UFO intercepts Russian rocket: Video analysis

William C. Treurniet, June, 2014

Summary. In May, 2014, a Russian rocket carrying an advanced satellite crashed after a UFO crossed its path, as seen on a video of the launch. Analysis of the object in the video showed several anomalies which suggest it incorporated either secret human technology or extraterrestrial technology. The object had the ability to rapidly modify its shape and to instantaneously come to a halt. At one point, it was closely accompanied by a toroidal shape, which is consistent with the presence of a four-dimensional duocylinder. The duocylinder has been  associated with propulsion of extraterrestrial craft.

1. Introduction

The Russian RT News reported on May 15, 2014, that a Russian Proton-M rocket with an advanced satellite on board crashed about nine minutes after lift-off. According to  the Russian national space agency Roscosmos, the crash was likely caused by a failure in one of the third stage’s steering engines. An emergency engines shutdown occurred when the rocket deviated significantly from its intended trajectory. The exact cause of the crash could not be established, although the rocket's third stage propulsion system was blamed for the failure (see here).

The news article included a video of the launch in which a barely visible white dot can be seen rushing to intercept the rocket. The rocket exhaust flared almost immediately after meeting the dot, and the launch was aborted about two minutes later.  The launch failure may have had nothing to do with the apparent intersection of the dot and rocket flight paths. On the other hand, the dot may be evidence of covert human technology or, as many have speculated, evidence of extraterrestrial interference.

1.1 Video analysis

Another video posted on You Tube shows a closer view of the mystery object as it approached the rocket. The following analysis examines the behaviour of the object in this video and suggests possible interpretations.

Although the movement of the white dot in the video is in a straight line toward the rocket, it is not smooth. The reason for this is more obvious when the playback speed of the video is reduced. Stepping through the video frame by frame shows the object alternating between a circular and a more oblong shape (see Figure 1), and sometimes disappearing altogether. These phenomena, which may be real or artifacts due to insufficient video resolution, would account for the observed jerky movements of a rapidly moving object.


   
Figure 1. Examples of different shapes assumed by the object.


Of particular interest is the behavior of the UFO as it nears the rocket. Successive frames of the video in this region were extracted in order to study them more closely, and they are displayed in Figure 2. The left column of the figure shows the sequence of frames cropped from the video, while the right column shows the same frames with contrast enhanced using image equalization. Throughout this sequence, the UFO changed its appearance suddenly for very brief intervals of time. We may assume that each frame has a duration of 1/25 or 1/30 seconds.


Frame  Original  Enhanced 
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
Figure 2. Successive frames showing the UFO - Left: Original, Right: Enhanced. 


In the first frame, the object is similar to other orbs that have been photographed in the past, but in the second and third frames it has divided into two parts. One part remains in the same position as in the first frame, while the other part is somewhat nearer to the rocket. Each part in Frames 2 and 3 appears to be about half the brightness of the orb in the first frame. 

The first three frames are shown in Figure 3 as an animated sequence. As appeared to be the case in the video, the positions of the right hand component in Frames 2 and 3 were aligned as closely as possible with the position of the orb in Frame 1. The animation demonstrates that the position of the left component in Frames 2 and 3 does not change relative to the orb's position in Frame 1. It appears that both components in Frames 2 and 3 stopped moving for the duration of those frames.


 

Figure 3. An animation showing the relative positions of the object(s) in the first three frames.


The animation shows that the configuration of the two-part object does not change significantly from the second to the third frame. There is an additional aspect of the latter frames that has been observed in other contexts as well (see here). It is the presence of a toroidal optical distortion in close proximity to UFOs in photographs. Figure 4 shows the image of Frame 3 with the contrast further enhanced. In the left panel, the left hand orb is situated on the ring of a torus extending to the left of the orb. The right panel identifies the torus with a graphical overlay. Note that this shape is completely non-existent in Frame 1 and Frame 4, so it existed only while the orb was split into two parts.


   
Figure 4. The toroidal distortion seen in Frame 3.
The right panel shows the position of the torus with a graphical overlay. 


Another major change to the object occurred in the fourth frame when it adopted a triangular or pyramidal shape as it moved to a new position nearer to the rocket. Its position again remained fixed for the duration of three frames. In the seventh frame, the object began to disappear and in the eighth frame it was gone.

According to this sequence of images, the UFO is able to change shape, divide into two parts, reassemble into a single object, and stop almost instantly for brief intervals of time. At one point, it is associated with a toroidal optical distortion likely rendered visible by the presence of the rocket exhaust.

2. Discussion

Given these observations, we can argue that the orb passed close to the rocket just before a likely problem was indicated by the blooming exhaust. We know this because the orb is associated with the toroidal structure appearing in the rocket exhaust gases. However, we cannot say whether or not the orb had anything to do with the launch failure. But can the video help us decide if the orb was produced by human or extraterrestrial technology?

2.1 The evidence for secret human technology

It is relatively certain that a technology has been developed secretly by humans since the year 2000 that can place balls of light in the atmosphere. A summary of the evidence is presented in an article entitled, "Is covert technology used to create balls of light in the sky?" For example, an orb captured on video over England executed very rapid movements and turns. The velocity of the orb was estimated to reach about 48 km/sec, which should be impossible for a self-powered, material object to achieve. Suppose, however, that the orb were painted in the sky by a remote generator, analogous to a spot of light from a laser. A tangential velocity of 48 km/sec could be attained at the estimated height if the source were rotated at a manageable 6-7 revolutions/sec. This scenerio was supported by several other videos of the sky over England.

The evidence suggests that  several countries have developed this capability. Such technology could have created the orb seen in the video and guided it to the intended target. As observed in the article, the control system may also morph the object into different shapes at the whim of the remote operator. If the orb consisted of some kind of plasma structure, the ionization could have interfered with the rocket's guidance system when the orb came into contact with the rocket. However, there is no obvious reason why someone would guide the orb to the rocket instead of placing it directly at the rocket's location. This explanation also does not account for the toroidal structure shown next to the orb in Figure 4.

2.2 The evidence for extraterrestrial technology

Balls of light have been seen in the sky well before humans began to develop the capability to put them there. Such sightings have often been attributed to the activity of extraterrestrial beings visiting our planet. If that is so, the orb associated with the failed Russian launch could be extraterrestrial technology.

The most compelling evidence for this is the torus of Figure 4. Such shapes have appeared often in photos next to UFOs, and a number were collected in a photo gallery. In most cases, the UFO is situated on or just outside the ring structure. The orb next to the torus near the Russian rocket is no exception, and is therefore evidence that the orb is extraterrestrial technology. 

An extraterrestrial being from the Zeta race gave a description of their spacecraft and propulsion technology. This topic is discussed in an online article and in the book, "A primer of the Zeta race". The craft exists in a non-physical etheric space that has a one-to-one correspondence with physical space. It can move in physical space by rolling up the corresponding etheric space into a cylinder. Moving across the "seam" of the four-dimensional etheric cylinder is then equivalent to moving the distance around the circumference of the cylinder in physical space. Significantly, the 4D cylinder can only be formed when there is full knowledge of the start and end points of the journey.

It was subsequently discovered that a 4D cylinder, called a duocylinder, projects onto either of the two lower-dimensional 3-axis coordinate systems as a torus. The appearance of the tori in photos of UFOs is independent confirmation of this aspect of extraterrestrial technology described by the Zeta being.

The knowledge that the tori associated with craft are related to their method of propulsion suggests a plausible scenario for describing what happened during the launch. The scenario assumes that the orb was a remote-controlled device sent to observe the launch and to open a path for a craft to arrive at the rocket's location using the cylinder method of travel. When the orb was near enough to the rocket, it split into two parts. The torus associated with one part indicates that an etheric duocylinder was created using the current location as the endpoint of the journey. The duocylinder enabled a triangular or pyramidal craft waiting at the start point to enter the physical space at the endpoint. As seen in the video, this craft emerged near the rocket either to cause it to fail or to observe the anticipated failure.

3. Conclusions

The analysis tends to support the conclusion that the orb in the video was extraterrestrial technology. A plasma ball or orb created with human technology might be able to affect the rocket's control systems. However, this interpretation does not explain how feedback would be obtained to guide the orb's trajectory from a remote location, and why the orb is briefly accompanied by a torus. On the other hand, the proposed scenario based on extraterrestrial technology does appear to account for all the observations from the video.

The advanced Express-AM4R satellite carried by the rocket was to improve communication services for Russia and surrounding countries. But it is possible that the satellite also had other lesser known capabilities.  We cannot say why the rocket's trajectory was affected without knowing the full capabilities of the satellite and the agenda of the extraterrestrial beings. We should be open to the possibility that the rocket failed for the reasons given by the Russian space agency, and that the purpose of the extraterrestrial presence was merely to observe.


Index