Israeli Mid-Air UFO
Explosion Analyzed -
It's The Real Thing
by Barry Chamish
Last month I reported that I had acquired a video copy of a mid-air UFO explosion over the Israeli city of Rosh Haayin. I wrote that my impression was the video captured a profoundly important moment: the first mid-air UFO collision ever recorded. I requested that experts analyze the film scientifically. Within a day, Dwight Connelly of MUFON committed himself to having the video analyzed. The video is a compilation of two UFO events recorded by Spasso Maximovitch in 1995 and 1996. I sent Dwight both clips and he passed them on to MUFON's video expert Jeff Sanio for computer analysis. The following is his report. I will not comment on his conclusions. Jeff has no need of my analysis of his analysis. Let's just sum matters up like this: It's The Real Thing. Added to Israel's list of UFO firsts, is the first mid-air explosion between two unexplained aerial craft ever captured on videotape or any other media. Several film and TV producers asked me to release the clip for their programs but I had to turn them down. I am prevented by a copyright problem from reproducing the film, though I am permitted to display my copy. I am seeking a conference to premiere this remarkable event. In the meantime, I will publish MUFON's full report on
Date: Tue, 19 Jan 1999 23:39:44 -0800
From: Jeff Sainio <
Subject: my report
I left out the stills from the video, as you've already seen them.
The paper copy has already been sent.
Dwight Connelly
14026 Ridgelawn
Martinsville IL
Rosh Haayin, central Israel
Spasso Maximovitch
Events as reported to me from Barry Chamish ( `On 28/9/95, Spasso Maximovitch 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. Maximovitch 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, Maximovitch 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 right 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.
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
7206 W. Wabash
Milwaukee WI 53223-2609