Le Muy UFO

Photographic analysis : the report

By

 UFOCOM ADV team (graphic document analysis)

Jean-Noël D, Alain H, Alain DH

 

Introduction

On October 1999, around 23h30, a person living in Le Muy campground (he prefers to remain unidentified) saw a bright light through his mobile home window. He went out and took a picture with a Polaroid camera. But because the object swiftly left, he did not get a chance to take a second one. 

 

A reproduction of the picture taken

Note: comments below the picture are from the hand of the person who took the picture.

The picture technical data

This picture has been taken with a Polaroid instant camera, most likely a type SX-70, a common model devoid of flash light. The technical specifications for this camera are as follows:

The film used was a "Polaroid Instant Color Film 600", the sensitivity of which is 640 ISO.

The original Polaroid picture has been seen by two Ufocom members. This was not the document that was used for analysis. This later was a copy of the original (fac simile), obtained from a professional photographer, on a Fuji "PIETRO Paper ".

 

Visual examination

The picture is at the standard Polaroid format. With the exception of the object, below it one can see 3 light points. Nothing else is seen but some dust traces.

The object itself, of blue and white colors, is not perfectly centered on the picture. It undoubtedly exhibits a rotation symmetry. The edges, however, appear fuzzy.

 

Deconvolution-processed image

We just noticed that the edge of the photographed object appear fuzzy. A deconvolution process may often be used to uncover hidden details. Unfortunately, this was not the case for this picture.

The deconvolution-processed picture

A computer processing of the image only confirmed, should that be necessary, the symmetry of the object. There is no obvious indication that this may be a photographic falsification.

 

Spectrographic analysis

The analysis below only covers the wavelength range of the light that the photographic film is able to retain. This range mostly falls within the “visible” domain.

To perform this analysis, we assume – as a first estimate – that the RGB triplets of the original picture and those of the digitalization scanner were roughly calibrated similarly on similar wavelengths. This is a reasonable guess, considering the reliable color reproduction ability of current machines, which provides an estimated 10% measurement error for a wavelength. The general shape of the spectrum, however, will be unaffected.

 

 

The spectrum of the object at 3 different positions


One observes that the color of the object is highly monochromatic. The wavelength spectrum is very narrow; it is centered at the wavelength 473 nm.

 

Morphological analysis

We computer-generated a revolution solid illuminated from two different sources. It is clear that the general shape of the object is recovered and comparable to that of the object on the picture. However, the endogenous light of the object is not seen.

Computer simulations did not allow to reproduce the endogenous brightness borne by the photographed object. Therefore the only valid conclusion is “the object glows due to its own generated light”.

Simulation of a revolution solid

 

Other documents

At this stage, we have to point out that the shape of the Le Muy object is not at all an unique one. Aside from lens-like objects that we will not discuss further here, several pictures of similar/comparable objects are available.

Below are, reproduced from other sites on the internet, some of these pictures.

 

We do not know the origin of these pictures and we will not evaluate whether they are reproducing “real” or “fake” events. They only ascertain that the shape of the Le Muy UFO is not exceptional. Nothing more.

 

Picture analysis

The light points below the object exhibit about the same “color” than this object. Though not verified, we are most likely witnessing a specular reflection of the object, at the surface of the elements of the lens, a classical event when a very bright object is photographed.

The picture was taken at night, with a clear sky in the background. However, no star is seen on the picture. This is quite normal. With the 640 ISO film, an exposure time of at least 3 minutes is required to perceive 1st magnitude stars and planets. This is just impossible with that type of camera.

By “forcing” the gamma factor of the scan photography, a “veil” is seen as well as a vertical bar and some fingerprints. We noticed that these imperfections do not exhibit a color same as that of the object.

The fingerprints are not originating from the fac simile, and they are therefore present on the original picture. The vertical bar and the veil might be those typical for Polaroid pictures: in these cameras, the film processing occurs as a compressing mechanism involving several rolls is activated. This mechanism is not a high quality one in first price camera. As a consequence, film processing is not homogenous.

NB : on the reproduction below, the original object was re-embedded within the high gamma image for the sake of esthetics. Indeed, the high gamma factor led to a complete saturation of this part of the image.

The high gamma image

 

Hypotheses

It is unlikely that the document be a forged picture. First it is a bit uneasy to do such a trick with a Polaroid. Second, some of the examination we made should have revealed the forgery.

Of course, this hypothesis cannot be completely ruled out. In such a case, the counterfeiter must be especially skillful… In such a case also, why would he/she have used an atypical instant Polaroid film rather than the traditional 24 x 36 mm film….

To our knowledge, there is no computer device that allows a direct printing on an instant color Polaroid film. A computer fraud is therefore to be excluded, specially because the original picture exists. Furthermore, we have not seen any digitalization artifact on the document (pixels, aliasing, etc.) in the course of our investigations.

We reported that the color of the object is characterized by a very “pure” (monochromatic) light. The narrow spectrum, however, is not monochromatic enough to come from a laser light. Indeed - and by definition - a laser emits a light with an extremely narrow wavelength bandwidth (a few tenths of a nanometer only). However, a laser light bandwidth, under some circumstances, may widen. This is the case, for instance, when the beam diffuses through a dense gas medium, such as water steam. In such a case, one may get a spectrum shape identical to that seen for the analyzed Le Muy UFO.

But could this be a laser-lighted lenticular cloud?

Color. The recorded 473 nm characteristic for the object are close enough from typical argon-laser lights, especially if one takes in account the possible measurement error (see above). These lasers generally emit at 488 and 458 nm.

Spectrum. The steam of which clouds are made may explain, as seen above, the wide spectrum observed.

Lasers. The argon lasers are widely used, for instance for medical applications such as ophtalmology. One can always believe that one of these lasers was in used on this night around Le Muy…

Lenticular cloud. Precise weather conditions are required to generate such type of clouds. Could these be found in the South of France? We do not know. However, it is highly unlikely that such a bright lenticular cloud be observed at night. In addition, the quasi perfect symmetry of the object around a single axis makes this hypothesis quite doubtful.

In brief. One cannot exclude the hypothesis proposing that the phenomenon is a lenticular cloud. But, as discussed earlier, we do not have formal proof that may validate this hypothesis.

Unknown object emitting a monochromatic light

This is the ultimate hypothesis, kept as a “last chance”. We have to admit that if all other hypotheses are rejected, this is indeed the last one to be acceptable. So…UFO or not UFO? That is the question!

 

Conclusion

As usual, when an alleged UFO picture is analyzed, one can only draw a final conclusion when a forgery is demonstrated. This does not appear to be the case here. We have no element suggesting that the picture is a fake. However, the absence of proof is not the proof of absence! If the picture is forged, then we just did not see “the trick”...

The conclusions must therefore be careful. The monochromatic aspect of the object is kind of a problem. Indeed very few – if any – natural phenomenon may produce such a “pure” light, on a spectrographic point of view. As stated in the hypotheses, it may be a cloud lighted by a blue laser beam. However, the probability that such an event occurs is very low - but not null. And if it is not a cloud, then it may well be a UFO.

With the elements in our hands, there is no way to be more conclusive at this point of our investigations.

 

Alain DH (Coord. ADV)
UFOCOM
Mars 2001

Translated from French
By Yves (sci team)
November 2005

 

Back to "Investigations"

Retour à l'accueil