structural comparison of the photograph in question and 'control' images made in known conditions. For instance, it was possible for us to confirm that Mr. Carters assertion that the image was made with a 60mm Hasselblad lens by comparing the distortion present in the Carter image with a test photo shot by our lab with the specified equipment. It was during the test procedure, and the analysis of the test iamges, that these secondary phenomena were noticed:
Other photogrphs gathered for comparison with this image show a similar or nearly identical 'spot' in the same location as the VUE object in Mr. Carter's photograph. Sample images exhibiting this phenomena are included with this report.
Further investigation pending.
From: Juhani Kalastaakivinenilmanpolkupyörällä Institute of Media Analysis and Generative Exovisualisation Hämeentie 135 C 00560 Helsinki, Finland tel +358 9 75631 fax +358 9 7563 0223 j.kalastaakivinenilmanpolkupyoralla@image.fi
To: Dr. Matthew McCormick Department of Forensic Image Analysis - PP/RFC P.O. box 40835 Portland, Oregon 97240, USA tel +1 503 282 6082 fax +1 503 888 5037
Thursday, 03 November, 2005 Re: 'Dust Theory' of General Non-Original Image Phenomena and Extra-Representational Data
Dear Sir,
While I find your analysis of Mr. Carter's photograph entirely reasonable, I feel that you have overlooked the most obvious explanation and that your professionalism has hindered your ability to state the clear and definitive conclusions:
(A) That Mr. Carter's image is simply a photograph of a dust cloud created by a car driving down a dirt road.
(B) The mysterious 'speck' in the image depicts nothing more extraordinary than a bird or other mundane airborne object.
Previous analysis of the Carter photograph has overlooked the presence of a horizontal lighter-shaded zone in the upper-center of the dust cloud which clearly corresponds to the roof of an automobile. Once point A has been thus established, it is of efficient cause to conclude that the absolute banality of the origin the dust cloud - which contradicts Carter's own assertions - dictates in due logic that the 'spot' (which Mr. Carter says is the VUE Object which produced said cloud) is itself of equal banality and of no direct or indirect causal relation to this cloud, and is in all likelihood a bird.
However, the 'tangential' findings in your test images, in light of the previous points, suggest the following hypothesis:
(C) The entire testimony of the VUE and consequent interest is nothing more than a ruse, a distraction from a much larger and more important category of phenomena.
My colleagues and I at the Institute of Media Analysis and Generative Exovisualisation have devoted a significant portion of the IMAGE's funding to the study of what we have now come to call General Non-Original Image Phenomena and Extra-Representational Data.
Following breakthroughs in the field of audio analysis made by Friedrich Jurgenson, Dr Konstantin Raudive, et al., we believe that the intrusive presence of Extra-representational data in images has been greatly overlooked, and that, in fact, these marks constitute an entirely separate and autonomous level of communication, whose origins and meaning have yet to be satisfactorily explained.
It has been clearly established that our eye/brains perceptual mechanism is equipped with a strong 'filter' which allows the viewer to completely ignore this extra-representational data. This built in signal-to-noise ratio amplification mechanism thereby mistakenly suppresses what may be important information. We have found multiple instances of 'dust' which not only can be clearly identified as a message itself, but show a consistent and repeated coherent internal structure beyond expected statistical likelihood.
Indeed, the more we have investigated the matter and enhanced our pattern recognition algorithms, the more useful and meaningful information we have been able to extract. It has been suggested that these phenomena represent a form of intrusion of signals alien to standard visual data parsing mechanisms; which may be of a covert communications nature, or alternatively, represent an unconcealed attempt at communication for which we have not yet developed the proper semantic structure for interpretation. The origins of these signals have yet to be established.
The hypothesis has been advanced, however, that Mr. Carter's testimony, though shown to be of dubious worth in relation to the original depicted scene in his photograph, is not an intentional fabrication. It remains entirely possible, that Mr Carter did indeed experience a Very Unusual Event of extra-terrestrial nature, but that this VUE did not occur on the representational plane of photographic depiction, and has instead imprinted itself in the extra-representational dimension. We suspect that this hypothesis may be confirmed by recent advances in the understanding of multidimensional quantum phenomena which question the validity of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle's application to photons.
Of particular interest, we have found a speck analogous to your own in the 'Nelson' photograph of Le Bourget 1977 - which is easily available in your Department of Forensic Image Analysis Archives (ref. AFP PHOTO gc/gp 3 6 1977) - as well as in image ref. 14402-AFP PHOTOS-13/12/1971. Curiously, the later parallels findings in images surrounding the emergency landing of JB-292-21.09.2005. We strongly suggest that you make an independent comparison with your own findings.
Until now, our attempts at applying known structuralist analyses (both traditional and experimental) have yielded interesting if unsatisfactory results. It is generally believed that we can overcome these limitations by acquiring a much larger pool of data for experimentation.
Thus, you can clearly see our interest in acquiring access to your original images for further analysis and testing. I would like to thus request a meeting with you and your team to discuss this matter and make a formal request for original material. Please feel free to contact me via email.
Respectfully,
Juhani Kalastaakivinenilmanpolkupyörällä
Even if it ultimately proved possible to make an aeroplane completely invisible at all wavelengths, there would be a further problem. According to the laws of physics, an invisible person would necessarily be blind. In order to see light, the eye must absorb it, but in order for a person to be invisible, the body must not absorb any light. Thus, a spy plane could not be completely invisible if it were to be used for espionage or, indeed, flown at all, since its pilots would need to know its position relative to the ground.