|Home Page | Subscribe | Archive: 2000 - 2012 | Cut to the Chase Radio | Planet X Town Hall|
|Earth | eBooks | ET | Humanity | Nostradamus | Planet X | SciTech | SCP | Space | War|
Nostradamus — King of Terror
Solar Eclipse as Seen From Turkey
Update #2 - August 24, 1999
by Marshall Masters
This article was published on TMG as the 2nd update to observations made by Marshall Masters in The Millennium Group (TMG) article, Solar Eclipse as Seen From Turkey, on August 11, 1999.
Update #1 of Solar Eclipse as Seen from Turkey, has generated an impressive amount of mail, beginning just hours after its posting on the site. Along with the expected conjecture and opinions, we've received some incredible nuggets of information from some very talented people. Therefore, the goal of this update is bring some fresh, critical information to this ongoing discussion.
FR: Ray Ward
Ray's right about this, I checked it out.
I understand from that article by Marshall Masters concerning the eclipse that one of the objects in the video is considered to be Venus. No way!
The reason is that the eclipse occurred on the 11th of August and the three objects are seen to the right of the sun and are above the ecliptic as the moon travels through it.
Venus was 2 1/2 degrees below the sun on Aug. 20 at 8:00 a.m. EST if I remember right. This would put it way out of the box in that shot unless it was tilted 90 degrees toward the south. Because Venus is so close to us, it would appear in the SOHO image to be just on screen, of roughly an apparent 71/2 degrees. Yes, Venus was still in its proper orbit judging by the figures I just gave out. At any rate, Venus would have been to the left of the sun during the solar eclipse, not on the right. The moon was moving toward the right, so the camera orientation was correct and Venus would have been behind the moon, further to the left than the moon was.
The conclusion I come up with is that none of the anomalies in the solar eclipse is Venus. Also, the other two bodies are aligned with the primary one closer to the sun. Once again, I think its Lee and I have not seen anything to change my mind on that at all.
Take care, Ray
FR: Chris Cummings
Dear Michael and Richard,
I have read your recent articles on the anomalies seen during the solar eclipse. I have also heard Richard speak on the Art Bell show about the recent events and his request sent out for video and pics of the eclipse. I recall watching the eclipse on the discovery channel and just happened to tape it.
The show consisted of the British side of the Discovery channel and took feeds from various local TV stations in various countries. So this sparked my curiosity and I went to review the tape and found some interesting things. First, about 1 hour and 35 minutes into the show they showed the eclipse from Bucharest. What caught my attention was when the camera man, who was adjusting the iris of the camera to view the corona, over adjusted and anomalies appeared for a split second. However, these could be due to a lens flare.
Second, when they were showing the eclipse from Iran, something else caught my attention. The feed was on a shot of a wall with six video monitors in it, each showing what appeared to be a different feed in Iran. One of the monitors looked as if it was tracking the objects A and B discussed in your analysis.
FR: Pauls Sloss
I stumbled on to your sight, while looking up the date for the July lunar eclipse. It's amazing where you can get after a few clicks from the "Sky and Telescope page". I'm a graphic designer with fleeting interests in the sciences, and was captivated by the debate on your millennium site.
The point at hand...
I decided to do a bit of quick analysis of a few key frames of the August 11 eclipse to see if there was anything to pick up in the black areas, the idea was to pick up what sort of camera activity was happening, and I picked up something in the moments between "totality" and the "3 objects". I cannot shed any light about the objects themselves, but the background may have a story in it.
The attached files are side by side comparisons of particular frames. Please excuse the lack of frame documentation, this is a rough analysis.
Eclipse1.jpg and eclipse2.jpg show the background at the moment of totality, the faint crescent arc can still be made out, and shows up in the high contrast image.
The background shows quicktime compression noise consistent with video noise in the black area.
Images 1 and 2 are paired to show the consistency of the video noise across some frames
Eclipse3.jpg shows Object 1 and 2. In the high contrast image the objects clip, the faint arc of the sun can still be made out in the orange but the background shows an emergence of what looks to me like a landscape horizon.
Note the double peak near the brightest object.
Eclipse7.jpg shows all three objects. In the high contrast image the arc of the sun can no longer be made out, but the landscape horizon is more pronounced. The double peak is still there and what to me look like trees can be made out to the left of the double peak.
Images 3 and 7 are paired to show a consistency of a different image in the background over some frames.
There is also a wealth of other detail which could be considered in the frames around the third object, but I don't want to speculate on it.
The Conservative Conclusions
If the background image is a landscape scene, then it would have to be a reflection or refraction off glass in front of the lens. My schoolboy experience with a total eclipse in 76 in Australia, is that the surrounding landscape has enough light to define objects especially the difference between sky and land, I still have the photos from that time. It still could be that the third object is a reflection, while the cameraman was removing a filter, or a refraction of an object moving or flashing near the lens. From what I've seen of the NASA published footage, poor as it may be, frame rates have been kept low in the quicktime movies, so you may see abrupt changes between frames if the action is quick.
A note to a point in your 22 August bulletin, re: comparison between a Real Networks file and a Quicktime file. I haven't seen the comparison you talked about, but my experience with the compression codecs available in for both formats vary greatly. Depending on frame rate and compression algorithm, real differences can be achieved with the same piece of source material.
Bearing in mind the lack of other clips showing any of the objects, and the very short period that the objects appear in the said clip, there is very little information to draw any solid conclusions about them.
I've received a large amount of e-mail about lens flares and foreground objects. I've included this image to show a difference between the QuickTime images and an amateur photo. Marshall
FR: J. Brown
This was passed along to me by someone who got this pic taken from Karlsruhe, Germany during the eclipse.....the object north (or above) the sun here looks like "object C". The other two look like, well you decide. This is not doctored to my understanding. This came from someone in Germany taking photos with their personal camera.
Jennifer and Joseph, the simple fact that you sent a composite picture with a modicum of words was an intriguing message that seemed to say, "look for yourself." You sent the right message. Marshall
FR: Jennifer and Joseph Malinoski
Feel free to post this
Best Regards, Jen & Jos.
Analysis by Marshall Masters
I first want thank each of the contributors on this page for a job well done. I would especially like to thank Ray Ward, Jennifer and Joseph Malinoski and Chris Cummings for your excellent contributions. You have all added considerable value to an effort that could very well culminate in a bone-chilling conclusion.
Chris Cummings' e-mail pointed out the fact that we are not the only group with a keen interest in Objects A and B, whereas Object C has been a hard-chewed bone of contention from the very beginning. (To those of you who wrote us about this object, I am happy to inform you that it has been identifed as a man-made object.) This fact, in combination with the composite image created by Jennifer and Joseph Malinoski leads me to the possibilty that Object B is in fact Comet Lee and that it may have fractured and is being immediately trailed by large debris.
Please keep in mind that I am not an astronomer. With this in mind, let me take you through my analysis, step-by-step:
COMPOSITE: I do not personally know Joseph and Jennifer, so I checked the image they submitted against the NASA/MOV video clip for tampering. It does not appear to be manipulated. Their original submission was a TIFF format which is in my opinion the best digital format for non-computer generated images. However, browsers do not support TIFF, so I've converted the image to JPEG for this page.
OBJECT "A" IS MAN-MADE: At 400% magnification, Object A appears cylindrical with round nodes on the left side. The node on the top seems to have evenly spaced antenna. I have no idea of what this thing is, but it is large. Given the zoom range and the bulb on top, I would estimate that it is most likely a Russian spacecraft in near-earth orbit.
OBJECT "C" IS MAN-MADE: At 400% Object C appears to be a satellite. You can make out the solar panels on both sides of the cylinder. We've had a lot of folk telling us that Object C has to be in front of the moon. I was not ready to accept this explanation, because as photographer I understand the nature of light and how it can bend, hence we see mirages of oases and mermaids. But upon close-up investigation, this is definitely a man-made object most likely in near-earth orbit.
OBJECT "B" COULD BE COMET LEE -- AND POSSIBLY FRAGMENTED: At 100% Object B does not appear to be a man-made object, and appears to have two parts. At 1000% Object B turns into clearly discernible pixel bands of gray that form two distinctive horseshoe patterns. The far right object is the farthest from the Sun and is the brightest of the two. The far left object trails immediately behind it and is somewhat dark.
Far Right Object
Far Left Object
The height of the far right object is approximately 36 bands, whereas the height of the far left object is 20 bands. This makes the far left object roughly 1/3 the size of the far right object, and since it is no where near as bright, this also leads me to think it is more dense.