UAP-Italy Project

[Buckwild]

Hi guys,

Just wanted to introduce you to this project and ask you if you know any similar projects in your own country ?

In recent years, many researchers of unknown aerial phenomena have adopted new terminology that reflects a rational thought, based on research methods will be instrumental in explaining how technical a particular phenomenon which is manifested in various parts of the world: UAP (Unidentified Aerial Phenomena).

Major international research institutions are concerned about suspected cases of UAP, including French GEIPAN (Groupement d'Etude et d'Information sur les Phénomènes Aérospatiaux non-identifiés), the NARCAP (National Aviation Reporting Center on Anomalous Phenomena), the Project HESSDALEN and CIPH (Italian Committee Draft Hessdalen), using scientific methods to the study of any data obtained.

The UAP-Italy Project is a research project directed by Nicola Tosi of Research Center Modena Apennines, in alliance with 45 ° GRU (Research Group UAP of Polesine, Veneto), who for many years devoted to the weekly tracking some Italian areas of particular interest, where anomalous luminous phenomena occur regularly in the lower atmosphere. Both groups are uniting their forces and their methods of research have led to an "operational database, trying to disclose the technical thought for the field study of these phenomena and at the same time expanding the" network "of research in other areas Italy.

The term UAP then assumes a scientific / instrumental value of inquiry in the context of those phenomena classified as suspected UFO

Source : http://www.projectuap-italia.org/Project.htm

Here is the 45° GRU : http://www.45gru.it/
Here is the LTPA Observer Project : http://www.ltpaobserverproject.com/
and their research methodology : http://www.projectuap-italia.org/Englis ... ersion.pdf

Unfortunately, I noticed a flaw in the LTPA's methodology, they only use one camera per site to record/capture "anomalous" events. By using two or three in different locations, one could not only almost make sure that no artefacts or biologicals (i.e : cosmic rays, lens flares, noise in the camera, insects, birds, etc...) get on the way but would also obtain enough data to proceed to an eventual triangulation.

Separating artefacts from possible physical events is not only one of the steps in the analyzing process but also a top priority.

But regardless of this fact, they do seem to record quiet a few "anomalous" events with their systems.

Interesting...



Cheers,
Buck

[astrophotographer]

I don't read Italian but it is an interesting effort from what I can see. I agree that triangulation is the way to go. You need three cameras at least a couple hundred yards apart (I would think more like miles) in each area to identify height, speed, and possibly size. It would help identify these lights.

[nablator]

I haven't looked for any documentation about the Kingsland Observatory SETV initiative in north-western Ireland. The project will include 11 all-sky cameras and various detectors. Interesting...
http://www.europeanufosurvey.com/en/setv.php

[Buckwild]

I don't read Italian but it is an interesting effort from what I can see. I agree that triangulation is the way to go. You need three cameras at least a couple hundred yards apart (I would think more like miles) in each area to identify height, speed, and possibly size. It would help identify these lights.

With two cameras and by using trigonometry, you can already triangulate an object's distance and more, in other words, Az, alt, dist, speed, orbital parameters and heliocentric trajectory can be estimated. Distance between cameras and camera orientation are important. If the distance is too small, then your estimate might not be accurate and you might not capture the event with both cameras (for high alt objects & events) and If the distance is too great, then you might also not be able to capture the event with both cameras. That is if you are looking for intra-atmospherical objects like UFOs.

From what I know, for meteors & fireballs, distances can go up to 300 km or more with two or more ccd cams (stations). Mr Sonota who developed Ufo-capture software estimates that between 200 and 300 km* is the best distance in order to increase probabilities of recording meteors & fireballs with two ccd cams.

* (page 23) : http://france.allsky.camera.free.fr/CR_ ... tion_3.pdf


Cheers,
Buck

[Buckwild]

Hi everyone,

Let me introduce you to the first French All-sky cam forum.

It is not only dedicated to meteors, fireballs, TLEs, Re-entry (artificial objects), weather related events/phenomenas and UAPs but also to the different software & hardware, methods and pre/post-detection protocols. The members are pretty laid back (like here) and always ready to give a friendly hand (advices) to newcomers and amateur astronomers & AMATEUR astronomers like me (right Tim ? ) or even professionals. The document that I posted in my last message was written by one of the members.

Since I signed in, I asked them if it was possible to expand their database, by including everything, from artefacts, to flying bags, biologicals, lens flares, chaff & flares, noise, rc toys, satellites, aerodynes, lighter than air, pyrotechnical devices, lasers, search-lights, satellites, fuel dumps, rocket launch, fires, drunk college girls, etc...everything !

Well, the goal is to aim for a big and diverse database for comparisons and known referentials, it has not been done before, at least not that I know off and I think that it is a bad idea to throw these video-captures in the bin. This is unfortunatly what most (?) people do and I know it for a fact since I asked this question to some networks before.

Two years ago, I asked Mr Jacques Patenet (head of the GEIPAN back then) if it was possible to create a HUB or similar (?), that would transfer video-captures taken by all-sky "cammers" from France, instantaneously to the CNES/GEIPAN bank database (that they would create). He thought it was a good idea but now he is gone. This project/idea is still in my mind...

ps : if only we had a spectroscopy program, it would be even better !

What do you think ?


Here it is : http://allskycamfrance.frenchboard.com/

Cheers,
Buckwild

[Buckwild]

Hi guys,

Another thing that I did not mention, about the benefits of using data from two AMS as Automatic Measurement Station and their related motion capture software (besides MetRec*), is that it is necessary to make sure that the perfect timing of some of the simultaneous multi-detections are not made by biologicals.

* read the "What to do with double meteors?" section here : http://www.imonet.org/common_error.html

Since this software (UfoCapture) starts recording (on the hdd) from a few seconds before the event/motion to a few seconds after the event/motion, it should be obvious that we can verifiy (frame by frame) if the time correlation is "perfect" (lower limit 30 fps, upper limit is 100 fps) or not. Ok, but there's another problem, what if and unlike the video below, the event is much shorter and that we cannot differentiate* a biological from a satellite because the trajectory seems to be perfectly linear ?

* Insects captured at a very close distance but just beyound the "blurfo zone" (DOF) can sometime seem to display a perfectly linear trajectory

Well, two AMS would help solving & answering this question, because biologicals would not be captured by the second AMS.

This video-capture comes from Osaka, Japan and this guy used UfoCaptureV2 :



Now the video : http://s263.photobucket.com/albums/ii14 ... 2mmB-1.mp4

Original link : http://meteor.chicappa.jp/2010/satellite20100205d.html

Very intereting isn't it ? I did not send it to Ted Molczan* for lack of complementary informations and because only one camera captured it from what I know, so it would be very uncertain to try to deduct what the orbital parameters might be. But this event is very interesting because it seems (almost certain) that these "satellites" "appeared" and "disappeared" exactly at the same time.

If that's the case, it would be very intersting to ask astronautical specialists, what they think about it.

* : http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/14.02/spy.html

Here is another exemple but this time, it is almost a perfect spatial & timing correlation of an insect and a meteor caught in the FOV :

WATEC Neptune 100 + Lens : HG0608AFCS-HSP (video Iris type) using Ufo-Capture
Object(s) : Meteor + insect
Localisation : Tokyo, Japon by Mr "SonotaCo"
Vidéo dispayed in real-time (~30 fps) : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LkOacdis ... r_embedded

I did contact the IMO webmaster :

Hi Christophe,

I (also as an amateur astronomer) think you're right... On the
compound picture you can see the path of the "insect" continue
downward, while the meteor appears in a nice and straight line.

If meteors could be drunk, I think they'd look like this though...
Seeing that with still a bit of a hangover from the newyear's
celebrations is a bit confusing

Cheers,
Lxx xxxxxxxx
IMO webmaster

Cheers,
Buck

[Buckwild]

Hi folks,

Talking about triangulation, yesterday (8th) was the last time one could spot the ISS and Discovery at almost (30° apart and 30 sec) the same time. I did watch the landing on NASA TV and I felt quiet sad since it was the end of the road for this shuttle (2 more missions to go for the other shuttle).

Some people in Europe took photographs and even filmed the event and noticed a trail behind the shuttle. Other noticed that the shuttle had almost the same magnitude as the ISS did, which was quiet unusual.

Here is why :

LAST WATER DUMP: At the end of the day on March 8th, a strange curlicue-shaped comet appeared in the twilight skies of Europe. It was space shuttle Discovery performing a dump of waste water. Crystals of flash-frozen urine and other substances glistened in the sunlight, putting on an impressive show. Click on the image to view of a movie of the event recorded by Jens Hackmann of Weikersheim, Germany

Source (March, 9th 2011) : http://www.spaceweather.com/archive.php ... &year=2011

Remember to click on the picture

Tioga from France in Nancy (NWART1) filmed the trail, here is one image :




And here is the composite image from the NWART1 Station in Nancy (Shuttle + ISS) :




Now a composite image (Shuttle + ISS) from Cerilly (OAK1 located 350 km WSW of NWART1) :




Tioga then calculated the Shuttle positions @ different moments :
19h15m58s LT (UTC+1)
19h16m25s LT (UTC+1)
19h16m50s LT (UTC+1)

And he then estimated the trajectory and it's speed & altitude & distance travelled in 51.5 sec : Alt 350 km, distance travelled ~375km, speed 26300km/h (7,3km/s) :





Now, Heavens Above's prediction to compare :



Not bad hey ? (with the western Canadian accent)

Edit : for a mistake

Cheers,
Buck

[Buckwild]

Hi guys,

Remember what I was saying about having a good spectroscopy program...

Well, here is the perfect exemple to show you how spectral signature might help in different ways. Ok, well, in the video-capture I am about to present, you'll see what appears to be a "ball" of light just above a tree. Once you rule out plasmoids phenomenas* linked to high tension power lines, then you can only speculate about the nature (origin) of this phenomena. Could it be related to pyrotechnical devices, aircraft lights, post-combustion (jetfighter), etc (?)...you name it...

* :



Spectral signature would not only help eliminate potential candidates but even the most counter-intuitive ones that we could forget thinking about. It would also be a good way to get hard data on potentialy anomalous/unknown phenomenas and compare this data in the futur with similar events (spectral signature & intrinsinc characteristics).

Here it is (slow motion) :



Date : 02.01.2011
Location : Lariano (RM), Italy
Time : 17:48:16 LT (UTC+1)
Duration : ~3 seconds (from 17:48:16 until 17:48:19)
Intrument : CCTV cam 0.00045 lux, pointing South,
Weather data : Overcast, WD = 11 km/h ENE
Humidity level : 67%
Temperature : 8°C
Wind chill : 6.5°C
Visibility : ≤ 10 Km
Angular height : 11.7°

Source : http://www.ltpaobserverproject.com/uplo ... ariano.pdf

Like I said, what a bummer, there's not much that can be done without the spectral signature.


Cheers,
Buck

[Buckwild]

I haven't looked for any documentation about the Kingsland Observatory SETV initiative in north-western Ireland. The project will include 11 all-sky cameras and various detectors. Interesting...
http://www.europeanufosurvey.com/en/setv.php

Hi Nab',

You won't find any*, I searched for it before but you can write to him :
nfo |at| kingslandobservatory.com

*Unless you find this : Ansbro, E., and Overhauser, C. "SETV: Opportunity for European Initiative in the Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence," First European Workshop on Exo/Astrobiology ESA, Frascati, Italy, 21-23 May, 2001. ESA SP-496, pp. 285-288. Expanded abstract in Astrobiology 1(2) 2001.

I did write to him two years ago and we discussed briefly about my own futur private initiative as an amateur with a small budget < 20.000 €. With Commercial Off the Shelf Technology (COST), it sure is possible to gather some valuable data with today's available technology.. The hard part is to make decisions based on your own operational goals as far as investment goes (hard & software). That is putting together a research methodology and strategy that enables you to construct a basic set of working assumptions (suppositions) for ETI’s motives. If that's what you are looking for of course.

Scote Stride (NASA/JPL/S3ETI) put up such a set of search methodology steps, here they are :

1. Decide what probe features to search for.
2. Establish a bounded search space or volume.
3. Survey the available instruments and sensors.
4. Match the detectable probe features with the available instruments
5. Develop a set of design requirements and specs for an observatory
6. Select a data management and analysis strategy.
7. Derive hypotheses.
8. Design and build the Observatory and begin search.

From what I understood/remember, Kingsland Observatory's approach is very similar to what Massimo Teodorani would like to do in the near futur. That is building a TDA (Telescope-Dectector-Analyzer) which is basically the main opto-electronic unit which consit of :

-A radar tracking station
-An IRST system (as Infrared Searching and Tracking device)
-A laser device (distance determination)
-A Photon-Counting Photometer (PCP)
-CCD detectors (imaging and spectroscopy)
-Up to 20 small telescopes to simulteanoulsy obtain data of different types

In other words, military-like tech' & astronomy tech'

Personnaly, I would not use telescopes but wide angle CCD detectors with a prism and a grating to obtain electronic spectrum, which allows you to carry out measurements on the continuum spectrum. I would also like to use lasers coupled (telemetry) to the CCD detectors and a PCP. Now, If I had a much bigger budget, I would use high-speed video cameras (to analyze motion sequence and improve stacking), an IRST and a radar .

Multiply this by two (2 AMS) and there you go.

nb : if some rich and beautifull woman wants to marry me and sponsor me as well, please send me a pm (I am a good cook and I am clean).


Cheers,
Buck

[Buckwild]

Hi guys,

I've been reading and translating some of the UAP-Italy Project documents and I am quiet surprised to say the least. They do not specify the protocols and methods/techniques used to collect spectral signatures. in order to be able to verify if they follow sound practices when collecting it. I mean, we do not even know which databases they used for comparisons and if these databases present detailed metadata* ! Knowing that signatures found in the databases are useful for only a very specific scenario (one that matches the geometry used during ground truth collection), we do not even know if this has been verified. There are other very significant factors regarding illumination field and scattering properties of the material and reference standards that influence the computed reflectance signature.

* metadata that is presented with the signatures that they use for comparisons to make sure they are applicable to the phenomenology and collection scenario that they have under study.

Some studies show that dramatic variations can be found ((up to 30%) in the reflectance signatures derived for the same material using different techniques. These techniques are NOT SPECIFIED !

Since the data presented by these amateur astronomers is presented without detailed metadata , it would not only be hazardous for other researchers to use it as valid absolute reflectance spectra, it would be useless !

Ok, I am not a specialist but I am not only questionning myself about the validity of their data but also about their goal, because if it is not meant to be shared/verified/reviewed, it is useless!

Take a look at it to judge for yourself : http://www.projectuap-italia.org/images/FILES%20pdf/F[1].E.L.%20Fenomeni%20Energetici%20Luminosi.pdf

Cheers,
Buck

[Buckwild]

Hi folks,

I am about to show you a perfect exemple. Some guy in France recently recorded a daytime event with his all-sky camera. Here it is : http://www.raceovni.com/crbst_180.html

Like I said earlier, separating artefacts from possible physical events is not only one of the steps in the analyzing process but also a top priority. Well, here is what happens when you miss that critical step :
http://www.raceovni.com/crbst_178.html
http://www.raceovni.com/crbst_179.html

Conclusion : It's a UFO as Unidentified as they specified

Well, I did write to them (email) to tell them that cosmic rays can "look" like the event that was captured and that there are a couple of methods to spot them out. The ones I have in my database are all nightime events. Not many (if not none) astronomers record during the day, only UAPlogists do that. I showed them differents exemples, like this one :

Video : http://s263.photobucket.com/albums/ii14 ... 024325.mp4

Composite image of the event (it happened on more than one frame, just like the AG 80 video ) :


More cosmic rays here : http://sonotaco.jp/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1311

I also contacted quiet a few different people, from amateur astronomers who own all-sky cams to professional astronomers and all said that it was an artefact caused by a cosmic ray hit and not an electric interference or an object (blurfo or not).

I won't explain everything that has been said on at least 3 forums with further technical details but some other astronomer demonstrated that it was an artefact by using some software :



He said, that the black pixels visible in the white pixels are the result of a cosmic ray impact.

Now, as you see, these ufo-guys could careless about these explanations and now they think that they really filmed a very fast UFO, when in fact, since they did not record it on two cameras, they should just reject this possibility without further evidence.

With my internet friends, we are working on a very simple method to not only spot them out but also to learn how to differenciate artefacts caused by cosmic ray hits as opposed to electric interferences. Visual comparisons are just not enough and a pseudo-scientific way to go.


Cheers,
Buck