Israel UFO Air Crash Video Passes Muster

---

JEFF SAINIO'S REPORT ON THE ISRAEL UFO AIR CRASH VIDEO

---

1-16-99
Videoanalysis 6/24/96
Rosh Haayin, central Israel

Events as reported to me from Barry Chamish: 
'On 28/9/95, Mr. M. noticed an unexplainable object in the 
skies over Rosh Haayin in central Israel. He grabbed his video 
camera and captured a silvery, glowing object become, two, 
three and then four fiery orbs, in a near square formation, over 
a wide expanse of the northwestern sky. After this incident, Mr. 
M. became a constant skywatcher. His dilgence was rewarded 
on 24/6/96 when a similar silvery orb appeared in the lower 
western sky. He trained his video camera on the orb... And then 
a glowing white oval-shaped object appeared some 20 degrees 
west of the object and streaked toward it at high speed. Within 
three seconds it struck the stationary orb, causing a huge 
explosion in the sky which must have destroyed both objects. 
Stunned, Mr. M. stopped filming immediately after capturing 
the explosion.'

The submitted video, which was in PAL format, was converted 
to NTSC format. It shows several events; a group of lights, one 
apparently dropped from another (the dropping is seen in the 
stills marked 28/9/1995 and 3:27:33); a stationary light which 
is apparently struck by a moving light, and a triangle of lights. 
The group of lights is interesting, but I could find no basis for 
investigating any form of anomalousness. The triangle of lights
has no reference objects to indicate what or where it is.

The stationary light was much more interesting. Various lights, 
probably streetlights, in the video were used as reference 
objects, and showed that the light was stationary over some 
30 seconds. An approaching airplane's landing lights will 
appear stationary, although motionlessness over this length 
of time seems unusual.

A vertical tower structure, apparently made of girders, is near 
the light. Some horizontal structure is atop the structure. It
was not sufficiently defined for continuous measurements to 
be made from it.

Another bright object appears to the left and slightly below 
the stationary object. In 2.9 seconds, it moves toward the 
stationary object, apparently hitting and exploding. In 1/4 
second, the explosion disappears with no trace of either 
object. The 5-frame sequence to the right illustrates the 
sequence.

The bright object can be seen to move between the girders
of the vertical structure. This is useful in determining the 
relative size of the moving light. (The size of the light as 
seen on the video, is misleading; it is presumably much 
smaller than what is seen, due to extreme overexposure 
and glare.) The light disappears or reappears completely 
6 times; in 3, the change is abrupt; completely bright-to-dark 
or vice versa. In the other 3, the change is gradual, with a 
frame showing partial brightness. What can be learned from 
this? One must remember that the video is a sequence of 1/50 
second time exposures. Assume the light is small, and that the 
moving object has only one light. If by chance, the 
disappearance coincides with the period between exposures, 
an abrupt disappearance will be seen. A large light, or several 
lights horizontally separated, will never disappear abruptly 
while moving slowly. Since 6 occurrences form a useful 
population of samples, the moving light can reliably be said to 
be quite small. This probably eliminates the flame from a missile 
as a source.

Although the vertical structure was not a reliable reference 
object, the two lights' relative position could be measured. 
Over 500 measurements of the two lights' position were made. 
The graph at below shows the distance between the 2 lights. 
Breaks in the data line are due to unreliable data from camera 
motion or the moving light going behind the girders. Reference 
straight lines show constant speed. The slopes of the lines show 
that the moving light spent about a second at some speed, then 
sped up about 16% before the collision. The 16% is not due to 
a zoom change; the tower is sufficiently visible to verify that its 
size does not appreciably change. Although the graph shows 
noise and missing data, the acceleration certainly occurred in 
under a second. No reasonable object I know of is capable of 
a 16% acceleration in a second.


(Graph by Jeff Sainio)     Position vs. Time

When the 2 objects apparently collide and explode, the apparent 
size of the light expands by a factor of roughly 2.5; this does 
not appear to be due to overexposure, but is the real size of 
the object. The last 2 frames of the video are NOT overexposed, 
but diffuse; since overexposure is not involved, this indicates 
the actual size of the explosion is shown. The real increase in 
size of the bright area is certainly much larger than 2.5. In 
the video the explosion moves downward; this is probably due to 
camera motion of the startled videographer; the reference tower 
is too smeared to verify this conclusion.

The explosion is not due to any conventional method I am 
familiar with; conventional, large explosions require much more 
than 1/4 second to disappear, and usually generate flaming 
debris that falls from the explosion. Neither characteristic is 
seen here.

The acceleration, light size, and explosion are not explainable 
in any convention way that I know of, and this case remains 
unidentified.

Jeff Sainio
MUFON Staff Photoanalyst

This html content (c)Copyright 1999, Joel Henry and/or above named authors.
All rights reserved. The images associated with this page are being used in good faith in keeping with "fair use" USA copyright law. Copyrights, if any, are held by the original owners of said images (and source material) and/or their assignees. Any problems send e-mail to: [email protected].