Preuve observationnelle de phénomènes anormaux

n1[Manuscript soumis en novembre 1967. L'article fut presenté à un séminaire de l'AAS au Jet Propulsion Laboratory de Pasadena. Un manuscript sur le même sujet fut soumis originellement en 1962. La critique complète de ce 1er manuscript, après avoir reçu 3 critiques favorables, fut acceptée]

Robert M. L. Baker, Jr n2[The Senior Scientist of System Sciences Corporation, a subdivision of Computer Sciences Corporation, 690 N. Sepulveda Blvd., El Segundo, Calif. 90245, and the Department of Engineering, UCLA].

Résumé

Une synthèse des données obtenues d'après une série d'analyses et d'expériences, qui furent menées à l'origine par l'auteur sous les auspices de la Compagnie Douglas Aircraft et basées sur un film contenant des données anomalistiques, fournies à l'origine par les Forces Aériennes des Etats-Unis, est présentée. Il est conclu que, sur la base des éléments photographiques, les images ne peuvent être expliquées par de quelconques phénomènes naturelles actuellement connus. D'autre part, la qualité des images est insuffisante pour déterminer la nature des phénomènes anomalistiques enregistrés sur le film.

Introduction

2 objets volants non identifiés (OVNIs) anomalistiques ont été observés et par la suite photographiés vers en 11, Heure Standard des Montagnes, le 15 août 1950, par Nicholas Mariana à Great Falls, Montana. M. Mariana possédait et opérait une station radio à Missoula, Montana, et était propriétaire de l'équipe de baseball de Great Falls.

L'ensemble des données molles (rapports de témoins occulaires de M. Mariana et sa secrétaire) a indiqué que les objets étaient d'apparence argentée avec une encoche ou une bande en un point de leur périphérie et purent être vus en rotation à l'unisson, puis ...avec un son swishing, flottèrent au loin sur la gauche (SO)... Les données dures issues du film a montré des points de lumière blancs inarticulés. La Figure 1 montre la manière dont le diamètre des points brillants a diminué avec le temps. Les objets passèrent derrière un chateau d'eau et sont montrés en Fig. 2, avec le numéro d'image associé (les images inférieures à 65 ne montraient aucun arrière-plan). Selon Mariana, 35 des premières images, qui auraient été perdues par l'Air Force, montraient une image plus grande, complète avec une encoche tournante. Figure 2 was constructed from iconolog measurements (a film viewer with movable cross hairs and a digitalized coordinate output) using the foreground reference points marked (3), (5), and (6). Cette figure is drawn like a panorama on the assumption that the photographer kept his stance without moving appreciably (which was reported by him and was well borne out by the consistence [sic] of his perspective). These initial measurements were made by the author at Douglas Aircraft Company in 1955-1956.

Analyse

Le "film du Montana" contient contains 6 données indépendantes (fonctions du temps) sur près de 225 images (images 65 à 290), qui décrivent les images d'ovnis, i.e., les 2 degrés de liberté de chaque point (tels que dépeints sur un film à 2 dimensions après que le premier plan apparaisse sur l'image 65) et le diamètre apparent de l'image développée de chacune de l'ensemble des 290 images (aucune ellipticité n'est vue dans les images à l'exception d'une bavure d'image occasionnelle due à un panorama irrégulier). Dans l'analyse il a été plus pratique de traiter l'ovni comme un système. Les 4 degrés de liberté choisis pour ce système étaient l'azimut et l'altitude du milieu de la ligne des centres entre les images, leur séparation angulaire et leur inclinaison par rapport à l'horizon. L'inclinaison par rapport à l'horizon fut trouvée être très réduite, les objets paraissant se déplacer sur un plan pratiquement parallèle au sol. Il y a une légere diminution dans l'angle d'inclinaison au moment où les objets régressent, mais sa faible valeur est presque masquée par les erreurs aléatoires inhérentes aux mesures. La figure 3a présente un tracé de l'altitude angulaire, h, et de l'azimut, A, au milieu de la ligne des centres après l'image 65 (i.e., après qu'un avant-plan mesurable apparaisse), et la figure 3b présente le ration de distance de séparation theta_e/theta en fonction du temps, où theta_e est la séparation angulaire initiale (image 1) et theta est la séparation angulaire à un moment donné. Dans chacun de ces tracés certaines images ne furent pas mesurées, e.g., à cause de l'obscurcissement des images pendant le passage du chateau d'eau, ou étaient manquantes (il y avait des images manquantes entre les images n° 177 à 180 sur l'épreuve 35 mm that was measured for separation distance, but these were accounted for in the time scale using the 16 mm original as a basis). About 225 frames after the foreground (ventilator duct) appears on the film (i.e., after the 290th frame), the objects can no longer be clearly identified and measurements become very uncertain.

Fig. 1. Ratio of time varying value to maximum value of the angular diameters of the images of UFO #1 and UFO #2.

Click on image to see larger version.

Fig. 2. Motion of unidentified flying objects relative to foreground.

Click on image to see larger version.

Dans les figures 3a et 3b les lignes pointillées représentent ce qui serait the locus of the data points if the objects remained the same linear distance apart and moved linearly in a horizontal plane. The headings, delta, of 169° to 177° are exhibited. All of the data seems to be consistent with a heading of 171°. Of course, one cannot absolutely rule out some other curvilinear motion of the objects. However, any such motion would necessitate the coincidence of azimuth, altitude, and separation, all varying proportionally in some very peculiar fashion to a tolerance of 1%. Figure 4 is a map of Great Falls, Montana, and includes overlays of the UFO system's motion at various hypothetical distances. (no absolute determination of distance can be made on the basis of the angular data presented by the film.) Figure 4 also shows where Mariana and his secretary first viewed the "hovering and rotating" UFO's near an Anaconda smoke stack.

Fig. 3a. Motion of UFO system in altitude and azimuth.

Click on image to see larger version.

Fig. 3b. Separation distance of of UFO system as function of time.

Click on image to see larger version.

Après plus d'une décennie de spéculation et de vérifications d'hypothèses, tous les phénomènes naturels (e.g., oiseaux, ballons, insectes, météores, mirages, etc.) ont été exclus, à l'exception de reflets d'avions, sur la base des vents (que le bureau météo rapporta comme soufflant dans la direction opposée) ; l'absence de traînée observable (qui aurait trahi un météore bifurqué) ; et les luminosité, vitesse angulaire et mouvement stable, qui n'ont pu être réconcilés avec la supposition qu'il s'agissait d'oiseaux ou d'insectes. Les mêmes faits, accompagnés du rapport du bureau météo s1Une copie of the local half hourly surface weather observation for August 15, 1950, was obtained from the Great Falls, Montana Municipal Airport Station of the Weather Bureau. It shows that the surface wind increased during the forenoon to readings between 26 and 28 mph between 9 a.m. and noon, and that it reached 37 mph at 12:30. The surface wind direction was constantly from the southwest from 10 a.m. until 4 p.m. It was clear (visibility of 60 miles), the temperature was 77°F at 11:27, and the barometer was at about 30.0". et de l'angle du Soleil, semblent aussi exclure les diverses formes de reflets d'objectif, mirages atmosphériques ou reflets de nuages. D'après les analyses de vitesse et de géométrie, qui comprenaient une connaissance de l'azimut du Soleil au moment de la photographie (comme cela est confirmé par les ombres sur le film) les images aurait pu être (bien que non sans un effort d'imagination) un reflet spéculaire du Soleil sur des fusages d'avions. L'explication semble attractive depuis la rumeur (bien que non vérifiée [2]) que 2 avions à réaction (F-94) atterrissaient à la base AF de Malmstrom à peu près à l'heure de l'observation. Cette rumeur fut renforcée par une présentation de E. J. Ruppelt à un panel d'experts en janvier 1953 (la composition du panel ne fut pas révélée) mais aurait pu être le "Panel Robertson" [4]). Ruppelt [5] indique que l'officier de renseignement de Great Falls s'était plongé dans les énormes masses de fichiers et avait trouvé que seulement 2 avions, 2 F-94, se trouvaient près de la ville (Great Falls) pendant l'observation et qu'ils avaient atterri environ 2 mn après. ... Nous avons d'abord étudié les trajectoires de vol des 2 F-94. Nous connaissions le schéma d'atterrissage utilisé le jour de l'observation et nous savions quand les 2 F-94 avaient atterri. Les 2 jets n'étaient simplement pas à un endroit proche de l'endroit où les ovnis se trouvaient. La figure 4 exclut cette conclusion puisque les objets étaient dans la direction opposée de la base AF de Malmstrom et s'éloignaient du terrain d'aviation. Le panel, cependant, n'a pas considéré cec comme une preuve catégorique permettant d'éliminer l'hypothèse des avions à réaction.

Expérience

Using a camera similar to Mariana's (Revere turret type with a 3" focal length telephoto lens), a series of photographic experiments were carried out by the author on an array of objects (see Figure 6-22 on page 321 of reference [3]) at various distances and Sun angles and on jet plane reflections. The results of these experiments, however, made the hypotheses of airplane reflections quite strained.

The long persistence of the images would have required the airplanes to have moved on a unique parabolic path with Mariana at the focus. Unfortunately, these hypothetical parabolic paths would be incompatible with the 171° heading defined by the data. In addition, the apparent size of the images (admittedly enhanced by flaring, halation, adjacency effects, etc.) is also not compatible with the photographic experiments, since planes close enough to give rise to the images shown on the film clip would also exhibit some airplane structure as shown in Figure 6-24, page 323 of reference [3] in which the airplane images are of a size and brightness comparable to that of the unknowns.

Fig. 4. Map of Great Falls, Montana, including hypothetical UFO paths.

Click on image to see larger version.

This figure is a blow-up of a 16 mm frame from a camera of the same type as Mariana's, with the same stop setting and 3" telephoto lens. During the experimental filming, relative Sun angle, weather, etc., were the same as that reported by Mariana and verified by the Montana film itself, except that the jets were on a different heading -- not 171° -- in order to obtain optimal Sun reflections. The jet planes shown in the figure were at a distance of 2.5 miles and their structure exhibited angular dimensions of about 4 by 1 milliradians, whereas their elliptical, Sun-reflection flare image exhibited angular dimensions of about 6 by 1.4 milliradians.

Upon close inspection, the flare included a roughly circular bright nucleus and a comet-like "tail" of lesser brightness about 4.4 milliradians long. This comet-like Sun flare, which is not exhibited on the Montana film, is also generally characteristic of airplane-fuselage Sun reflections having approximately the same brightness as the Montana film objects. Even with the larger comet-like flare, the jets photographed during the photographic experiment are clearly identifiable.

Finally, airplanes at the limiting distance for resolution of structure (over 6.5 miles), with the 3" telephoto lens used, would have to have been traveling at speeds in excess of the capability of the F-94's (above 600 mph [6] in order to have been compatible with the angular rates of the images displayed on the film. At 6.5 miles a typical 50 foot airplane (such as an F-94) subtends angles of 1.5x0.4 milliradians or 5½ by 1¼ minutes of arc. The resolving power of the eye is from 1 to 3 minutes of arc (the Moon is about 30 minutes of arc in angular diameter). The actual resolving power of the camera used by Mariana (with the 3" telephoto lens and set at f/22) is from 2/3rds to one minute of arc even though its theoretical resolving power (exclusive of aberrations) is on the order of 2/3rds of a minute of arc (0.19 milliradians).

Thus, theoretically, and as borne out by the author's experiments, the F-94's would have been identifiable even at 6.5 miles. The (0.8) (1.51) = 1.2 milliradians fuzzy image (as depicted on the film for UFO #1) would have somewhat obscured an airplane structure at this distance; but the structure would still have been recognizable.

The angular (azimuthal) velocity of the objects was found to be 0.019, 2 radians/second. Equipped with the knowledge of the focal length and frame speed (16 frames per second) of Mariana's camera and the foreground during the filming, the transverse component of the velocity of the objects can be correlated to their height above the local terrain (3,312 ft) and distances from the observer (for the objects when they first appear on the film). Since only angular distances from one station are available for measurement, their actual range cannot be determined. On the other hand, Table I can be constructed on the basis of a variety of hypothetical ranges.

The measurements of the diameter of the developed images presented in Fig. I are the least accurate of all the data because of the smallness of the dimension and the fuzziness of the images. The image of any brilliant light source as seen by either the eye or a camera can appear much larger than the source itself. This fact had obvious bearing on the analysis of the film and motivated the photographic experiment conducted by the author during December, 1955. December, rather than August, was chosen due to the lower latitude of Los Angeles relative to Great Falls and because of the unique (smogless) visibility during the course of the experiment. The experiment was devised in order to obtain empirical information on the effect of distance, lens focal length, iris stop, frame speed, etc., in the photographic images of various small bright sources of reflected sunlight; some 118 combinations of these variables were examined. The experimental results appeared to indicate that if the first few frames of the film show Sun reflections from airplanes, which are optimally oriented with respect to the Sun (not the 171° heading), then the planes would have been on the order of one to three miles distant from the camera. If, however, these first few frames represent images of the reflection from airplanes not quite optimally oriented, then the planes could have been closer. In either event, their structure would also have been visible. The images were found to be much brighter than those that any birds could produce.

The brightness of a constant luminosity source, as it recedes from view, gives rise to a photographic image whose diameter varies somewhere between [the] inverse square root of the range to the inverse square of the range. (Ordinarily, however, with the inverse square for images as bright as the Montana objects.) The effects, which account for this uncertainty in image-size vs. range relationship, involve light scattering in the atmosphere, optical aberrations, flaring at the lens surfaces, diffraction, turbidity in the film, reflections off the film backing (halation), and adjacency effects (chemical reactions between over-exposed and underexposed areas on the film).

On the basis of Fig. 1, we find a decrease in angular diameter of the first object of about 62%, and the second about 61 %. Under the 171° heading assumption, the initial distance is about 78% less than the final distance (at disappearance). Thus, it would seem that the 171° heading hypothesis is also in agreement with the film images being the result of a constant brightness light source receding from the camera. That is, the inverse square distance decreases some 61%. Because the relationship of the developed image size to source range is not precise and because it is doubtful that we are dealing with constant-luminosity isotropic radiators, the third confirmation «f the 171° heading must be regarded as considerably less precise than the confirmations provided by Figs. 3a and 3b.

Conclusions

Because of the conflict between every hypothesized natural phenomenon and one or more details of the hard-data, photographic evidence analyzed (in addition to the uncertainty of the soft data, reported accounts (or rumors) of jet aircraft), no clear-cut conclusion as to a natural phenomenon can be made and the anomalistic images, having no real detail, cannot be analyzed further. These unexplainable images, taken alone, do not provide data on mass, shape, size, or linear speed and, indeed like the early single-camera meteor photographs or even like the early examples of attempts at photography through a microscope, are merely unresolved blobs and simply indicate the presence of a phenomenon. In these past, historical instances, supplementary data and equipment improvement were sought after in a systematic fashion even though there was only conjecture as to the exact character of the phenomena. See reference [8].

A number of other films have been viewed by the author, which purport to be UFO's, and they all seem to exhibit the common quality of poor image definition. This situation is not especially surprising since most of them have been taken with amateur equipment or they were accidentally taken from a great distance by cinetheodolites that were not "tracking" them. Like the Montana film, some of these films definitely cannot be explained on the basis of natural phenomena (others can be "explained" if one stretches one's imagination).

Références et notes

2. In November of 1955, an inquiry by phone was directed to Colonel Donald M. Hamilton, Commanding Officer of Malmstrom Air Force Base. He advised us by letter dated November 7, 1955, that as far as I can determine, there were no jet aircraft based here at that time, so that if any were in the air, they would have been transients.
3. Baker, Robert M. L., Jr. & Makemson, M. W., An Introduction to Astrodynamics, Second Edition, (Academic Press, New York, 1967), pp. 319 to 333.
4. Markowitz, William, lettres datées des 10 Novembre et 6 Décembre 1967. Selon Markowitz le panel consistait en H. L. Robertson, L. Alvarez, L. V. Berkner, S. A. Goudsmit et T. W. Page.
5. Ruppelt, E. J., The Report on Unidentified Flying Objects. (Doubleday & Company, Inc., Garden City, New York, 1956), pp. 286 to 288 and p. 292.
6. The maximum speed (achieved during a dive) of the F-94 is 602 mph, its landing speed is 130 mph, and its stalling speed is 108 mph.
7. McKinley, D. W. R., Meteor Science and Engineering, (McGraw-Hill Book Company, New York, 1961), page 128.
8. Baker, Robert M. L., Jr., "Future Experiments on Anomalistic Observational Phenomena," J. Astronaut. Sci. XV, No. 1, January-February, 1968.