Indonesian UFO Case Review 2010

8/7/2019 Indonesian UFO Case Review 2010

1/34

[Year]2010


2/34

Indonesian UFO Case review 2010

2

PAGE INTENTIONALY LEFT BLANK


3/34


3

Contents

Overview ................................................................................................................................................................... 4

Key Patterns ............................................................................................................................................................ 5

Analysis .................................................................................................................................................................... 6

Types of sightings ................................................................................................................................................. 6

Regional Distribution .......................................................................................................................................... 10

SVP Rating .......................................................................................................................................................... 11

Conclusion .............................................................................................................................................................. 13

Annex A1 - Reported Sightings of UFO and UFO-related Phenomena in Indonesia - 2010 .................... 14

Annex A2 Unclear UFO Sightings/Related Phenomena Reports 2010 ................................................. 24

Annex A3 IFOs and Hoax in Indonesia - 2010 .............................................................................................. 25

Annex B Photographs ....................................................................................................................................... 26

Annex C Analysis of Alleged Pontianak UFO Video .................................................................................... 31

Annex D Vallees Data Classification System ............................................................................................... 32

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 UnportedLicense .

This report is collated and written for BETA UFO by Andyono M. (BETA UFO associate researcher). All analysis andconclusions presented in this report, unless specified otherwise, is the responsibility of the report writer.
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/


4/34


4

Overview

The following report comprised over 50 cases of reported UFO sightings & related phenomenacollected throughout the year 2010 by The BETA UFO group 1 . The data is collected from variousreports coming in through the groups mailing list as well as from direct/second hand testimoniesreceived privately by researchers associated with the group.

Out of the 50 filed cases, 45 (90%) are considered to be unexplained. Four cases are determined tobe identified Flying Objects (IFOs) while 1 case has been revealed as a hoax. These 5 cases are filedwithout any reference case number to differentiate them from the unexplained entrie s . As a furthereffort in highlighting these data they are also presented in a separate table (Annex A3) 2 . The same isdone to 4 other reported cases that have no clear information regarding the exact time of theincidents (Annex A2).

A major constraint in data collection, other than lack of details, lies with the fact that it might very wellrepresent only a small portion of all UFO sightings that took place in the country in 2010. It has beennoted from time to time that people do tend to report cases through other means than BETA UFO. Asignificant number of reports also tend to come up years after it happened as people are reluctant totalk or dont know who to talk to about their sighting experience.

The major aim of the analysis is to provide a general outlook of the data that can function as astepping stone for more detailed future studies. Of particular interest is the outlining of significantpatterns within the compiled data and the comparison of these annual patterns.

The data analysis itself is focused on three main features that are considered to be quite basic forUFO sighting data analysis. The three features are:

types of sightings regional distribution of sightings SVP rating measurement.

1 The data compiling was begun in late 2010 and finished by J anuary 2011. The latest revised version (aspresented in Appendix A1 & A2) was finished in February 2011. Revision was mostly made on details of thereports. BETA UFO itself is a network of various organizations/groups interested in the study of the UFO

phenomenon in Indonesia. The primary groups involved to date are BETA UFO and UFONESIA.2 The IFOs and Hoax entries are, however, calculated in the regional distribution and SVP rating analyses.


5/34


5

Key Patterns

Several significant patterns found in the 2010 data are presented below. These key patterns areconsidered to be significant based on comparison with the 2009 compiled data as well as older dataavailable in the BETA UFO database.

The number of reported sightings has increased substantially from 38 cases in 2009 to 45 cases in 2010. The increase seemed to denote an increased awareness of the UFOphenomenon among the general public that has been identified since 2009. It could alsomark a real increase in the actual number of UFO phenomenon occurring in 2010.

The number of reported sightings of triangular shaped objects has increased substantiallyin 2010. As many as 4 sightings were reported in 2010 compared to only 1 case in 2009.As it was with the 2009 data all the reports in 2010 came from witnesses in J ava Island.

This seemed to fit the pattern of data in the country (dating back to 1890), where sightingof trian ular sha ed obects have onl been re orted in J ava Island.

One reported sighting case has been identified as a hoax in 2010. At least 2 other caseshave also been identified as a hoax in 2009, although not included in the years CaseReview report. Despite the relatively low number of cases it is assessed that thecontinuous perpetration of such hoaxes might become a persistent pattern in there ortin of UFO si htin s/related henomena in the countr .

J ust as it was in 2009, the majority of reported sightings compiled in 2010 ( 20cases/44% ) involved an FB1 type of phenomenon. A change takes place with the AN 1category ( 16 cases/36% ) that has moved up to second place and the MA1 category ( 8cases/18% ) that has dropped to third place compared to their respective rankings in2009. This years compiled reports also included 4 cases that have been identified asnatural phenomena (IFO). Despite the use of the word natural the cases are actuallyanal zed to be caused b man-made obects (i.e. camera lens and Chinese lanterns).

A predominant number of cases in 2010 ( 29/58% ) were reported from J ava ( 21cases/42% ) and Sumatra Islands ( 4 cases/8% ). This pattern basically resembles the2009 sighting reports regional distribution. A noted change, however, is identified withthe sub-regional data distribution. Contrary to the pattern in 2009, a large number of cases ( 31/62% ) are now reported from the urban areas. The cities of J akarta andBandung, however, still figured quite prominently as areas with a lot of UFO sightingre orts (each with 8[16%] and 4[8%] cases res ectivel ).

The SVP rating for reported sighting cases compiled in 2010 showed that most of them(13 cases/26% ) falls within the hard to explain category. These are cases that do not fitinto any known natural explanation or phenomena, including man-made technologies andtheir resultant effects. The data also show a slight increase in the number of casesinvolving site visitation by a person who is either familiar with/a reliable investigator of theUFO phenomenon (from 2 cases in 2009 to 3 in 2010).


6/34


6

Analysis

Types of sightings

The majority of reported UFO sighting cases compiled in 2010 (20 cases/44%) involved an FB1 typeof phenomenon (See Figure 1). Coming at second place (16 cases/36%) is the AN 1 category thatcomprises anomalies such as amorphous lights and unexplained explosions/sounds. In third place isthe MA1 category (8 cases/18%) that stands for sightings of objects showing disrupted trajectory(maneuvers).

FB1 (20)

AN1 (17)IFO (4)MA1

(8)

Hoax (1)

0

5

10

15

20

Figure 1 Types of Sightings

The FB1 category, standing for unidentified objects flying by through the sky, involves intriguing datawith more details than the definition would seem to imply. Some of the objects sighted, as it was withthe 2009 data, are reported to be hovering and swirling in a stationary manner. One case of particularinterest involved an object that reportedly decreased speed in mid air, right above the witnessesposition. Table-1 lists the various descriptions that comprised the FB1 classification in this report.

Table-1 FB1 DescriptionsDescription Frequency Case No.Movement Characteristics

Fast/very fast and without a soundSlowly and with a very bright light, followedby the sound of an explosion 20km awayIn a certain formationSlowly and without a soundSwirling and then moving quickly, to a certain

directionFlying from/away from a certain objectDecreased speed in mid air, right abovewitnesses positionSecond sighted object moved faster thanthe first oneIn tremendous speedLow and without a soundNo information given

21

211

21

1

1[1]7

1;76

18;412124

9;2932

36

37[41]

10;22;28;30;33;39;44

Total 20 (44%)


7/34


7

Description Frequency Case No.Flight TrajectoryTowards/to the EastNorth to WestTo the North

West to EastNorth to West and then to the SouthSouth West to the North EastNo information given

412

[2]11

10

9;21;24;3318

29;36

32;[36]4144

1;6;7;9;10;14;22;28;37;

39Total 20 (44%)General MovementFlying by in /across the sky

Moving in a group across the skyFlying by horizontallyHoveringSwirlingNo information given

14

21111

6;9;10;14;22;28;29;32;33;36;

37;39;41;4018;301

21247

Total 20 (44%)

The AN1 category mostly involves amorphous lights/objects with bright lights seen in the sky althoughwith differing details (such as the types of colors and/or movement seen during the sighting). Table-2

lists the many different descriptions and circumstances revealed by witnesses in the 2010 compileddata.

Table-2 AN1 DescriptionsDescription Frequency Case No.At least 50 balls of lights were seen groupedin a straight line formation. 1 3

Strange objects not noticed until thephotographsare processed for viewing.

3 4;12;15

A strange glowing cloud formation. 1 5A red, blinking light that appeared and

disappeared out of nowhere in the sky.1 16

A bright light that appeared out of nowherein the sky and disappeared in 30 seconds. 1 18

A single bright light surrounded by severalmoving lights. 1 19

Three stationary, green lights shaped likebars. 1 20

A flash of light, like a jet plane afterburner but withno sound that disappeared almost as fast asit appeared.

1 25


8/34


8

Description Frequency Case No.A stationary, star-like object that started toglow brighter and brighter quickly, like acameras flash light before disappearing.

1 26

A strange elliptical object, with green and

purple tinge around its bottom part,appeared ina photograph.

1 31

Several colorful lights making a formation inthesky.

1 38

A strange object with swirling and blinkinglights, hovering in the sky. 1 40

A formation of bright, white lights movingaroundin the sky.

1 42

Several strange objects were sighted

appearingout of nowhere in the sky. One of the objectlooked like a Hang Glider/Delta Plane whileaboutsix others looked like black dots.

1 43

Total 16 (36%)

A significant portion of the AN1 cases involved objects appearing on photographs that were notsighted/noticed until the photographs were actually developed (i.e. uploaded to a computer). TheBETA UFO database has included such cases before and most of the times they are proven to havea natural explanation. Nevertheless, these particular photograph cases in 2010 have yet to beexplained as having a natural cause.

Another emerging pattern in the AN1 compiled data is the sighting of objects that are groupedtogether. Five cases involved objects that are seen together in a group/formation. This includes theintriguing Case No.47 in J akarta, where several strange objects were sighted appearing out of nowhere in the sky, looking like a Hang Glider and black dots. In addition, the objects were sightedand photographed from an office building window, which is also a new type of sighting circumstancesin the history of UFO sighting in the country.

The MA1 category, that involves maneuvering objects, also showed descriptions as colorful as theother categories (see Table-3). Two of the cases ( Case No.13 and 26 ) are of particular interest asthey involved the sighting of triangular objects that are quite rare. The other cases generally give a

clear indication of some form of intelligent control of the aerial objects. All of these objects arereported to be making maneuvers that defy any literally natural explanation (i.e. with the absence of a controlling system).

Table-3 MA1 DescriptionsDescription Frequency Case No.

Eight objects maneuvered into a V-shaped formation from a parallel, two-straight lines formation (eachencompassing 4 objects).

1 2

An object, flying horizontally from Westto East, ascended and disappeared

from view.

1 8


9/34


9

Description Frequency Case No.An object flew in from the direction of thesea. It hovered and swirled around inthe sky before flying off inland.

1 11

A triangular-shaped object, tilted ononeof its sides, glow brighter beforedisappearing from view.

1 13

An object with triangular green lightsanda red light marking its tail-end, allegedlymade maneuvers indicating an effort toland.

1 23

An object with blue & red lights madecircling & hovering maneuvers in thesky.

1 27

A white, round object flying across thesky stopped in mid air beforedisappearing from view.

1 34

A yellow disc-shaped object wasfollowedby several colorful objects thatformed a W-shaped formation aroundthedisc. The objects made disruptedtrajectories several times in mid air.

1 35

Total 8 (18%)

A major difference in the 2010 data is the inclusion of 4 cases of Identified Flying Objects (IFOs) andone case of proven Hoax. This inclusion was more likely determined by the timing of the report writingthat fits with the announcement of conclusions reached by BETA UFO researchers rather thananything else. Nevertheless, it also entails the purpose of highlighting the increased capacity of theorganization in concluding the nature of possible UFO sightings.

The IFO entries involves 2 cases of misidentified black sun effect on video recordings, 1 case of amisidentified lens flare effect on a photograph and 1 case of misidentified Chinese lanterns. At least2 of the cases, including BETA UFOs analysis of their nature, were covered by several nationalmedia. In several instances, statements by BETA UFO researchers were also subtly juxtaposed with

official comments from government agencies (including comments from the National Space andAviation Agency {LAPAN}).

In addition to this reports major differences with last years version, the 2010 data now also include 5cases regarded as unclear due to lack of information (see Annex A2). These cases represent thegrowing number of reports that seemed to indicate a strange reluctance to reveal more details tohonest inquiries by UFO researchers, as well as possible efforts at perpetrating hoaxes.


10/34


11/34


12/34


12

Other possible explanations were also explored, including Chinese lanterns and kites equipped withpurple led lights. Nonetheless, all of them created even more oddities that would need to be modifiedsignificantly to fit the natural explanation.

On a different side of the data SVP analysis, at least 3 cases involved site visitation by a person whois familiar with the UFO phenomenon/a reliable investigator of the UFO phenomenon. These includeboth sighting cases by members of BETA UFO who are also well informed of the phenomenon ( CaseNo.3 & 34 ) and a case where direct testimony was received by a skilled investigator and longstanding member of BETA UFO during a field investigation.

Despite showing only a slight increase (from 2 cases in 2009 to 3 cases in 2010), the rising number of site visitation marked a growing effort from BETA UFO to gather first hand field data for reportedsighting cases. In particular, it also marked the groups growing reputation among the national mediaas a place to clarify issues regarding reports of alleged UFO sighting.


13/34


13

Conclusion

A general assessment of the 2010 compiled data shows that the study of the UFO phenomenon inthe country is faced with a growing challenge of heightened public attention. More and more peopleacross the country are starting to know and acknowledge the UFO phenomenon. The media, inparticular, have also shaped the public perception into acknowledging the existence of Ufologygroups, such as BETA UFO, as a place where people could report their sighting experiences. J ustas well, the media have started to place Ufology groups as an alternative source of information toofficial agencies. Nevertheless, the role that such groups could play in clarifying the nature of sightingcases is also limited by the medias haphazard interest in the phenomenon.

At a more technical level, the collection and analysis of data started in 2009 have started to showseveral interesting patterns. Although some of it is nothing more than a confirmation of patterns foundby earlier UFO researchers in the country (particularly from the pioneering works of J . Salatun in the1950s and 60s) they do help to point research into clearer directions. The typology of objects seen,their characteristics as described by witnesses, the reason some areas are basically turning intosighting hot spots, the pattern of sighting time and a plausible definition of specific time periods whensightings are more likely to occur, are some of the directions that have yet to be explored through thisrudimentary data research.

In the end, no matter how much data has been compiled and analyzed, the UFO phenomenon hasremained mostly as an unexplained mystery worldwide. The same holds true for the situation of UFOphenomenon in Indonesia. Although the general public, particularly in the densely populated islandsof J ava and Sumatra, has become more aware of the phenomenon and its implications the questionof what it actually represents remains unanswered. In this context, speculation of all sorts willinevitably be growing among the general public. It remains to be seen whether this will bring forth amore balanced and critical approach to the study of UFO phenomenon or a dogmatic denial/supportstance which will relegate it to the realms of prejudice.


14/34
http://www.supmbogor83.blogspot.com/


15/34
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EbDcy3FHpG4http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EbDcy3FHpG4http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EbDcy3FHpG4http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EbDcy3FHpG4


16/34
http://www.scribd.com/doc/47402710


17/34

17

Annex A1 - Reported Sightings of UFO and UFO-related Phenomena in Indonesia - 2010No. Location Time Event and Circumstances Classification

15.

26 May.Setiabudi ArmyCadet Academy;Bandung City; West

J ava Province

2 PM

A man took some landscape pictures during hisfriends graduation at the academy. When thephotographs were uploaded to a computer, one of the shot showed show a strange object flying inthe sky.

AN1101

It is qa bird(See A

16.

J une (exact dateunknown).Depok beach; Bantulregency; YogyakartaSpecial Region.

Between7 and 9

PM

One witness saw a red, blinking light appeared inthe sky. It then died out suddenly just as thewitness thought the object was a regular airplane. AN1

102

17.

9 J une.Rungkut District;Surabaya City (exactlocation unknown).

Exacttime

unknown

Two witnesses saw a bright light in the sky to thewest of their home. The object was said to bebrighter than a star. It disappeared as one of thewitness tried to grab a camera from the house. Bythe time he came back out, 30 seconds later, thelight has disappeared.

AN1102

18.

19 J une.Sumur Batu Sub-District; KemayoranDistrict; Central

J akarta Region; J akarta SpecialRegion.

Between9:30 to

10:30 PM

Several people saw many purple lights flying byacross the sky, from North to West. The objectswere not blinking & were moving at a certaindistant from each other, like in a formation. Someof the objects were also seen to form an arrowhead formation.

FB1103

19

22 J une.Eastern part of Bandung City; West

J ava Province (exactlocation unknown).

Between7 to 9:30

PM

A single bright light was seen in the eastern sky of Bandung City by a single witness. The object wassaid to be stationary & was visible in the clear skyfor 2 to 3 hours long. The bright light was alsosaid to be surrounded by several moving lights.

The witness also took several photographs of theobjects.

AN1104

Photohttp://12887(See photo
http://www.forumbebas.com/thread-128875.htmlhttp://www.forumbebas.com/thread-128875.htmlhttp://www.forumbebas.com/thread-128875.htmlhttp://www.forumbebas.com/thread-128875.html


18/34


19/34

19

Annex A1 Reported Sightings of UFO and UFO-related Phenomena in Indonesia 2010No. Time and Location Event and Circumstances Classification

25.

30 J uly.Cimanggis District;Bogor Regency; West


5 AM

A man saw a flash of light, like a jet planeafterburner, in the sky on his way to work. Nosound was heard & the flash of light disappearedalmost as fast as it appeared.

AN1101

26.

Late J uly/earlyAugust (exact dateunknown).Cihampelas flyover;Bandung City; West

J ava Province.

7 PM

Two witnesses (husband & wife) saw a stationary,star-like light in the sky, just below the clouds,while taking a walk in the city. It then started toglow brighter and brighter quickly, like a camerasflash light, before disappearing from view.

AN1102

Acco6 opheno

27.

12 August.Sambiroto Sub-District;KedungmunduDistrict; SemarangCity; Central J avaProvince (exactlocation unknown).

11:30 PM

A witness video taped an object with blue & redlights that was hovering in the sky above hishome. The object was also seen by his neighboras it made circling & hovering maneuvers in thesky that lasted for about an hour. MA1102

The wobjectalwayelectrBETAthe oLEDyet totape.

28.

15 August.Somewhere nearMalang City; East


7:30 PM

A passenger on a train from Malang City saw astrange light flying in the sky from his window. Theobject was said to be shaped like a crescent andemanated a green light.

FB1104

29.

20 August.Ciburial village;Cimenyan District;Bandung Regency;West J ava Province(exact locationunknown).

5 PM

At least 3 people saw a disc shaped object flyingby to the North. The object was seen flying awayfrom a position near the moon. FB1

104


20/34

20


30.

21 August.Sentul City residentialcomplex; Sentul Sub-District; babakanMadang District;Bogor Regency; West

J ava Province.

Exacttime

unknown

Dozens of strange objects were reportedly seenmoving across the sky by a witness. The objectswere also sighted by several other people in thearea. FB1101

31.

26 August.Serangan Island; BaliProvince, daytime(exact locationunknown).

Exacttime

unknown

A strange elliptical object, with green & purpletinge around its bottom part, appeared in aphotograph taken in Bali Island. The objectseemed to be located in the direction of SeranganIsland, to the South East of Bali Island.

AN1122

The UFOchairm(See A

32.

27 August.Wisma J ayaresidential complex;Bekasi Timur District;Bekasi Regency;West J ava Province.

5 AM

A father & his son saw a star-like object flyingwest to east in the sky. According to the father, atone point the object (which was emanating ayellow light) decreased speed as it moved rightabove the 2 witnesses & scared his son.

FB1102

33.

27 August.Kalisari Sub-District;Pasar Rebo District;East J akarta region;

J akarta SpecialRegion.

5 AM

A man saw a star-like object flying to the East,above their house. The object was said toemanate a yellowish-red glow and was of thesame size as the planet Venus.

FB1102

The descripositiocomm

34.

28 August.Kalisari Sub-District;Pasar Rebo District;East J akarta region;

J akarta SpecialRegion.

5:20 AM

The same witness from above reported sighting awhite, round object flying by from West to East.

The object then stopped in mid air beforedisappearing from view.

MA1104


21/34
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ueiB2zJZB4shttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ueiB2zJZB4s


22/34

22


39.

7 October.Pardasuka District;Pringewu Regency;Lampung Province(exact locationunknown).

Exacttime

unknown

At least 3 witnesses saw a white, disc shapedobject flying by across the sky. The object wasseen for about 10 minutes according to one of thewitnesses.

FB1104

40.

16 October. J l. Bangka Raya;Bangka Sub-District;mampang PrpatanDistrict; South J akartaregion; J akartaSpecial Region.

10 PM

A man having dinner at a road-side food stall sawa strange object with swirling & blinking lights thatwas hovering in the sky. The object stayed visiblein the sky for about 3 minutes before disappearingfrom the witness view.

AN1102

41.

18 October. J l. Diponegoro;Denpasar City; BaliProvince. Exacttime

unknown

Several witnesses saw 4 lights, in a kite-likeformation, flying low without a sound. The objectwas seen flying by from North to West and then tothe South by at east 3 people. The sighting lastedbetween 10 to 15 minutes.

FB1103

One opersostrangpersolight chim. Has it mlit-up

42.

20 October.Denpasar City; BaliProvince (exactlocation unknown).

3 AM

A man saw a formation of bright, white lightsmoving around in the sky. The sighting lasted for2 to 3 minutes and allegedly took place 3 times ina row within a weeks period.

AN1103

The rfrom


23/34

23


43.

22 October.Standard Chartered

Tower building; 31stfloor; J ln. Prof. Dr.Satrio; KaretKuningan Sub-District; South J akartaregion; J akartaSpecial Region.

5 PM

A witness, taking photographs from his officewindow, saw several strange objects appearing inthe sky. One of the object looked like a HangGlider/Delta Plane while about 6 others lookedlike black dots. The Hang Glider-like object wasobserved moving upward & disappeared into thegathering storm clouds while the dots seemed tomoved away from the witness view.

AN1

103

(See Aphoto

44.

23 October.Ie Masen KayeeAdang village; BandaAceh City; AcehProvince.

7 PM

A brightly-lit object, resembling the size of planetVenus, was seen crossing the sky by a singlewitness. The object was seen moving from theSouth West to the North East.

FB1101

The win the

45.

26 October. The 21 st floor of anunknown officebuilding inKemayoran District;Central J akartaregion; J akartaSpecial Region (exactlocation unknown).

1 PM

A witness took some pictures from the 21 s floorwindow of an office building. Some of thephotographs supposedly showed at least 12strange objects hovering in the sky. When thephotographs were zoomed they allegedly showedobjects shaped like a rocket, a sphere & a Saturn-like sphere, with legs protruding from underneathit.

AN1103

The rreportphotowith trespo


24/34

24

Annex A2 Unclear UFO Sightings/Related Phenomena Reports 2010No. Location Event and Circumstances Classification Not

1.

Boyolali City; BoyolaliRegency; Central

J ava Province,evening.

A witness saw a bright light illuminating the backarea of his house. The light then suddenly flew tothe North & disappeared. AN1

All of these cases we

yet without any referenreported events. Efforthe exact time of the eresponse.

2. J ember City; J emberRegency; East J avaProvince.

A witness saw an object hovering above Mt.Argopuro, which was visible from his house. Theobject reportedly emanated a golden light andsuddenly flew in extreme speed to the East.

FB1

3.Cirebon City; West

J ava Province.A man was alerted by his daughter to thepresence of a red, glowing, capsule like objectflying across the sky.

FB1

4.

Mt. Merapi, Yogyakarta SpecialRegion; Mt. AnakKrakatau, SundaStrait, BantenProvince (Between

Sumatra Island and J ava Island)

The video was uploaded in Youtube on November21, 2010 by an unknown individual under thepseudonym dinosauro67 . The Mt. Merapi videowas taken from the http://merapi.info websitewhile the Mt. Anak Krakatau video was taken fromunclear source(s). The video (with a running time

of 4.29 minutes) shows black, blurry objects flyingby across the camera view of both mountains.One frame shows one of the objects seeminglyplunging into Mt. Anak Krakatau crater.

FB1

The case was reporteany reference to the exsearch on the http

matching video with t
http://www.youtube.com/user/dinosauro67http://merapi.info/http://merapi.info/http://merapi.info/http://merapi.info/http://www.youtube.com/user/dinosauro67


25/34
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=adc9smq0yaIhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=adc9smq0yaI


26/34


26

Annex B Photographs

Photograph of an allegedunidentified flying object inCipularang toll road, between

J akarta and Bandung, shot onFebruary 26, 2010 (pointingarrow added by report writer).

Photograph of a strange, glowingcloud taken in Bintaro J aya,

Tangerang, in February 2010.

Photograph of an allegedunidentified flying object taken in

Tangkil Island, LampungProvince, in May 2010 (zoomedand enhanced image by BETAUFO).


27/34


27

Photograph of an allegedunidentified flying object taken inSetiabudi Army Cadet Academy,

on May 26, 2010 (object circledand highlighted byphotographer).

Photograph with lens flare effecttaken at Suramadu Bridge inEast J ava Province, J une 2010(photograph contrast enhancedby BETA UFO to sharpenobjects image).

Another photograph with lensflare effect taken at SuramaduBridge in 2010 (effect highlightedby photographer).


28/34


28

Screen shot of the object seen ina video tape of the sun, made inKendari City, South EastSulawesi Province in J une 2010.

Photograph of light orbs taken inBandung City, West J avaProvince in J une 2010.

Photograph of light orbs taken inBandung City, West J avaProvince in J une 2010.


29/34


29

Photograph of an alleged unidentified flyingobject taken in Bali Island in August 2010(object cropped and zoomed by photographer).

Photograph of an unidentifiedlight formation taken in downtown

J akarta, October 2010.

Photograph of alleged unidentifiedflying objects taken from an officebuilding in J akarta, October 2010.


30/34


30

Photograph of alleged unidentified flyingobjects taken from an office building in J akarta,October 2010.

Photograph of suspected ChineseLanterns in Tangerang, October2010.

Photograph of suspected ChineseLanterns in Tangerang, October2010.
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_WFVWdanlcRo/TMfmGDc4sII/AAAAAAAAAK4/jaGZ1QR_XX0/s1600/Aneh.jpg


31/34


31

Annex C Analysis of Alleged Pontianak UFO Video 4

Findings The video was recorded with a mobile phone camera. It has three different parts that are combinedtogether.

- Part-1: Shows a halo around the sun and a black spot that flies back and forth in one corner of theshot.

- Part-2: Shows an abstract, bluish object that seemed to be zoomed-in.- Part-3: Shows a flattened, Saturn-like object.

AnalysisAnalysis of Part-1: The black spot is assessed to be real based on the changes

of the suns illumination when covered by the object. It is not alens flare or a black sun effect, but a genuine 3D object.

What is odd about this part of the video is that the camerastayed focused on the sun despite the black spot flyingaround. It suggested that the object was considered lessimportant than the natural sun-halo phenomenon.

Analysis of Part-2: The background of the video looked focused while the object

itself is very blurred. The objects movement is detached from the background. The

movement of the pixels in the background (the sky) is notconsistent with the movement of the object.

Analysis of Part-3: The same circumstances as identified in the previous part are

also present in this part of the video. The only difference is aclearer object in sight.

Conclusion The first part of the video shows a kite. The movement of the object very much resembles a kite flying inthe air. The videographers reluctance to focus on the object also suggested that it is actually somethingwhich is already familiar and usual for him.

The second part of the video shows a possible hoax. It would seem that the object was drawn with amarker on a piece of transparent paper/plastic. It is then attached to the mobile phone camera lens,causing the background to be focused and the drawn foreground to be blurred.

The third part of the video shows the same circumstance as the previous part. In this case it would seemthat the videographer wanted to emulate the video shot in Kendari City on J une 2, 2010 that showed aSaturn-like object. The fact that the case received widespread media coverage makes it plausible thatthe videographer had also known of the case.

Based on the second and third parts of the video it is concluded that the video is a deliberate effort atfaking a UFO sighting (HOAX).

4

Analysis made by BETA UFO photography and video researcher, J ulius Perdana in J une 2010. Translation,screen shots and general re-formatting done by this report writer in February 2011.


32/34


32

Annex D Vallees Data Classification System 5

The Vallee data classification system is a system used to categorize the various types of UFO andparanormal experiences invented by Dr J acques Vallee. It is now used more often instead of theforerunner, The Hynek Classification System (created by Prof. J . Allen Hynek), since it gives readers a

more detailed summary of a case.

This is Vallees attempt to unify his classification system with Hyneks, and to incorporate those"psychic" or otherwise anomalous reports which he believes have a connection with the UFOphenomenon, and to regularize the classification system.

The categories are as follows:

AN1 are anomalies that do not have lasting physical effects, such as amorphous lights or unexplainedexplosions.AN2 are anomalies with lasting physical effects, such as some poltergeist phenomena, apports(materialized objects), and areas of flattened grass.AN3 are anomalies with associated entities. This class could include reports of ghosts, yetis, and other

instances of cryptozoology as well as elves and spirits.AN4 are those anomalous reports in which witnesses experience personal interaction with entities in thereality of the entities themselves. They include near-death experiences, religious miracles and visions,and many cases of out-of-body experiences.AN5 are cases of anomalous injuries or deaths, such as spontaneous combustion or unexplainedwounds or even permanent healing,

5 Information on J . Vallees system can be found (among other places) in http://ufo-database.blogspot.com/2009/03/jacques-vallee-classification-of-ufo.html ;http://www.ufoevidence.org/documents/doc1553.htm andhttp://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/esp_autor_vallee.htm#Additional_Information
http://ufo-database.blogspot.com/2009/03/jacques-vallee-classification-of-ufo.htmlhttp://ufo-database.blogspot.com/2009/03/jacques-vallee-classification-of-ufo.htmlhttp://www.ufoevidence.org/documents/doc1553.htmhttp://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/esp_autor_vallee.htm#Additional_Informationhttp://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/esp_autor_vallee.htm#Additional_Informationhttp://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/esp_autor_vallee.htm#Additional_Informationhttp://www.ufoevidence.org/documents/doc1553.htmhttp://ufo-database.blogspot.com/2009/03/jacques-vallee-classification-of-ufo.htmlhttp://ufo-database.blogspot.com/2009/03/jacques-vallee-classification-of-ufo.html


33/34


33

FB1 is a simple sighting of a UFO "flying by" in the sky, the category most frequently reported.FB2 is a flyby accompanied by physical evidence.FB3 is a flyby of an object accompanied by the observation of beings on board.FB4 is a flyby where the witness experienced a transformation of his or her reality into the reality of theobject or its occupants.FB5 would be a flyby as a result of which the witnesses would suffer permanent injuries or deaths.

MA1 gathers those UFO observations that involve an object with a discontinuous trajectory (such as adrop, a maneuver, or a loop).MA2 includes those cases that give rise to physical effects in addition to a discontinuous trajectory.MA3 contains the cases of objects with discontinuous trajectories when beings are observed on board.MA4 covers instances of maneuvers accompanied by a sense of transformation of reality for thepercipient.MA5 is a maneuver as a result of which the witnesses suffer permanent injury or death.

CE1 is the class of objects seen on the ground or at a short distance to the observer.

CE2 is the class of close encounters in which physical effects or traces were present.CE3 is the class of close encounters that involve "entities" or "occupants".CE4 encompasses the abduction reports in which the witness has not only seen the occupants butclaims to have extensively interacted with them inside their craft.CE5 encompasses cases of Close Encounters in which the witnesses have suffered permanent injuriesor other physiological effects, including death.

SVP RATING

As an addition to the classification system Vallee also added credibility ratings."Marks" out of four aregiven for the three categories of source reliability (first digit), site visit (second digit) and possibleexplanations (third digit). A rating of 222 or higher indicates the case was reported by a reliable source,

the site has been visited and a natural explanation would require a major alteration of at least oneparameter.

SOURCE RELIABILITY RATING0 Unknown or unreliable source.1 Report attributed to a known source of unknown or uncalibrated reliability.2 Reliable source, secondhand.3 Reliable source, firsthand.4 Firsthand personal interview with the witness by a source of proven reliability.

SITE VISIT RATING0 No site visit, or answer unknown.1 Site visit by a casual person not familiar with the phenomena.2 Site visited by persons familiar with the phenomena.3 Site visit by a reliable investigator with some experience.4 Site visit by a skilled analyst.

POSSIBLE EXPLANATIONS RATING0 Data consistent with one or more natural causes.1 Natural explanation requires only slight modification of the data.2 Natural explanation requires major alteration of one parameter.3 Natural explanation requires major alteration of several parameters.4 No natural explanation possible, given the evidence.


34/34


BETA UFO contact list

Documents

Indonesian UFO Case Review 2010