A round translucent UFO near an aircraft

William C. Treurniet, July, 2018
(Photos by John Mooner)

Summary. Two photographs taken in sequence showed a UFO close to an aircraft. The enhanced photos showed a toroidal optical distortion near the two objects. Comparison of the photos suggested that the UFO created the pattern. This is consistent with earlier evidence that the torus is generated by the propulsion system of an extraterrestrial craft.

On June 22, 2018, two photos taken in quick succession by John Mooner of Newton Abbot Devon England, showed a translucent UFO near a jet aircraft (Photo1, Photo2). The time in the EXIF information that recorded when the photos were taken was the same for both photos. The photographer recalled that the camera was set to burst mode so the photographs were taken milliseconds apart.

When the photographs are enhanced, an interesting detail appears in the sky near both objects. It is an apparent optical distortion in the shape of a torus. The first row of Figure 1 shows images of the original photographs, the second row shows the tori in the images enhanced by equalization, and the last row identifies certain features of interest for ease of reference. For example, the UFO changed its position, relative to the horizontal line passing through the center of the torus, from 10 degrees in Photo 1 to 60 degrees in Photo 2.

Original photo 1 resized Original photo 2 resized
   
Enhanced photo 1 Enhanced photo 2
   
Enhanced and annotated photo 1 Enhanced and annotated photo 2
   
Figure 1. Enhancement of the translucent UFO and environment

The toroidal detail has several possible explanations. It may be a camera artifact, or it may have been generated by either the aircraft or the UFO. We can argue for or against the likelihood of these possible explanations by comparing details in the two photographs.

Is the torus a camera artifact reflecting the internal structure of the lens system? Each image shows the complete photograph. If the torus were generated internally, it should appear at the same position in the field of view of each photo. We can see in Figure 1 that the center of the torus is further to the right in the second image compared to the first. Therefore, we can say that the torus is not an artifact generated inside the camera.

Was the torus created by the aircraft? In the annotated photos, the vertical line identifies the position of the aircraft. It is in the same position in each photo, suggesting that the change in position of the aircraft due to its motion was within the error of measurement. Alternatively, the camera field of view may have shifted slightly to maintain the aircraft's position. In any case, the position of the aircraft was fixed in the field of view, while the position of the torus changed. This independent behaviour suggests that the torus was not generated by the aircraft.

A third possibility is that the torus was generated by the UFO. This is consistent with a number of other photographs of UFOs taken over the years. These earlier observations suggested that the UFOs are extraterrestrial craft, and that the toroidal pattern is generated by magnetic and gravitational fields associated with a craft's propulsion mechanism. The pattern would appear when the fields affect nearby matter. The evidence for this is discussed in the article, "An observed property of UAP in photographs".

Another article, "Higher dimensional physics associated with UFOs", is based on the same obervations. However, it also includes a discussion of possible technologies that extraterrestrial craft might have, such as the Alcubierre drive or the Einstein-Rosen bridge. A novel technology we may call a "duocylinder bridge" was proposed that could, in theory, account for the appearance of the toroidal patterns. The duocylinder bridge would be a path through hyperspace for travelling arbitrary distances in 3D space. It involves creation of a cylinder in four dimensions, a duocylinder. A craft attached to the duocylinder would step across the "seam" of the duocylinder to arrive at a distant location when it is unwrapped in three dimensions. The article suggests that a sequence of images associated with the failed launch of a Russian spacecraft show the duocylinder in use.

A reference to the theory of a duocylinder shows an animated graphic of a rotating duocylinder. As it rotates, it forms a 3D torus at two perpendicular positions. Either might account for the torus seen in the photographs. A controlled duocylinder bridge could explain observed differences between the two photographs. That is, in the second photo the torus and the associated craft have moved relative to their positions in the first photo. The center of the torus moved from the left to the right of the aircraft position. Further, the ET craft moved from its position 10 degrees from horizontal to a new position still on the torus, but rotated 60 degrees from horizontal. The craft also moved further away from the center of the torus. Translation and rotation of the duocylinder in hyperspace might acount for the change in position of the ET craft relative to the aircraft.

In Figure 1, a region on the torus is demarcated by the ovals in the annotated enhanced photos. The region is noticeably brighter in the second photo than in the first photo, while the brightness of the rest of the image does not appear to change. This difference might also be explained by the controlled movement of a duocylinder bridge. The change in brightness might be explained by a small alteration in orientation of the 3D torus as the duocylinder rotates slightly in hyperspace. The change would have been due to a change in reflectivity of the matter organized by the toroidal fields.

Index