Mexican Airforce films UFOs

[wipeout]

Thanks for that, Patricio. :D

[JMA]

Hi,

What's up with the Mexican footage?

Now that you have the full footage and a transcript, we don't ear anything more from all of you?

Is all that stuff consistant with the oil-field hypothesis or not?

See you,

[wipeout]

As far as I'm concerned, this transcript is consistent with both my idea that the 1st object was a plane flying between runways (and there being some radar errors when it was being tracked), and my other idea that the next 11 objects are oil-flares. :)

I've been quiet because I'm waiting for the final part of the transcript as this is where all the remaining mystery lies as to what is seen on infrared and radar in the last 10 or 15 minutes of the whole incident.

[digital goldfish]

Originally posted by wipeout
This transcript is consistent with both my idea that the 1st object was a plane flying between runways (and there being some radar errors when it was being tracked), and my other idea that the next 11 objects are oil-flares.

I've been quiet because I'm waiting for the final part of the transcript as this is where all the remaining mystery lies. :)

Ooh, wipeout, you don't want to start saying things like that. Your rational approach might annoy certain people ;-)

[wipeout]

I find whatever I say, people still get annoyed at me for something or other. :D

[Patricio Elicer]

Originally posted by wipeout
I've been quiet because I'm waiting for the final part of the transcript as this is where all the remaining mystery lies as to what is seen on infrared and radar in the last 10 or 15 minutes of the whole incident. Sorry for the long delay with the last part of the transcript. I was out of town since Fri with almost no internet access. I just came back home a while ago. I will be done with the final part of the transcript by tomorrow night at most.

Some comments to follow as well.

[Astrophotographer]

The present discussion is specifically about the video showing "objects" with the FLIR camera. The hypothesis that these are oil well fires is fairly sound in that, based on the flight path and aziumth readings, the camera is pointed in that direction.

The arguments against this hypothesis have been numerous but the bulk of the arguments can be summarized as:

1. The objects don't look like fires.

This is true in that there shape is only a bright point of light. The distances involved are about 100nm. At this distance, an object 10 feet across is only about 10 arc seconds (about .002 degrees across). Objects 40 feet across are roughly 40 arc seconds across (about 0.01 degrees). It stands to reason that it is possible that oil well fires may not be resolvable to their individual shape under these conditions with this equipment.

2. The objects pass in front of clouds and therefore can't be distant.

This argument is good but there are no clear instances where the lights are definitely in front of clouds. They often appear to just pass through "sucker holes" in the clouds and become briefly visible.

3. The merging/splitting/merging/splitting of the one light indicates something extraordinary that can not be explained.

Already discussed and the interpretation that there were two mergings appears incorrect. There was only one and, as a result, this can be explained by two objects at different distances seen from a moving object.

4. The angular elevation is too high for them to be on the horizon.

This is the best argument against. However, Brad Sparks notes that the moon was 2.3 degrees lower that it was supposed to be at azimuth 75 degrees in the one section of video clip. Assuming his measurements are correct, one can rotate back 180 degrees and deduce that objects at azimuth 255 degrees should be indicating 2.3 degrees higher than actual as one can see here:
http://members.aol.com/tprinty2/AOA.gif
Whether this is due to calibration (the horizon would be calibrated for a specific value therefore the -2.3 degrees could not always be used) or due to the angle of attack of the aircraft is not clear. Additionally, the 2.3 degree correction would still not put the lights at the correct elevation of -2 degrees (although it would be around 0, which is getting there). We are not even certain that the correction would even be 2.3 degrees at the time if it were due to the angle of attack, as this would tend to change. It may have been higher or lower.

Probably the most important analysis published to date is the Captain Franz Website (http://www.alcione.org/FRAUDES/FAM/FLIR_CONCLUSION.html). Specifically one should examine the works shown by Laurent Leger and James Smith. The azimuth readings seem very convincing.

Recognize the fact that the FLIR information is the only "hard evidence" that is available and therefore can be considered the only valid method of trying to determine what the objects are.

As a result, I took some crude measurements of the first trio of lights from different frames in the video. I noticed that the bearings are not so instantaneous, so after rapid motion one has to wait until the azimuth settles down. Dr. Maccabee also has noted this in some of his public statements on UFO Updates (http://www.virtuallystrange.net/ufo/updates/2004/jun/m22-006.shtml).
One can see this set of lights at time 17:04:12 as the appear on the left side of the screen.

At time 17:04:14, the first trio of lights are about -134.9
At time 17:07:17, the first trio of lights are about -139.0

The planes displacement during this time (based on lat and longitude changes) was 12.3 miles. According to calculations stated by Sparks, the average speed was 230 mph, which turns out to be just under 12 miles giving us a pretty good cross check for this calculation.

Using these values, one can create a basic triangle to determine the distances. The base is 12.3 miles with the opposing angle is 4.1 degrees (139-134.9).

We also know that the first angle is 134.9 degrees and the second angle is 41 degrees (180-139).

This makes the distance at time 17:04:14 = (Sin 41 * 12.3)/Sin 4.1 = 112.9 miles
This makes the distance at time 17:07:17 = (Sin 134.9 * 12.3)/Sin 4.1 = 121.9 miles

There are problems with getting an accurate bearing because you have to assume that the planes bearing was the same direction for both data points. I believe this brings into some margin of error but it should be tolerable since the plane's flight path seems to have been pretty consistent during the flight. More accurate calculations can be made if the aircraft data were available.

I also entered a few more values at other times in the video (this trio peaks through clouds around 17:05:45). The computed distances varied between 90-140 miles. Considered the issues of dealing with fractions of a degree in the azimuth and the "slop" involved with the recording of the azimuth, these seem to be reasonable. The important point is that even the distances of 90 and 140 miles fall within the oil field area.

One last check was done on the objects called "The Twins" on UFO Updates. Again, I used the same process for times 17:03:35 and 17:05:17. The plane's displacement was 6.59 miles according to the longitude and latitude, with bearings of -133.2 and -135.6.

This makes the distance at time 17:03:35 = (Sin 44.4 * 6.59)/Sin 2.4 = 110.1 miles
This makes the distance at time 17:05:17 = (Sin 133.2 * 6.59)/Sin 2.4 = 114.7 miles

Again, we are faced with values of the 100-120 mile range.

Interestingly, the approximate lat/long for the oil wells (according to Capt Franz site) are

AKAL-C => Lon 92 deg 02' 20" Lat 19 deg 23' 57"
AKAL-J => Lon 92 deg 04' 31" Lat 19 deg 25' 41"
NOHOCH-A => Lon 92 deg 00' 14" Lat 19 deg 22' 06"
NEPTUNO=> Lon 92 deg 02' 00" Lat 19 deg 26' 00"

Using the lat and long for the plane (which is sometimes blurry and hard to read so there may be some error here) one can compute the distance (http://www.wcrl.ars.usda.gov/cec/java/lat-long.htm).
17:03:35 90 deg 46.10 min 18 deg 24.43 min => computed distance at 107.6 miles for AKAL-C, 110.7 miles for AKAL-J, 104.5 Miles for NOHOCH-A, 108.8 miles for NEPTUNO
17:04:14 90 deg 44.58 min 18 deg 26.00 min => computed distance at 107.8 miles for AKAL-C, 110.9 miles for AKAL-J, 104.6 Miles for NOHOCH-A, 108.9 miles for NEPTUNO
17:05:17 90 deg 40.95 min 18 deg 27.42 min => computed distance at 109.9 miles for AKAL-C, 113.0 miles for AKAL-J, 106.8 Miles for NOHOCH-A, 111.0 miles for NEPTUNO
17:07:17 90 deg 34.15 min 18 deg 29.41 min => computed distance 114.7 miles for AKAL-C 117.8 miles for AKAL-J 111.6 Miles for NOHOCH-A, 115.4 miles for NEPTUNO

This check of the latitude/longitude seem to closely agree with the azimuth values and distance traveled by the plane. Assuming the calculations are accurate (and there may be some errors but I do not think there are any that will alter the distances calculated significantly), we are left with three possibilities:

1) The objects are hovering in the vicinity of the oil well field.
2) The objects are traveling at a slightly slower speed than the aircraft/conducting maneuvers such that they coincidentally appear at this distance.
3) The objects are oil wells.

Respectfully (I wouldn't want to "derail the scientific process"),

Tim Printy

[wipeout]

That's cool, Patricio. :D

[wipeout]

Very, very interesting analysis, Astrophotographer. Thanks for that. :)

That's a lot there that I've never seen worked out before, or tried to myself.

[wipeout]

Having now read again what Astrophotographer said and worked out, and having had a look at the new oil-maps at Captain Franz's website, I'd say oil-flares as the cause of the main 11 infrared sources seems fairly solid. That the oil-fields appear very bright on satellite photos certainly suggest they are visible from a long way away as well.

Something I'd say again about camera elevation is that I don't know how much refraction of the atmosphere and the curvature of the Earth would affect the elevation of surface objects 100 miles away from the Mexican airforce plane's camera's perspective.

[Patricio Elicer]

Check out this website http://www.mundomaster.com/satelital/

Satellite pictures of the Earth in real time. Check out the Gulf of Mexico at night time. Beyond doubt, the oil flares in the Campeche Bay are real big.

[wipeout]

That's great, Patricio. I'd been looking for satellite pictures like that a few weeks ago.

Flares big enough to be seen from space.... crazy. :D

[steenkh]

I see a problem with the flares theory: If these flares are so easy to see, and we must assume that the crew were not in the region for the first time, they must be used to see the flares, and must have been able to recognise them?

[LTC8K6]

Perhaps the radar targets that coincidentally showed up caused the pilots to believe the flares were something else? Their mind connected the two and thus the FLIR had to be imaging objects rather than the familiar old oil well flares?

[wipeout]

Originally posted by steenkh
I see a problem with the flares theory: If these flares are so easy to see, and we must assume that the crew were not in the region for the first time, they must be used to see the flares, and must have been able to recognise them?

LTC8K6 suggests what I have also suggested, that the pilots were set-up into a misindentification by a couple of coincidences. :)

The first object appears near one place with a runway, flies in a straight line at aircraft speed, turns east and disappears near a city with another runway. It gives some erratic radar signals at times but overall sounds like it was simply a small aircraft.

What may have caused the pilots to make a false connection to the later objects seen is that this first object was going out of radar range and had turned in a direction which was towards the oil-flares just before it disappeared. Also, the Mexican airforce plane and the first object both turn east at roughly the same time.

So, some minutes later, the aircrew might still expect to see this first flying object as a distant point on infrared, flying in the same direction and having no radar signals... and what turns up in that area but 11 of them! :D

I think they misindentified the oil-flares because they were already expecting to see something there.

We do have to wonder why no-one was aware that the oil-flares were there and had ruled them out before thinking it was anything airborne, though.

[Lucianarchy]

Bit off topic, but if you go here, you can see most of the video records currently available. They don't seem to have the Nellis video, one of the most compelling, imo.

http://www.ufocasebook.com/videos.html

[Astrophotographer]

Originally posted by steenkh
I see a problem with the flares theory: If these flares are so easy to see, and we must assume that the crew were not in the region for the first time, they must be used to see the flares, and must have been able to recognise them?

This is an important point. However, this assumes the crew had flown in the area numerous times and had encountered the oil well fires in the distance before. We don't know enough about that as far as I can tell. We also don't know if they knew they could see the oil well fires from that distance. Perhaps this was one of those days it could be clearly seen because normally the weather might obscur the horizon from this area. Again, we don't have enough information to figure this out.

Based on the video images, most of the objects were not very bright at all (except for maybe the "twins"). None were reported to have been seen visually and it was only with the camera zoomed in that most of the objects were recorded.

There is a lot of assuming either way in that they should have recognized them or they did not recognize them. The tape speaks for itself in the data that is recorded. Based on this information, there seems to be good reason to conclude that the objects in the FLIR images were just oil well fires. Until somebody can show the data points away from this conclusion, I think Wipeout, Captain Franz, et al. both have arrived at the probable cause of the FLIR images.

[Patricio Elicer]

OK, let’s go on with the final part of the transcript


Segment 4, from 17:14:58 to 17:28:06

PC: Why are they chasing us?

UV: It’s at 12 o’clock

UV: No, almost at 1 o’clock

PC: OK, that’s one, but I have another one at 9 o’clock

RO: Ah, here I got one, let me check out the one at 9 o’clock

FO: There are two others ahead of that one

PC: And they are the same ones, eh?

FO: We’ve got them in front, in the middle and at 8 o’clock

[LAUGHTERS]

UV: Fasten your seat belts!

UV: Don’t scare me!

FO: Can anyone check out through the window?. We’ve got one at aproximately 1 o’clock, and the rest are at 9 o‘clock

UV: Are you surrounded?

FO: I don’t know

UV: At what distance?

UV: Today is your lucky day

[LAUGHTERS]

UV: At what distance?

FO: I don’t get distance readings

RO: OK, the one that is at 1 o’clock is at 19 miles, 52 knots

FO: I get one at 9, and in front of it, aproximately at 9 o’clock as well, there are two other luminous dots

RO: At what position, Tellez?

FO: At 9 o’clock

RO: OK, let me check…

UV: How far away is the one at 9 o’clock?

PC: The one at 1 o’clock, how many miles?

RO: 17.1 miles, direction 95, speed 52

FO: It goes at the same altitude as we, it can’t be possible

UV: Tellez, what’s the position of the one you’ve got right now?

FO: 9 o’clock

PC: Gentlemen, we are not alone [LAUGHTERS], what a weird thing eh?, they are surrounding us

FO: And the one you have at 1 o’clock?

RO: That one is at 14.8 miles, direction 99, speed 52.

FO: You are checking one, and I’m checking another one, I mean other ones.

FO: There it is

UV: Isn’t it a plane?

UV: Hey!, you have to record all this

UV: I’m recording it

PC: Watch your language gentlemen, but what is this?

UV: Isn’t it a plane?; it’s stopped there

FO: Do you have it on sight?

UV: Seems so, let’s wait for it to get closer

UV: Nah!,… it’s stopped

UV: is it stopped, on the ground?

PC: But the one we have at 9 o’clock is chasing us, it’s going along parallel to us

PC: Now we’ve got those clouds, it’s above us

FO: Where is the one at 1 o’clock?

RO: It’s 10 miles away, speed 52

FO: One of them is approaching us

PC: OK, don’t lose it, radar. Look for the one at 1 o’clock

PC: It’s coming closer to us

RO: Now I get it at 2 o’clock, at 9 miles, direction 120, speed 52.

PC: Quality 1?

RO: No, now I get it with quality 9, but I got it with quality 1 before

PC: OK, let’s see …

PC: Ahhh, that isn’t the one, that’s the moon

PC: Is the moon in front?

UV: There it is

PC: OK, it is the moon

PC: OK, we are not chasing the moon, are we?

[LAUGHTERS]

FO: One of them was at 12, and the other one was at 9

RO: Now I get it almost at 3 o’clock, 6.9 miles, direction 155, speed 52.

PC: OK, that isn’t the one, it’s a cloud. Yes, it is a cloud

FO: Where is the one you had at 1 o’clock, now?

RO: It’s now at 3 o’clock, 7.1 miles, direction 182

PC: OK, it is pulling away now, who know what it was!

[From 17:23:01 to 17:23:40, while the camera keeps pointing to two lights at the edge of a cloud, the crew remain almost silent and only bits of unrelated conversations are heard]

PC: Is it still with us, radar?

RO: Yes, I still get it

PC: The radar is catching now what it didn’t catch in its entire life

[LAUGHTERS]

RO: I lost a bit of quality, I get quality 5 now.

RO: The one we’ve got at 1 o’clock is already lost, it just exited the radar field

PC: OK, all this is so weird


--------- THE END --------

[JMA]

Hi,

In the new "Skeptical Inquirer" (vol. 28, n°4, july), there is a small article about the Mexican film.

"Mexican Air Force UFOs likely Equipement Artifacts" (p. 5)

So, it's not about the oil-flare theory, but about the idea that the lights are just FLIR artifacts...

See you,

[Astrophotographer]

Originally posted by JMA
Hi,

In the new "Skeptical Inquirer" (vol. 28, n°4, july), there is a small article about the Mexican film.

"Mexican Air Force UFOs likely Equipement Artifacts" (p. 5)

So, it's not about the oil-flare theory, but about the idea that the lights are just FLIR artifacts...

See you,

Interesting...
This may have been a quick article based on what little information was available prior to the mag going to print. This was probably in mid to late May based on my experience submitting photographs to Astronomy magazine. That was shortly after the video had been released. I recall seeing Shermer on TV mentioning that the second trio of lights looked like the first ones and therefore may be an artifact.

I would not be surprised that another article will appear in the coming months with the oil well fires playing a role in the explanation.

Any word on the author of the article?

[JMA]

Hi,

Originally posted by Astrophotographer
Any word on the author of the article?

The author is Kevin Christopher, Public Relation Director for CSICOP.

But the artefacts hypothesis is from James McGaha, retired USAF, astronomer, and technical consultant for the CISCOP.

This may have been a quick article based on what little information was available prior to the mag going to print.

I agree.

[wipeout]

Thanks to Patricio for the final part of the translation! :D

I'll need to have a good think about what it says. :)

[Patricio Elicer]

You're welcome, wipeout.

My main purpose was to translate the conversation between the crew members as faithfully as possible, without any judgement and "retouch" on my part.

Some passages seem to be quite confusing, and is hard to make sense or to interpolate what was really going on in those moments.

I will post my own judgement about what I heard and saw on the tape later on.

[wipeout]

Having had a better look at the footage with the translation to help me, I've got to say I'm a bit confused by it.

The objects in this section seem to be one very large and two much smaller infrared objects to the aircraft's left, one radar object ahead and one infrared object behind later.

The infrared objects get further and further back to the left, and the final infrared object might be the same large object as it would now be behind the aircraft. I don't know what they are, could be all sorts of things. I don't know that they ever appear on radar so it could be more ground objects.

The radar object is moving very slowly east, and turns southeast and moves off radar. As I suggested a while back, it might be a helicopter from it's slow speed and now I think it might disappear off-radar quickly because it landed. As far as I can tell it's never seen on infrared.

That's my best guess at the moment.

[Patricio Elicer]

Seems that a big fuss is being made over the fact that the original footage was disclosed to the general public.

http://www.virtuallystrange.net/ufo/updates/2004/jul/m04-009.shtmlFrom a Amy Hebert
Hi, Dr. Maccabee:

I'm trying to ascertain exactly which individuals outside of the
Mexican Air Force and/or Department of Defense have been allowed
to review the original, unedited FLIR video footage and
currently have copies of said video in their possession.

As far as I know, only two people have been given copies of the
original FLIR footage - Dr. Maccabee and Jaime Maussan. Does
anyone know if anyone, other than Dr. Bruce Maccabee and Mr.
Jaime Maussan, received copies of the unedited, original FLIR
video footage?Also, a Mexican Air Force Chief was removed, possibly in connection with the UFO case?

http://www.virtuallystrange.net/ufo/updates/2004/jul/m06-018.shtmlGeneral Ernesto Arcos Oropeza was removed as Mexican Air Force's Chief to Mexico's Northwest Region. Now is the Base Commander at Hermosillo, Sonora, Mexico.

The UFO factor:

Criteria differences with the SEDENA's Secretary General Gerardo
Clemente Vega Garcia as an example the filtration of a video of
supposedly UFO's influenced for the post command changes.

General Ernesto Arcos Oropeza was relieved as Mexican Air
Force's Chief. He was reassigned to a lower hierarchy control,
not rank.C26A's Pilot, Flir Operator and Radar Operator downgraded?

http://www.virtuallystrange.net/ufo/updates/2004/jul/m06-008.shtmlAlejandro Franz
I am looking for official information about the pilot and the
Flir and Radar operators of the C26A flight on march 05 that
supposedly were degraded (demoted) in rank.
If all this is true, I wonder whether the "UFO sightings" has anything to do with it.

Or maybe it was because of the unedited footage leakage, that showed the world how incompetent air force officials are in identifying flying objects?

[Kitty Chan]

hmmm

I think the most telling statement is a while back I saw on one of the sites

"That it didnt matter what the footage showed but what was really important was that a government came forward."

now, it looks like you guys and whoever else may come to a conclusion what better way to confuse things than to produce a government conspiricy for yet another cover up.

Lousy governments always hiding the ufo's . . .;)

[wipeout]

That's very interesting, Patricio.

Hmmm.... it'd be a pity if the aircrew had been punished for a simple misidentification. It was really the people who did the investigation who messed up, I guess.

I think Garcia was the General who released the footage.

[feyd rautha]

been away sometime, sthg. new???
this thread has to stay on frontpage till the case is solved. btw., i am angry randi never mentioned this case on his commentary, why is that? this case is for me the biggest unexplained sightning of unidentified flying objects and therefore mucho importante. seems to me that mr. randi only comments on obvious woowoo´s to make a lil fun of them. would be nice to see this case investigated and commented by someone credible. he often enough has reported on obvious ufo-fakes and hoaxes. seems to me that some people(interresting ian) are right about the new meaning of the word skeptic.
i am a real skeptic.

[sonofthor]

Has anyone read the latest issue of skeptical inquirer? It has a very interesting explaintion for what those things are. Acording to the article they were just from an internal system source generating those images. The pilotes never saw those objects visually. Only through the infrared imaging system.

You know...a mirage.:)

[Thomas]

You may have wondered where I've been the last week or so. Well, for one thing, I've been busy writing my report on this phenomenon and it's ready for peer review now. Several researchers are analyzing my findings as I write this post.

You're all welcome to analyze it.

As you'll see I have solved the azimuth update problem as discovered by Dr. Maccabee. I have also solved a number of other problems and have discovered some oddities as well.

Analysis of unidentified radiation sources (http://www.pixcells.dk/mexico/)

I can recommend listening to one of my latest pieces (http://www.pixcells.dk/music/ThomasStrunchTheFrost.mp3) while reading it :)

Printy,

I've been looking at your analysis. Your parallax calculations are incorrect because they take no account of the erratic route or azimuth. I can prove that the twins are more 400 km away using that method, and I'm pretty sure you wouldn't like that. In fact I can prove they're not stationary as well.
You have to take account of the azimuth update issue + the erratic route and adjust the azimuth accordingly. You can see an example of this in my report.

I also have to wonder if your lat/lon readings for your parallax calculations are correct, because I've only seen you state four of these in your analysis, where only one is correct, the remaining three appear to be misreadings.

[Thomas]

Originally posted by sonofthor
Has anyone read the latest issue of skeptical inquirer? It has a very interesting explaintion for what those things are. Acording to the article they were just from an internal system source generating those images. The pilotes never saw those objects visually. Only through the infrared imaging system.

You know...a mirage.:)
I don't think it makes any sense that a system failure would go behind the clouds and appear in the same direction at all times. Besides, the SEDENA researchers tested all the equipment and found no malfunctions, after the event.

That claim cries out for substantial evidence.

The oilflare hypothesis at least gives a good explanation to why the radiation sources wasn't visible to the naked eye. But I haven't read that article, so this is just my 2 cents.

[Thomas]

Originally posted by wipeout
That's very interesting, Patricio.

Hmmm.... it'd be a pity if the aircrew had been punished for a simple misidentification.
Don't worry about that, no one who had anything to do with this case has been degraded due to the restructuring of SEDENA.
It has nothing to do with the March 5 sighting. It was General Vega Garcia who released the video and allowed the media to interview the aircrew, and he's still the head of SEDENA.

[michaellee]

I found Patricio's transcripts interesting. One thing that stood out while reading them was the sense that each individual(RO, FO and PC), while talking with one another, never listened. The term "one track mind" jumped out. So I cut and pasted the transcripts, and reading just each individuals statements during the ordeal puts it in a more clear perspective. Read and see for yourself.

transcript portions originally posted by Patricio Elicer


(Radar Operator)

RO: It is now at 11 o'clock, 4 miles, 75 speed, direction 2-9-7
RO: OK, it's almost at 12 o'clock, 2.9 distance, 75 speed
RO: Now it's 65 speed, 2.1 miles away
RO: now the radar readings are 2.14 distance, 97 speed.
RO: Its direction is 2-9-8 with 113 speed. Now the radar says between 285 and 213 speed
RO: Yes
RO: Now it's 194 speed
RO: At 12 o'clock, 2.1 miles
RO: now it's 177 speed, 2.1 miles, direction 3-0-0
RO: Right, and the reading is 2.1 miles
RO: I keep having it at 12 o'clock, 206 speed, direction 3-0-1
RO: 2.1 miles, 166 speed. Correction, 207 speed, direction 3-0-2
RO: Yes, I have it in front
RO: I'm at the edge of losing it on the radar, just exiting the radar field
RO: 31.8 miles now, and I'm losing it
RO: I don't have it on the screen anymore, but the radar keeps telling the distance, 37 miles
RO: OK, I just lost it
RO: Nothing, sir.
RO: At what distance did you get it, Tellez? [Tellez is the Flir Operator]
RO: Nothing, sir.
RO: I’m checking out, but no …, I have some tiny stains, but I have no readings, no speed indication, nothing
RO: At what position do you have them, Tellez?
RO: At 9 o’clock?,… I don’t think the radar can catch them, we have a blind angle there.
RO. Yes
RO: We have 20º of blind angle there
RO: Yes, it’s weird, I don’t have anything right now
RO: I continue searching
RO: I didn’t catch anything on the radar, sir
RO: Ah, here I got one, let me check out the one at 9 o’clock
RO: OK, the one that is at 1 o’clock is at 19 miles, 52 knots
RO: At what position, Tellez?
RO: OK, let me check…
RO: 17.1 miles, direction 95, speed 52
RO: That one is at 14.8 miles, direction 99, speed 52.
RO: It’s 10 miles away, speed 52
RO: Now I get it at 2 o’clock, at 9 miles, direction 120, speed 52
RO: No, now I get it with quality 9, but I got it with quality 1 before
RO: Now I get it almost at 3 o’clock, 6.9 miles, direction 155, speed 52
RO: It’s now at 3 o’clock, 7.1 miles, direction 182
RO: Yes, I still get it
RO: I lost a bit of quality, I get quality 5 now.
RO: The one we’ve got at 1 o’clock is already lost, it just exited the radar field


(FLIR Operator)

FO: There it goes, there it goes, there it goes!
FO: It's the FLIR angle, straight
FO: It is supposed to arrive at Carmen
FO: Let's see if it can make contact with ground control
FO: It is at a few miles from Carmen
FO: One or two miles from Carmen
FO: It is now over Carmen
FO: Carmen should see it now
FO: it's passing by Carmen
FO: Seems to be turning
FO: Yes
FO: it was just a light, I could not make out what it was.
FO: There are some clouds there, then they should become visible
FO: Yes, about 7 or 8 o’clock. It’s strange that it has a kind of point in front, a small point in front.
FO: Here goes another one
FO: There we have more, they are following behing one another. It’s 10 or 11 objects
FO: Right now they must be at position 9 o’clock
FO: Affirmative, there they go, there they go
FO: There they go, we have one and the rest is following behind
FO: There they go, all of them
FO: Aproximately at 8 or 9 o’clock
FO: There they go!, there they go!
FO: At the same altitude
FO: Now they are going to be clearly visible, and their speed is…. [exclamation for very high speed]
FO: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, …. on the screen
FO: Affirmative
FO: 8, 9, 10, 11, counting all the balls
FO: 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 11
FO: At 8:30 o’clock
FO: at 8:30?
FO: But you should see them now
FO: There’s a bunch of clouds
FO: We lost them
FO: Maybe a bit later we’ll see them again
FO: Affirmative
FO: At position 8 o’clock
FO: There are two others ahead of that one
FO: We’ve got them in front, in the middle and at 8 o’clock
FO: Can anyone check out through the window?. We’ve got one at aproximately 1 o’clock, and the rest are at 9 o‘clock
FO: I don’t know
FO: I don’t get distance readings
FO: I get one at 9, and in front of it, aproximately at 9 o’clock as well, there are two other luminous dots
FO: At 9 o’clock
FO: It goes at the same altitude as we, it can’t be possible
FO: 9 o’clock
FO: And the one you have at 1 o’clock?
FO: You are checking one, and I’m checking another one, I mean other ones.
FO: There it is
FO: Do you have it on sight?
FO: Where is the one at 1 o’clock?
FO: One of them is approaching us
FO: One of them was at 12, and the other one was at 9
FO: Where is the one you had at 1 o’clock, now?

(Plane Commander)

PC: OK, let's see if it's close to land in Kuwi (sp?). But we don't see it, go on telling me the position
PC: Go on giving me data
PC: ¿113?, ¿speed?
PC: ¿Speed?
PC: The Colonel Winchit (sp?), please!
PC: Just to inform you that over Tenosique (sp?), we had a radar contact with an aircraft that we've been unable to locate. It's still in the radar, we are trying to get eye contact with it, but we can't. Now we are at...... where is the airplane?... Radar, give me the information about the plane.
PC: Did you copy me, Tellez?
PC: Check out Ciudad del Carmen. Any craft landing at present time?
PC: That was apparently its direction, but we detected it doing low speed manuvers. We couldn't see it with the naked eye, but is still on radar, heading to Ciudad del Carmen, seemingly.
PC: Give me the Carmen frecuency
PC: And who is that guy, then?
PC: Could it be an helicop....., or probably a [unintelligible craft name]?
PC: Where is it? Can you still see it?
PC: Behind the clouds! [timestamp: 16:52:35]
PC: We caught it with the radar and the FLIR all the time.
PC: I think it was the same as ours
PC: Just above us
PC: No way!, now that we have a radar contact and .....
PC: Wow!, what a good job the radar is doing
PC: There it is
PC: It's still there
PC: What is he doing? [timestamp: 16:57:20]
PC: Turning?
PC: Eh?,... no!
PC: Radar, did you lose it?
PC: We couldn't make out if it was a plane or something.
PC: At 7 o’clock, at the same altitude
PC: Watch your language, gentlemen, but look for what is coming behind us
PC: OK radar, what do we have?
PC: At 9 o’clock, almost at the same altitude
PC: What do we have, radar?
PC: But they are a lot, about 10
PC: Look for the position, at what position?, at 10?
PC: Chase them, don’t lose them
PC: OK, we don’t know what we are witnessing, just some luminous objects which are at the same altitude as we, but we are unable to know how far away they are.
PC: Don’t lose them, FLIR
PC: Now they are going to appear again, they should be visible
PC: Yes, a bunch of clouds, but on exiting that bunch of clouds they should be visible
PC: At what position did we lose them, Tellez?
PC: Why are they chasing us?
PC: OK, that’s one, but I have another one at 9 o’clock
PC: And they are the same ones, eh?
PC: The one at 1 o’clock, how many miles?
PC: Gentlemen, we are not alone [LAUGHTERS], what a weird thing eh?, they are surrounding us
PC: Watch your language gentlemen, but what is this?
PC: But the one we have at 9 o’clock is chasing us, it’s going along parallel to us
PC: Now we’ve got those clouds, it’s above us
PC: OK, don’t lose it, radar. Look for the one at 1 o’clock
PC: It’s coming closer to us
PC: Quality 1?
PC: OK, let’s see …
PC: Ahhh, that isn’t the one, that’s the moon
PC: Is the moon in front?
PC: OK, it is the moon
PC: OK, we are not chasing the moon, are we?
PC: OK, that isn’t the one, it’s a cloud. Yes, it is a cloud
PC: OK, it is pulling away now, who know what it was!
PC: Is it still with us, radar?
PC: The radar is catching now what it didn’t catch in its entire life
PC: OK, all this is so weird



It's clear to me that:

The only unknown objects tracked were the 10 or 11 FLIR contacts.

The object that lead to their confusion and obvious lack of communication was nothing more than the MOON.

While the PC finally figured this out, neither the FO or RO ever acknowledged this.

And by the way, I never knew that the moon traveled at 52 knots. What kind of radar were they using? The better question might be "what were they smoking". Maybe the fumes from the 11 oil flares their FLIR picked up penetrated their aircraft.

[Kitty Chan]

Thomas

Bravo excellent, you created the piece

plus I will add a thank you for your work on the essay

[Thomas]

Originally posted by michaellee
One thing that stood out while reading them was the sense that each individual(RO, FO and PC), while talking with one another, never listened. The term "one track mind" jumped out. So I cut and pasted the transcripts, and reading just each individuals statements during the ordeal puts it in a more clear perspective.

Yes, pulling it all out of context makes everything clear.

It's clear to me that:

The only unknown objects tracked were the 10 or 11 FLIR contacts.

Eeeh? (http://www.pixcells.dk/mexico/)

The object that lead to their confusion and obvious lack of communication was nothing more than the MOON.

While the PC finally figured this out, neither the FO or RO ever acknowledged this.

And by the way, I never knew that the moon traveled at 52 knots. What kind of radar were they using?

The AN/PS 143 BRAVO VICTOR 3 which is able to detect interstellar objects at ranges above 300,000 km, of course. Especially if they move with a velocity of about 100km/h.

The better question might be "what were they smoking".

Where have I heard that statement before?

Maybe the fumes from the 11 oil flares their FLIR picked up penetrated their aircraft.

Eeeeeeh? (http://www.pixcells.dk/mexico/)

Please, please, please tell me that all this is a parody or atleast a joke?

[Thomas]

Originally posted by Kitty Chan
Bravo excellent, you created the piece

Thanks :)


plus I will add a thank you for your work on the essay
Thanks again, but it's not exactly an essay, since the only place I actually state my personal opinion is in the preface/abstract. The rest is just calculations, facts and analysis which has nothing to do with my personal opinion. But I know what you mean, so thanks :)

[Stitch]

While I would like to think there is intelligent life out there somewhere, it does strike me as a little odd that:

These craft travel massive distances with no doubt incredible technology propelling them. They travel through our solar system un-detected. They track planes at a few hundred feet and for some reason the tea lady always seems to run the trolley over the cloaking device cable and pull the plug out of the wall. I would have thought they may have come up with a slightly better system by now :D

[steenkh]

Originally posted by Stitch
These craft travel massive distances with no doubt incredible technology propelling them. They travel through our solar system un-detected. They track planes at a few hundred feet and for some reason the tea lady always seems to run the trolley over the cloaking device cable and pull the plug out of the wall. I would have thought they may have come up with a slightly better system by now :D
To be honest to the UFOlogists, not all of them claim that UFOs are alien crafts. Some also believe that as yet unknown natural phenomena are the cause.

I once saw a TV documentary where some scientist tried to document hovering light phenomenas that he believed appeared near geological fault lines. If they chase air planes, I do not know.

[Thomas]

Originally posted by Stitch
While I would like to think there is intelligent life out there somewhere, it does strike me as a little odd that:

These craft travel massive distances with no doubt incredible technology propelling them. They travel through our solar system un-detected. They track planes at a few hundred feet and for some reason the tea lady always seems to run the trolley over the cloaking device cable and pull the plug out of the wall. I would have thought they may have come up with a slightly better system by now :D
Heh, indeed. I couldn't help but to think about a part of the hitchhikers guide to the galaxy when I read your post, which goes like this:

From Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy - by Douglas Adams

"But how did you get there in the first place then?"

"Easy, I got a lift with a teaser."

"A teaser?"

"Yeah."

"Er, what is ..."

"A teaser? Teasers are usually rich kids with nothing to do. They
cruise around looking for planets which haven't made interstellar
contact yet and buzz them."

"Buzz them?" Arthur began to feel that Ford was enjoying making life difficult for him.

"Yeah", said Ford, "they buzz them. They find some isolated spot
with very few people around, then land right by some poor soul
whom no one's ever going to believe and then strut up and down in front of him wearing silly antennae on their heads and making beep beep noises. Rather childish really." Ford leant back on the mattress with his hands behind his head and looked infuriatingly pleased with himself.

source (http://www.tolna.net/~deepee/konyvek/GALAXY1.HTM)

[Thomas]

Originally posted by steenkh
If they chase air planes, I do not know.
It matters not. At least not in relation to this case.

If you read my analysis (http://www.pixcells.dk/mexico/) you'll find that the airplane wasn't chased by the radiation sources at any point. It's an incorrect interpretation made by the aircrew, an interpretation which soon got adopted by the news media for the sake of sensationalism. At least we don't have any evidence to suggest that this was the case, nor did the aircrew.

Btw, I also saw that you found a problem with the oilflare hypothesis. Look under my 'oddities' section if you wanna see more, also have a look at the distances measured with parallax or the elevation analysis. They don't correspond to the oilflare idea either. However, these calculations are not 100% conclusive, but they're the best we can do with the material we have at hand.

[michaellee]

originally posted by Thomas
Eeeeeeh?

Please, please, please tell me that all this is a parody or atleast a joke?

Hah! Now you will never know for sure....if I was serious...or just passing humor around.

[Astrophotographer]

Originally posted by Thomas
I've been looking at your analysis. Your parallax calculations are incorrect because they take no account of the erratic route or azimuth.


Actually, I noted this problem as well but felt that the changing direction was not too serious a problem. Your analysis shows that this might not be a good assumption. However, your parallax calculations are not that accurate either in that you assume that the angles are correctly calculated. You are dealing with a latitude/longitude update every 5 seconds which have a minimum resolution of 0.01 minute of arc. This only resolves down to about 60 feet position. When dealing with long distances, this is not a serious problem. However, when you are calculating angles for five seconds of travel, which can introduce an angle error of near +/- 1 degree! For instance at time 17:03:36, the angle for this time change is
delta long = 0.29 minutes
delta lat = 0.04 minutes
This computes to an angle of 82.15 degrees.

If the actual position were 0.291 and 0.039 (which would indicate .029 and .04), the new angle would be 82.36 degrees. If one were take the extreme of 0.294 and 0.036, the angle becomes 83.02 (almost a degree off).

This might explain why the flight path is "erratic" in that the resolution is not great enough to provide a "smooth" flight path. It is probable (and likely) that there were changes in direction but with the data available, it is hard to ascertain what those changes exactly were.

Originally posted by Thomas
I can prove that the twins are more 400 km away using that method, and I'm pretty sure you wouldn't like that. .

I am glad you know how I feel about things. I always wondered why those who want these discussions to be scientific in nature resort to personal comments such as these. Earlier you went on a rant that amounted to a personal attack because I pointed out some erroneous statements you made. It seems you still bear some form of grudge over that. Doesn't this "derail the scientific process"? Let's move on.

Originally posted by Thomas
In fact I can prove they're not stationary as well.
You have to take account of the azimuth update issue + the erratic route and adjust the azimuth accordingly. You can see an example of this in my report.

Which has disappeared. I was on vacation and only caught a glance at the work when it appeared. The work is good and I await the update. There are a few issues I noted from the brief glance I saw:

1. You seemed to use only a 3 degree elevation for the "twins" in your calculations. However, at times 17:03:35-17:03:43, this value is 2 degrees and becomes 2 degrees again between times 17:03:54-17:03:59. It even dips to 1 degree after this. The table should reflect these values and not just show the one reading of 3 degrees.

2. In your anamoly of how the two set of groups are not the same, I think you need to reevaluate. The first map you made used the Narrow and the second map used the Narrow X2 FOV. This would change the scale of the map and "cut off" some of the objects that are outside the FOV. I also suggest you examine how the separation between the trios changes during the time period of 17:06:43-17:07:21. The separation between the two is increasing. This means earlier in time, these two groups are going to appear closer together and give a different appearance.

3. I am curious as to why you only made one distance calculation. It is only one data point and it would be interesting to see how well this stands up to calculations on the "twins" from other data points. I would not be suprised the distance of the "twins" was closer than the others considering the apparent size appears much larger.
I am also interested to see what you calculations for the group at times 17:06-17:07 appear to be. Is there a reason you took only one data point and declared that this is the apparent distance?

Originally posted by Thomas
I also have to wonder if your lat/lon readings for your parallax calculations are correct, because I've only seen you state four of these in your analysis, where only one is correct, the remaining three appear to be misreadings.

Guilty as charged. That is what I get for trying to look at some blurry images late at night and not double checking the next day. The errors did not introduce a significant change but I also found other problems with the distance traveled since the position updates every five seconds. Even with these errors, it did not throw off my calculations too much but you seemed to have demonstrated they were not accurate either.

[wipeout]

I never took the elevation and azimuth readings on the footage to be more than a rough guide as the plane will be being bumped around slightly and the readings may give numbers which go beyond the camera's actual accuracy.

[feyd rautha]

found a new expert report about the mexican 11.

report (http://www.azfamily.com/cgi-bin/video/wmPlayer.pl?title=www.azfamily.com/20040716_UFO.wmv&vsect=News)

includes a very cute render of ballightning. and rules out your stupid lil oilflare theory wipeout.

[Astrophotographer]

Originally posted by feyd rautha
found a new expert report about the mexican 11.

report (http://www.azfamily.com/cgi-bin/video/wmPlayer.pl?title=www.azfamily.com/20040716_UFO.wmv&vsect=News)

includes a very cute render of ballightning. and rules out your stupid lil oilflare theory wipeout.

Perhaps you need to learn more about this "expert". This is Jim Dilettosso and he misidentified the 1997 Phoenix lights videos as something other than airborne flares by trying to "analyze" the specturm of the lights on the video even though that was impossible! Read morehere (http://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/issues/1998-03-05/feature2.html)

I wouldn't consider Dilettosso's opinion worth much. He even has endorsed Billy Meier's hoax images as authentic.

[Anders W. Bonde]

FWIW, E-Skeptic #28 for July 24, 2004 has a well-researched article on the whole affair - the oil field flares dunnit. I don't know how to link to that mail, but I'm sure other members of this forum receive it, too.

[feyd rautha]

oopsy, you are absolutely right astrophotographer. thx. have to check the hall of shame (http://www.ufowatchdog.com/shame.html) more often. people that consider meier as real are definitely not my friends! one day i ll go to switzerland which is a direct neighbour of my homecountry and kick Billy Meier very hard in the balls, i promise.

[PygmyPlaidGiraffe]

Retired A.S.A.F. major, astronomer, and technical advisor for CSICOP (http://www.csicop.org) James McGaha has critisism for both those that are credulous about alien spacecraft carrying visitors that are allegedly detected and for the speculating skeptics and scientists, in the latest issue of Skeptical Inquirer (start p.5 July/August 2004)


Mexican Air Force UFOs Likely Equipment Artifacts. , by Kevin Christopher


There is no evidence that the objects in the video are flying saucers from another world. The rediculous claims of the believers are bad enough. but it's even worse to see skeptics and scientists engaging in unwarranted speculation"

Read the article for some interesting insight on how the recorded images may have been produced.

[wipeout]

Originally posted by Anders W. Bonde
FWIW, E-Skeptic #28 for July 24, 2004 has a well-researched article on the whole affair - the oil field flares dunnit. I don't know how to link to that mail, but I'm sure other members of this forum receive it, too.

Thanks for that. It has a link here but it's currently a dead link so I haven't seen it yet:

http://www.skeptic.com/#backissues

[wipeout]

I found it. Seems it has a direct link of its own:

http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic07-24-04.html

[Kitty Chan]

So does anybody know what is coming of this evidence? If I search around for any updates I run into the capt but it seems that no one is carrying info about the oil flares

Or is it still being discussed and not offically agreed upon yet?

[wipeout]

..........

[JPK]

bump.

So much good info in this thread from the begining, thought it was worth bringing up just in case it was missed.

JPK

[wipeout]

Originally posted by Kitty Chan
So does anybody know what is coming of this evidence? If I search around for any updates I run into the capt but it seems that no one is carrying info about the oil flares

Or is it still being discussed and not offically agreed upon yet?

I don't know anything that's going on either, but I'm not really likely to as I was never more than in very brief contact with anyone outside this forum about this.

[wipeout]

Seems Patricio has been doing some e-mailing, I didn't know that...

http://www.randi.org/jr/080504string.html#11

Thanks for that. :D

I started a thread (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=44001) over in the appropriate forum... not to get replies, just to give some credit to others for this UFO thread too. :)

[Patricio Elicer]

Originally posted by wipeout
Seems Patricio has been doing some e-mailing, I didn't know that... After reading last week commentary, I thought in all fairness you and Thomas should be credited. It's even possible that Franz got some hints by reading us or by someone else reading us.

BTW, I wonder what has become of Thomas. He took down his report page before I could review it :(

[wipeout]

Thanks again, Patricio. I never took the subject very seriously so I wasn't really bothered by not getting credit.

Originally, I just noticed the UFO report in the news and was curious as to what people here in this forum thought. I then saw no-one had started a thread on it so I started one just for fun as it seemed an interesting case, and I then thought it might look bad if I just start a thread and don't show any more enthusiasm for it after a day or two, so I felt I had to at least try and solve it.

It was my first and last UFO investigation. :)

[Blue Monk]

I'd like to extends congrats to wipeout and all of the participants of this thread. This could be a case study in critical thinking.

This case was more difficult to explain than most and I'm sure I'm not the only one impressed with the logic displayed here.

Now if any of you can explain women to me I would greatly appreciate it.

[Patricio Elicer]

Originally posted by Blue Monk
Now if any of you can explain women to me I would greatly appreciate it. Ohh, women are the biggest mystery in the Universe. You can unveil the mystery of a quasar 10 billion light years away, but you can't unveil the mystery of what's going on in a woman's mind.

I'm afraid I can't help on this, I've been trying for years but I think I've already reached a dead end.

This forum is about critical thinking and logic, after all :D:).

[Blue Monk]

Originally posted by Patricio Elicer

This forum is about critical thinking and logic, after all :D:).

:D :D :D

[wipeout]

I went back and looked how this thread started to see what I could learn in hindsight, and discovered Mummymonkey and myself were both thinking a very similar way... :)

Have a look at these selected quotes in sequence:



wipeout - "Could be a bunch of hot things sitting still on the ground, for all I can tell." :D



wipeout - [I]"There's a main coastal road in the direction of the infra-red sources (slightly out of alignment with each other) but not a whole lot else, it seems, from looking at the maps."

mummymonkey - "Looks to me that the heat sources are on the ground some distance away to the north. Perhaps at sea."



wipeout - [I]"If there is industry, it could be some sort of flares from a chimneys or similar."

[I was thinking of a refinery of some sort.]

mummymonkey - [I]"As it stands I still think the objects may be on the ground some distance to the north. Perhaps at sea. Are there oil/gas rigs in that area?"



wipeout [I]Hey, see what I've just found... :D

[I'd found quotes confirming the existence of oil-platforms at sea in the Campeche area, right next to Ciudad del Carmen]


I was the first person to suggest flares from chimneys from "some kind of industry" somewhere in or around Ciudad del Carmen but Mummymonkey was the first person to actually suggest "oil/gas rigs" and I confirmed that they existed.

Looking back now, I realize Mummymonkey was on the right track every bit as much as me, and so credit where it's due to him/her. :D

[wipeout]

Originally posted by Blue Monk
I'd like to extends congrats to wipeout and all of the participants of this thread. This could be a case study in critical thinking.

This case was more difficult to explain than most and I'm sure I'm not the only one impressed with the logic displayed here.

Thanks. :)

I think it'd certainly make a good example of how official investigations aren't the final word, how the media can garble things, how even trained personnel can misinterpret events, and other things as well, like not taking all the evidence to be equally reliable and judging each bit on its own merits.

Now if any of you can explain women to me I would greatly appreciate it.

I'm sure there's an argument that men's minds operate on classical principles and women's minds operate on quantum principles. ;)

[Astrophotographer]

I have been examining the article by James Smith concerning the oil wells AKAL-C, AKAL-J, and NOHOCH-A being visible in the video at time 17:07.

Earlier, Thomas had suggested that something was amiss because of how the "formation" shifted over time. Probably the most noteworthy of these shifts was what he referred to as the "stray". I had previously pointed out that this was probably due to parallax of the "stray" being closer than the other objects. After measuring all the lights with respect to the first "trio" (the one furthest to the right) and examining Smith's article, I can now feel confident that this is the case. If one uses the middle object in the rightmost "trio" (labeled "R" in the image below) one discovers that the second "trio" is slowly drifting away from it (using the rightmost light labeled "T") at about the same rate as the "stray" meaning they are grouped together (NOTE: The first image is at Narrow scale vice NarrowX2 for those trying to measure). The light to the right of the rightmost "trio" stays with the "trio" and therefore is related to that grouping. To the left of the left most trio, there are three other lights. The two lower ones appear to be moving away from the leftmost "trio" at approximately the same rate the leftmost "trio". The third object appears to be moving towards the leftmost trio at a very slow rate. One can see this in the following image:

http://members.aol.com/tprinty2/trios.gif

When I measured the changing distance between "R" and "T", I calculated a value of about 0.3 pixels per second, which equates to about 0.0005 deg/sec. If one trys to calculate the rate of angular change between the oil wells, I found this to be around this value (AKAL-C 0.00025 deg/sec). Consider the difficulties involved with getting completely accurate measurements, this seems to be a pretty good match.

What conclusions one can draw from this is that there are three (and possibly a solitary fourth) group of objects in the video that are separated by about the same distances (with the exception of the solitary fourth). This is entirely consistent with the positions of the oil wells AKAL-C, AKAL-J, and NOHOCH-A visible in Smith's LANDSAT image. The AKAL-C and J platforms have four booms with flares and the NOHOCH-A has two. Therefore, the video image has the following labels associated with them.

http://members.aol.com/tprinty2/AKALNOHOCH.gif

The fourth light (labeled with the ?) is difficult to figure out. It seems independent of AKAL-C but very close (similar angular rates). It could be a boom near AKAL-C that is part of this platform.

http://www.seacomcanada.com/MVC-029.JPG

Note the one boom that is inactive. It could have been active at this point and could have been the solitary light.

As another test, I decided to check the angular sizes of the light arrays. Based on the photograph published by Smith and knowing the approximate distance between the wells (based on lat/long), I computed the approximate angular size of the wells as seen at the time 17:07:16 aircraft position but at a 90 degree angle. I converted the number of degrees to the number of pixels using the image scale of 0.3 degrees=176 pixels (the vertical dimension of the frame grabs).

AKAL-C = 0.162 deg = 95 pixels
AKAL-J = 0.158 deg = 92.7 pixels
NOHOCH-A = 0.060 deg = 35.2 pixels
(this did not include the extra light for AKAL-C)

When I measured the number of pixels for each of the above, I received the following numbers

AKAL-C = 93 pixels
AKAL-J = 85 pixels
NOHOCH-A = 34 pixels

The oil wells were not seen at a 90 degree angle, which would make their angular sizes smaller than calculated. Additionally, all of these measurements are going to have errors since I am trying to measure down to such small angular sizes and ranges of feet in the image posted by Smith. Considering these factors, the numbers seem to agree close enough for a pretty good match.

Considering a lot of what has been stated here and elsewhere, this seems to be another piece of evidence that indicates these images were oil well fires.

[wipeout]

Interesting analysis, Astrophotographer. I said at the time that we had no idea what the arrangement of the oil-platform might be. I'd never really looked into what was moving where and it's good to know that it's consistent.

After all this time, I'd never actually realized that the picture I'd seen was of one of the platforms, AKAL-C. I just thought it was a picture to act as an example. It actually feels a little strange now to be looking right at it after talking about it and the related platforms speculatively for so long.

When I originally suggested flares from some sort of industry and looked for refinery or land-based chimneys instead of oil platforms at sea, it was because of a belief that no oil-rig could be wide enough at that range to match the footage.

I read that AKAL-C is a kilometer across, so I think I understand that now...

[Patricio Elicer]

Good post, Astrophotographer

I think the following two images can help those not much involved in the case, visualize the whole scenario:

From http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic07-24-04.html

http://www.skeptic.com/mex%20fig%202.jpg


From http://www.ovniaventura.cl/campeche/ovnis_infrarrojos.htm (site in Spanish)

http://www.boomspeed.com/pelicer/Image10.jpg

The unknown light (labeled as "?" by Astrophotographer) is speculated to belong to a "Ku" field on the Chilean site, which is farther away than the three platforms in question.

It's also interesting to point out that the oil platform and the UFO photograma images are to the same scale, in video pixels.

[Astrophotographer]

[Quote]Originally posted by Patricio Elicer
Good post, Astrophotographer

From http://www.ovniaventura.cl/campeche/ovnis_infrarrojos.htm (site in Spanish)[UNQUOTE]


Interesting. I did not realize that I was duplicating work somebody had already completed. My compliments to the author. Had I been aware of what he had done, I just would have posted a link and not wasted my time!

If you speak french, I found another site with the conclusion being oil well flares as well.

http://www.ufocom.org/pages/v_fr/m_articles/video_mexique2/Mexique_ADV2.html

And there is Claude Poher's work which seems to agree with the oil well fire theory (at least that is the best I can tell).

http://www.premiumwanadoo.com/universons/ovni_gbFr/observation_mexicaine_fr.pdf

UFOlogist Brad Sparks is the only individual that has a difficult time accepting the oil well theory.

http://www.virtuallystrange.net/ufo/updates/2004/aug/m03-032.shtml

So far, he seems to be the only UFOlogist willing to argue against the oil well theory on UFO updates.

[Patricio Elicer]

Originally posted by Astrophotographer
Interesting. I did not realize that I was duplicating work somebody had already completed. My compliments to the author. Had I been aware of what he had done, I just would have posted a link and not wasted my time! I think it's always interesting to be able to cross check conclusions reached independantly. So, thank you for wasting your time! :)

BTW, thanks for the links. I don't speak French though; I can't even read French

[Jeff Corey]

C'est domage. But I would rather be fluent in Espanol. Especially in the continent of America.

[feyd rautha]

silly mexican pilots, do not even know their own enviroment. is there an official statement from the mexican air"force" or from nausean(to tired to check spelling)?

@wipeout

congratulation.:wow2: i m sorry i was in doubt and called your theory silly. reason was that i was sure that someone at the air"force" should have known those oil facilitys and recognize them as the ufos, before they go public. probably a case of "wantobelieve" from my side.

[wipeout]

Thank you, feyd rautha. :) I'm just glad we and other people got the main incident solved before it got out of hand and acted as a foundation for a whole lot of nonsense for a long time, like Roswell or something.

At least, I hope we stopped that... a good thing is that the arrangement of the oil flares do indeed match like a fingerprint to the footage, as Astrophotographer and Patricio show in their posts above with the pictures with the names of the oil-platforms.

As to the Mexican authorities, well they wanted it solved and they got it but I don't know that they like the answer, though, as it's kind of embarrassing. Maybe they should have just quietly sent the video to some skeptics and scientists first instead of having it all over the news... ;)

[mummymonkey]

tbh honest this thread had it just about wrapped up around page 6 or so. Glad to see others are catching up now.
I'd still like to see some work done on the apparent elevation of the heat sources before considering it fully solved. It could be something as simple as poor calibration of the IR elevation gimbal.

[Astrophotographer]

Originally posted by mummymonkey
tbh honest this thread had it just about wrapped up around page 6 or so. Glad to see others are catching up now.
I'd still like to see some work done on the apparent elevation of the heat sources before considering it fully solved. It could be something as simple as poor calibration of the IR elevation gimbal.

Actually, the elevation angle has been addressed. The "angle of attack" for the airplane (the upward tilt) seems to have produced the angle errors as one can see in this diagram:

http://members.aol.com/tprinty2/AOA.gif

I think the only "mystery" still appears to be the "twins" lights.

http://home.earthlink.net/%7Ebigvideo4/170346.jpg

Thomas had measured them at about 40 miles and my revised measurements came out to be about the same. I haven't found an oil platform that matches this distance but that doesn't mean there wasn't one there (recently installed) or some other heat source.

James Smith earlier proposed a solution of platforms M and G at this site:

http://home.earthlink.net/~bigvideo4/mexican_ufo.html

However, these platforms are too far (100 miles or more). As I said, this appears to be the remaining mystery on this one.

[mummymonkey]

Originally posted by Astrophotographer
Actually, the elevation angle has been addressed. The "angle of attack" for the airplane (the upward tilt) seems to have produced the angle errors as one can see in this diagram:

I've seen the AoA given as a possible solution but not seen any detailed work done. I'd like to see the maths. (Or more realistically have somebody explain the maths to me.) For instance what is the AoA of this model aircraft in cruise? Is the IR equipment calibrated to allow for this? (some systems are but I doubt if this one is).
Maybe somebody could work out the likely AoA given the angle to the IR sources (wrt to aircraft heading), their distance, the displayed elevation and the aircraft's height? We could then find out if it's within the aircraft's normal flight envelope.
Maybe this has already been done?

[Astrophotographer]

Originally posted by mummymonkey
I've seen the AoA given as a possible solution but not seen any detailed work done. I'd like to see the maths. (Or more realistically have somebody explain the maths to me.) For instance what is the AoA of this model aircraft in cruise? Is the IR equipment calibrated to allow for this? (some systems are but I doubt if this one is).
Maybe somebody could work out the likely AoA given the angle to the IR sources (wrt to aircraft heading), their distance, the displayed elevation and the aircraft's height? We could then find out if it's within the aircraft's normal flight envelope.
Maybe this has already been done?

Thomas did a rather interesting section on his webpage regarding this but he has taken the page down and all you get is the words "updating". Based on values of the moon and sun, the angles in front of the aircraft were reading too low by about 2 degrees. If the aircraft AOA was upward, then it stands to reason that angles towards the rear of the aircraft would be the exact opposite. Of course, the aircraft's AOA changes with time and this angle can go up and down just as one can see the values shift from 1 degree to 3 degrees during the video.

[wipeout]

Looking at oil-platforms at such a huge distance, calculations need to take the curvature of the Earth into account as well as refraction by the atmosphere. I think they both might screw up the numbers by a couple of degrees.

[wipeout]

A rough calculation suggests the curvature of the earth has a drop of 1 mile at 100 miles.

The plane was at 10,000 feet, so that's 2 more miles as well, so the camera is pointed at something 3 miles below it at about 100 miles away.

Thats about 1.7 degrees right there.

[mikemike]

I read this thread with great interest. I'm not convinced that it were oilflares as of yet, but it does seem the best theory (or hypothesis as some prefer calling it) for the moment. But what's for sure, a lot more is known about the incident than at the time Maussan gave his briefing, with the advantage of having been able to study the material and present only portions of it, thus enforcing his own interprtation at the time.

I reread it after reading this thread and other sources, and I thought it might be interesting to go through it again, this time armed with almost the same objective information the writer of the press conference had.

It does seem that some parts of the transcript that Patricio excellently translated are different than his? Maybe, different ones should be compared, as someone suggested before.
taken from http://www.ufoevidence.org/photographs/slideshow/page/2

JAIME MAUSSAN'S PRESS BRIEFING DOCUMENT:
As the Merlin C26A tried to approach the unknown traffic to make a visual identification it suddenly in a surprising maneuver escaped flying away at tremendous speed.

No tremendous speed that conventional aircraft are incapable of, were ever recorded. Furthermore, they speak only of "It's a sudden change" And as wipeout mentioned earlier even after that he stills says that it could be a heli... or something. They don't seem particularly impressed with the readings at all.


By this time Mayor Jasso tried to persecute the target but it was very fast. All this was being recorded by the FLAIR and also the radio conversations with the base describing the unexpected maneuver of the unknown.

"Very fast" seems to imply, faster than a human plane can follow. This is not evident from the recorded speeds and the only thing the crew says about is: "We can't do much else with the fuel we have" Which seems to indicate a fuel-shortage problem and not a power/speed problem.


However the C26A still have not made visual contact with the unknown object.

Which they don't seem to find strange at all: [Just above us] [That's why I didn't see it]


This was detected by the RADAR and the FLIR while the personal aboard were trying to make visual contact of the unidentified traffic now following them.
In seconds the equipment detected now not only one but two traffics following them. The images in both RADAR and the FLIR were clear and unmistakable.

From here on the objects on the FLIR and the RADAR are treated as one, whereas it seems clear now, that only the first (very possibly a plane) object ever had both a FLIR and RADAR registration.We all know now how important the distinction between FLIR and RADAR is. Because if they are not detecting the same objects, almost nothing can be said about speed, altitude and distance of the FLIR objects.


But both pilot and personal still couldn?t have visual contact with these two traffics following them adding a great suspense to this disconcerting situation.

"adding a great suspense"? Is he writing a novel that builds up the tension? The crew sounds perfectly calm, only interested.


FLIR kept recording in infrared every movement made by the two unknown objects that seemed to be keeping their distance from the C26A but still following it.

It is not possible to measure exact movement with the FLIR, nor if they keep distance nor if it is following the plane, in fact they don't seem to follow at all according to the video, they areflying parallel at best. These things can only be guessed by the observer. "Every movement made" is highly suggestive of the infrared objects making all sorts of sudden moves, which is absolutely not the case if you watch the video.


The personal aboard the Merlin C26A were confused and disconcerted seeing the images on the FLIR and the RADAR asking themselves what was going on with this situation.

They sound mostly eager and amused.


THE INCIDENT TURNS MORE DRAMATIC
But the stressing moment that the C26A crew were passing through was just the beginning of something more dramatic that will turn their undesirable experience into a real nightmare.

Dramatic? Nightmare? The transcript ends with them laughing about the moon and feeling generally amused with what they saw.


Some minutes passed while the Mexican Air Force Merlin C26A crew continued making maneuvers to have a visual contact of the unknowns because despite both RADAR and FLIR were showing perfectly clear both unidentified objects for unexplained reasons there was not a visual contact even that the objects by this time were at close range.

Again, it is not known how far or how high the FLIR objects were, since these were never seen by radar. So it is incorrect to speak about them as if they were linked. So it is impossible to say that the FLIR objects were "by this time at close range", suggesting that they were approaching, which isn't visible at all in the footage. Furthermore the radarobjects, whose distance were measured, came 2 miles at its closest, which isn't that close at all, the report (although wisely no distance is mentioned) seems to suggest something much closer.


It was during this round and round maneuvers to identify these two objects that something amazing happened. In a matter of seconds more unknown objects arrived to the scene and the disconcert of the C26A crew was total.

Arrived? As if they were seen flying in? It is clear from the video that they could have been invisible up till then to the FLIR because of all the clouds.


The RADAR and the FLIR detected immediately the presence of nine new objects of the same size and characteristics, unknown objects that arrived to the scene surprisingly like coming from nowhere.

Wisely formulated but still too suggestive that ALL objects were seen by both radar and FLIR, which still isn't true. For the FLIR objects only visible characteristics could be called the "same", since the FLIR still can't take exact measurements. The subjective term "arrived" is used again.


Now the situation has entered into a high level of danger so Mayor Magdaleno Jasso reported by radio to the base this new situation requesting instructions.

"high level of danger" seems exagerated. I don't see him contacting his base at all in the transcript? Only for the first object?


But the most bizarre thing was that even though there were eleven unknown objects close to them, still the crew couldn?t see them,

Again, the FLIR objects were not seen by radar, so it is impossible to know if they were close, only the radar objects, but they are named as one again. Also again: 2 miles isn't that close.


no visual contact with the unknowns was possible for some reason never experienced before by these high trained men.

He's writing a novel again. Apparently mexicans are trained at high places.


However the high tech sophisticated equipment and sensors were not lying, there were eleven targets outside them with unpredictable intentions.

If you don't what something is, it seems a bit premature to talk about "intentions".


At the middle of a complete confusion and disconcert among the C26A crew the unknown objects suddenly made a maneuver surrounding the Mexican Air Force airplane in a circle at close range. The RADAR and FLIR presented an image of an eleven objects near by in a circle formation around the Merlin C26A.

This is again incorrect, the FLIR objects and radar objects are not seen by both. So it is impossible to know if they were suddenly at close range encircling the plane. From the video footage it is clear that the FLIR objects themselves were not encircling the plane at all. Also again the closest the measured radar objects came was 2 miles. In this case it seems inapproriate to speak of "close range". Encircling doesn't seem an approriate term either with a 2 miles radius.


The situation turned out of control. Mayor Magdaleno Jasso reported to the base that the C26A situation was now in red alert, surrounded by eleven mysterious round shaped objects camouflaged with a certain unknown advanced technology that avoid any visual contact of them.

The situation was never out of control, in fact this is the point where they laugh about the moon. I don't see Jasso reporting a red alert at all? The suggestion that he even reported "objects camouflaged with a certain unknown advanced technology" seems totally fantasized, if the transcript is translated completely here. It seems rather unlikely IF he did contact the base that he would already use such a desciption. I wonder if Maussan is basing all this on subjective interviews with the crew rather than an actual objective transcript, the latter of which we seem to have a slightly different version of.


However Mayor Jasso kept the calm as well as the crew who were working fast measuring and recording every detail of this unique incident conscientious of their duty as military and trained men.

This is a bit inconsistent. "Nightmare" and "out of control", don't go together with "calm". Perhaps he realized he couldn't keep portraying the crew as panicking, because that would diminish the credibility of their reports and sightings. So suddenly they are capable calm persons who are in total control of the situation.


Confronting this situation surrounded by unidentified objects in an unpredictable ending Mayor Magdaleno Jasso took the decision of turning out all the airplane lights and wait to see what happened. Moments of high suspense lived by the crew while the FLIR was recording the images of those bright objects even that visual contact was not possible, moments of silence and uncertainty.

Well, I guess we are indeed missing a piece of the transscipt? I don't see it on the 30 minute video either?


This new era of relationship among the Mexican UFO witnesses, skywatchers, ufologists and our military forces will try to establish and give form to a new legislation in our law system focused to be prepared for any incident involving these unidentified flying objects, our people, our commercial and military airplanes etc. for learning and understanding what are we going to do and how are we going to confront this reality.

Irrelevant, sounds like a personal "told you so" speech from a frustrated man. If a government is going to share information, than that is something totally different than acknowledging it is a "reality" (suggesting that some ufo's must be saucers) just that there are cases that are YET unknown. It is -by definition- impossible to prove that something is a UFO. It is a status in which a report is in, not a solid designation.

[mikemike]

Most of the following things have been said before, but for some reason I feel the need to summarize it:

The oil-flare theory still has some loose ends:

http://www.boomspeed.com/pelicer/Image10.jpg
- I have a problem with for instance the AKAL-C suggested connection with three of the lights. If the distance is about 50-100 miles, is seems unnatural that the lights are so far apart from the plane's viewpoint, because from that distance that would mean the individual flairs would have to be miles apart too. From 50 miles the three flairs would blend together as one, for (super)human eyes, and it seems especially with the FLIR, because it has been suggested that it would have had to been set extremely sensitive with bleeding pixels already. It seems more likely that the individual FLIR objects are entire oil rigs instead of individual oil-flairs. I'm not sure how to do the math on this one, but it should be possible? If for instance the distance between the closest two lights supposedly linked to AKAL-C, is 1 mile in real life, then the total "screen width" would be about 20 miles at the "horizon point" where the AKAL-C is. Isn't that way too narrow when filming something from 50/100 mile distance? (although it is zoomed in)

- The pilots would have to be idiots, they consistently fail to see that the objects aren't at the same altitude at all but 10.000ft lower. This would mean they don't understand the FLIR at all. Since they know it can't measure altitude, how can they keep claiming they know for sure it's at the same height as the plane?
- The apparant lack of seeing the objects before/after this event, should be explained:
---- Possibly an unique atmospheric event.
---- This crew flew this part for the first AND last time.
---- The FLIR was accidentally set too sensitive, which they should have tested by now.
---- The flames were only turned on that day.
- The oilflares distance doesn't seem to be within the range of the FLIR, according to the FLIR technician.
- If objects at 100 miles can be registered this clearly, although they are very hot flames, you'd still expect some more hot objects much closer to light up on the FLIR as well.
- There's still the coincidence with a funny acting radar, the question is would it have been possible for the three radar signals (when you forget the FLIR objects), changing direction and speed to be just small aircraft under normal circumstances? I haven't heard anything conclusive on that.
- You'd expect a less steady oval if the source is a flickering flame. I don't know enough about a FLIR to be sure.

[Patricio Elicer]

Originally posted by mikemike
I reread it after reading this thread and other sources, and I thought it might be interesting to go through it again, this time armed with almost the same objective information the writer of the press conference had. Hi Mike, and welcome to the forums.

You make good points indeed. Most of the quotes from Maussan you brought up are far from accurate, judging solely by the video. It's possible, however, that he got additional info from interviews with the pilots.

But even so, some accounts are very exaggerated and also introduce inexistant elements to the story. They certainly add a lot of dramatism and appeal to the case, but they are simply not true. For example this one:The situation turned out of control. Mayor Magdaleno Jasso reported to the base that the C26A situation was now in red alert, surrounded by eleven mysterious round shaped objects camouflaged with a certain unknown advanced technology that avoid any visual contact of them.As far as we can see in the video, the situation never went out of control, Jasso never reported a "red alert", they were not surrounded by the 11 objects (the oil flames, likely). The pilots couldn't see the objects with the naked eye, but the "camouflage" and the "unknown advanced technology" remarks are just gratituous and unfounded additions.

[Patricio Elicer]

Originally posted by mikemike
I have a problem with for instance the AKAL-C suggested connection with three of the lights. If the distance is about 50-100 miles, is seems unnatural that the lights are so far apart from the plane's viewpoint, because from that distance that would mean the individual flairs would have to be miles apart too. From 50 miles the three flairs would blend together as one, for (super)human eyes, and it seems especially with the FLIR, because it has been suggested that it would have had to been set extremely sensitive with bleeding pixels already. It seems more likely that the individual FLIR objects are entire oil rigs instead of individual oil-flairs. I'm not sure how to do the math on this one, but it should be possible? If for instance the distance between the closest two lights supposedly linked to AKAL-C, is 1 mile in real life, then the total "screen width" would be about 20 miles at the "horizon point" where the AKAL-C is. Isn't that way too narrow when filming something from 50/100 mile distance? (although it is zoomed in) That's a good issue.

It's easy to do the math from the standpoint of someone looking with the naked eye (with super eyes), but the camera zoom adds a problem.

First it's known that the distance from the plane to the platforms is between 110 and 120 miles. Let's take 120 miles. Judging by this picture (http://www.seacomcanada.com/MVC-029.JPG ) , the platform dimensions are gigantic (take a look at the ship for comparison). Let's suppose that two adjacent flames are 0.2 miles apart.

This gives an "aparent distance" between flames of about 0.1 degrees, that is, 6 minutes of arc. I don't know for sure, but seems to me that even with super eyes and ideal atmospheric conditions, at such a small apparent size the flames can't be discerned as two separate objects.

Now enters the camera zoom, and things get more confusing to me. It's known that on filming that segment, the camera was very zoomed in (because of the narrow field of view). By how much?, I don't know, but let's suppose it was a "50X" zoom (just wild guessing, I will look for the FLIR specifications later). Does it mean that the apparent size is enlarged 50 times?. If this is the case, then it would increase to 5 degrees, but the question still remains on whether or not 5 degrees are enough to make out the flames as two separate objects.

Anyway, I smell that the whole issue is more complicated than this. Maybe Astrophotographer (or someone else) can help?

[mikemike]

Originally posted by Patricio Elicer
Hi Mike, and welcome to the forums.

You make good points indeed. Most of the quotes from Maussan you brought up are far from accurate, judging solely by the video. It's possible, however, that he got additional info from interviews with the pilots.

Hi Patricio,

I'm especially glad that you responded, since you're the one that independentely translated the transcript. Since you don't say now, in retrospect, that there are a lot of places in the recordings which were unintelligable, in which some of the "extra" things might have been said, I'm feeling more confident that only a few likely possibilities remain.

-The video (which leads to our translated transcript) we have is incomplete (edited), I read that some time was missing in the 30 minute "unedited" video, is this possible at more locations, where possibly those things could have been said?
-Not everything the crew says is recorded.
-The crew turned the recording off at intervals. (mind you, at the most important intervals)
-Patricio is part of a conspiracy that tries to coverup the whole incident, undoubtely funded by JREF.

Well, if the video is unedited AND a complete recording of the flight, there are the following possibilities:
-Maussan derived the extra info from interviews with the crew. Only if it can be proven that some things aren't recorded/are missing from the video is this meaningful. Otherwise it is proven that the crew has given wrong statements, which isn't that strange if they were asked to repeat the event from memory. If the recordings are complete then there is no reason to follow/include the subjective accounts the crew gave.
-Maussan made it up. Which actually seems rather unlikely, he would have been rather stupid to release the whole video himself afterwards, for all the world to see that his account is totally wrong! On the other hand, some veriviable parts ARE indeed totally wrongly depicted in his briefing. This can be proven using the video. That doesn't exactly give the missing parts a better chance of being right. He might truly feel that his report is objective or realized the video would be released in the end anyway, and that it might look better if he had done it himself.

My guess is, that Maussan will say that there are things we "don't know" and has access to material which the public has not. He will say that the recordings will not include everything that was said on the plane, well he HAS to state this to remain believable. It might even be true.

Mind you, that Patricio has a quality that no serious UFO researcher could ever hope to truly possess: independence, Patricio stands to gain nothing if this is proven to be either a human error or ET. It is however clear that Maussan has everything to win if it turns out to be ET/remain a mystery and everything to lose if it is proven a human error. We know Maussan will be writing a book about this, that can't possibly have a positive effect on one's objectivity.

[wipeout]

There a lot of points I see have been brought up in the last couple of days, I'll do the distance and field of view one first. :)

I know from here (http://www.seacomcanada.com/news.htm) that AKAL-C is about 1 kilometer long, so I did some rough calculations on that basis.

Allowing for the rotation of AKAL-C from the plane's perspective, in the image from the FLIR shown at the top in the pictures below, I worked out that the camera's field of view is showing an area roughly 1.65 kilometers wide.

Conveniently, the distance to the flares is roughly 165 km, so the area being looked at (1.65 km wide at 165 km distant) is just as big as 1 cm would be at 100 cm.

Basically, if you looked out from the plane to the oil flares with the naked eye, the camera is looking at an area that would appear about as big as your smallest fingernail when you hold your arm out at full stretch.

http://www.boomspeed.com/pelicer/Image10.jpg

Just calculating about AKAL-C on its own, the distance from the furthest left AKAL-C flare to the furthest right AKAL-C flare is about 590 meters from the plane's pespective. They are about 645 meters apart on the platform itself.

That's about 1/3 of the FLIR image apart, so the furthest apart AKAL-C flares if they were visible from the plane with the naked eye would appear to be about as wide apart as 1/3 the size of your smallest fingernail with your arm at full stretch.

The gaps between the 4 flares of AKAL-C (from left to right and from the plane's perspective in the FLIR image) are roughly 115 meters, 100 meters and 380 meters. Don't ask me how big that is on your fingernail. You could draw some dots on it if you wanted, I suppose. :D

Also, this file (http://www.flir.com/imaging/nmc/media/original/8d4ea580-9857-4ac3-9df6-ef770a603101.pdf) says that the FLIR camera has a maximum magnification of 18x plus a 4x computer zoom, so I think the camera has a maximum zoom of 72x.

Overall, it sounds okay to me. I'm sure it's possible to do lots of calculations but I think you can imagine how objects seen in an area which is as big as you smallest fingernail at full stretch would appear quite like those in the FLIR image when the camera used its 18x to 72x zoom to magnify them.

[mikemike]

If you look at the video (I don't know if this was mentioned before, but I hadn't noticed it before) the magnification seems to be displayed at the top, right of the centre. The different values I witnessed were: MED, NRW (narrow?), and NRX2 (narrow times 2?)
The link you supplied:
Originally posted by wipeout
file (http://www.flir.com/imaging/nmc/media/original/8d4ea580-9857-4ac3-9df6-ef770a603101.pdf)
says that the field of view can have the following values: (hor X Ver)
Narrow 0.8 x 0.6
Medium 3.4 x 2.6
(and some wider)
The setting in the picture above we are talking about is NRX2 (visible at the top) so let's assume it's the half of the specified narrow setting, therefore a horizontal field of view of 0.4 degrees.

If something is seen at 175 km then the total width on the screen there would be tan(0.4) x 175 = 1.15 km. Which actually seems eerily close to your 1.65 km calculation.

This does however mean that the pilots have to be even bigger idiots, if the zoom was set this high, they should have realized that the objects were very far away. It's the equivalent of a child looking through binoculars and then saying "that building looks so close I can touch it!"

I guess they were fooled bij the excellent performance of the FLIR, as was I.

[wipeout]

Looking at their webpages, NARCAP seem to be on the sensible side of UFO investigation. I wasn't aware of what they did exactly before, although I may have heard of the name somewhere.

They make this good point that someone who's done a little thinking on the case would make on their news page (http://www.narcap.org/news%20page/newspage.htm):

Numerous news organizations and individuals including various members of the scientific community have stated their opinions in the public forum. In almost every case these opinions were offered without examining the material beyond a cursory review of very short film clips of the FLIR camera footage and without conducting any analysis of the case and supporting evidence.

I hope they can maybe fill in some of the details of the start and end of the incident as the middle bit is obviously well looked at already.

[Astrophotographer]

Just to let everyone know that the latest issue of SI is out with Sheaffer's article. I only glanced at it briefly in the Borders bookstore but it seems to match most of what has been written here and on my webpage.

[wipeout]

Okay, thanks. I'll have a look around and see if I can find SI.

[wipeout]

Astrophotographer, seems this guy is neither a ufologist nor a happy bunny... :D

http://www.virtuallystrange.net/ufo/updates/2004/aug/m28-006.shtml

[Astrophotographer]

Originally posted by wipeout
Astrophotographer, seems this guy is neither a ufologist nor a happy bunny... :D

http://www.virtuallystrange.net/ufo/updates/2004/aug/m28-006.shtml

The term "UFOlogist" can be applied rather liberally. Who is a UFOlogist and exactly what kind of education is required for this lofty profession? UFOlogy is considered the study of UFOs. Since there is no "science" that identifies the qualifications for one who studies UFOs (be it part time or full time) anyone studying UFOs can be considered a UFOlogist.

I think many people on that list are missing the point of my quoting them. I was trying to point out that most of them openly believed this to be some earth shaking event in UFOlogy. Instead of asking questions, they simply pushed the "I believe" button. Lehmberg was one of the more willing participants in this process.

If you look back at their archive, it is interesting to see the initial responses by many to the Franz announcement of the oil well theory. I only selected a few for my webpage but there were some real interesting comments. Instead of trying to see if the theory had merit, they simply dismissed the theory with little or no thought. I think Sheaffer's closing statement in his SI article says it best,

"By their reaction, the "leaders" of UFOlogy have shown themselves incapble of distinguishing logical from illogical thought, and science from pseudoscience. The lesson of the Mexican Infrared UFO video illustrates once again the inability of the UFO movement to perform critical thinking."

[Patricio Elicer]

I just read Sheaffer's article in the Sept/Oct issue of Skeptical Inquirer. Interesting, though he refers only to the "main incident" segment, already discussed here in detail.

His closing statement caught my attention as well. It strikes me as significant how shallow some UFO-advocates (maybe the majority?) are when it comes to rationalize a "UFO sighting". They just jump to conclusions without a minimal critical and careful analysis of the data available.

I happen to post in a local UFO-related forum. Some forum members promptly scoffed at "ok, explain this one now, why are you silent?". There was a reason for me to be silent: I was learning! ;)

BTW, thanks Astrophotographer for crediting me in your report. I'm glad that my work has been useful. I've added timestamps to the transcript, and I'd gladly contribute with that if you think it is of any use.

[wipeout]

Originally posted by Astrophotographer
The term "UFOlogist" can be applied rather liberally. Who is a UFOlogist and exactly what kind of education is required for this lofty profession? UFOlogy is considered the study of UFOs. Since there is no "science" that identifies the qualifications for one who studies UFOs (be it part time or full time) anyone studying UFOs can be considered a UFOlogist.

I agree and I assumed most or all of the people over at Virtuallystrange.com were UFOlogists because that's how it looks. I'm not really into UFOs but even I recognized some of the names there.

As to the dismissive reactions that Captain Franz faced on Virtuallystrange.com, many of the more justifiable objections had been answered here in this forum and the reaction Franz got was the main reason I e-mailed him and gave him what we knew. Pity he never related to the UFOlogists what I said or he could have immediately exposed some of them as being too quick to dismiss the idea.

I think Sheaffer's closing statement in his SI article says it best,

"By their reaction, the "leaders" of UFOlogy have shown themselves incapable of distinguishing logical from illogical thought, and science from pseudoscience. The lesson of the Mexican Infrared UFO video illustrates once again the inability of the UFO movement to perform critical thinking."

I'd imagine that the whole Mexican Airforce UFO case is a bit of a classic in terms of misindentification, media distortion, and believers and skeptics getting a bit too wildly speculative.

[wipeout]

Originally posted by Patricio Elicer
I just read Sheaffer's article in the Sept/Oct issue of Skeptical Inquirer. Interesting, though he refers only to the "main incident" segment, already discussed here in detail.

Does it say how he or anyone else realizes the oil-industry is in that area or that it seems that an aircraft made the aircrew look in that direction?

I happen to post in a local UFO-related forum. Some forum members promptly scoffed at "ok, explain this one now, why are you silent?". There was a reason for me to be silent: I was learning! ;)

Hope you then taught them a lesson. ;)

[Patricio Elicer]

Originally posted by wipeout
Does it say how he or anyone else realizes the oil-industry is in that area or that it seems that an aircraft made the aircrew look in that direction?He first mentions the subject with these words: "By May 20 some skeptical analysts had identified the probable source of the objects: burning oil well flares from offshore oil platforms in the Bay of Campeche".

Then he goes on with this: "One anonymous 'concerned outdoorsman' who works on offshore oil platforms wrote on the enviromentalist Web site www.myoutdoorjournal.com:

Each day while I work, I see flares burning at such a rate that it is almost unbelievable to the human eye.
.....
....
Each platform has a flare some have two, in which are roaring twenty-four hours a day, three hundred and sixty-five days a year... at night while looking across the bay of Campeche, it looks like a spotted forest fire out of control in the distant far yonder.... (excerpt)"

He continues with "On May 26, Capt. Alejandro Franz of the private Mexican UFO research organization Alcione, who is far more skeptical than Maussan came to the same conclusion"

The rest is already well known to us :)

It's interesting that Scheaffer in his article quotes an expert on infrared and electro-optical technology who he interviewed for details on the infrared recording system.

[Astrophotographer]

Originally posted by Patricio Elicer
I happen to post in a local UFO-related forum. Some forum members promptly scoffed at "ok, explain this one now, why are you silent?". There was a reason for me to be silent: I was learning! ;)

UFO forums tend to go on endlessly in discussions about each case. I used to frequent a few but gave up. It was like beating my head against a wall. Just when it appears you have made your point about a specific UFO case, the UFO proponents simply bring up another case. The end result is another 3-4 weeks endlessly arguing over the same problems. I recall reading Roy Craig's work on the Condon study. He stated that Condon wanted to do just that. He wanted to take the ten best UFO cases presented by UFOlogists and perform a thorough investigation that would reveal the true story. Craig and others discouraged this because they knew the instant a case was explained, UFO groups would bring up another one in its place. Like the hydra of mythology, two new heads would pop up the instant you lopped off the original one.

Originally posted by Patricio Elicer
BTW, thanks Astrophotographer for crediting me in your report. I'm glad that my work has been useful. I've added timestamps to the transcript, and I'd gladly contribute with that if you think it is of any use.

Any information that sheds more light on the matter helps out. I listened to the video and used my basic understanding of the spanish language to get the time stamps on the radar data. However, I am not so certain that I got the times with the data 100% correct.

[wipeout]

Originally posted by Patricio Elicer
He first mentions the subject with these words: "By May 20 some skeptical analysts had identified the probable source of the objects: burning oil well flares from offshore oil platforms in the Bay of Campeche".


Thanks, Patricio. :) May 20th? Seems we in this forum beat these "skeptical analysts" to the answer by about a week then. :D

[Patricio Elicer]

Originally posted by wipeout
Seems we in this forum beat these "skeptical analysts" to the answer by about a week then. :D Or maybe these "skeptic analysts" are we :rolleyes: ;)

[wipeout]

Skeptical analysts? If that's us, then it makes it sound like we're all sitting around a big desk and we're looking at something sitting on the desk with suspicion. ;)

If we were, I'd want to buy a Sherlock Holmes hat (http://www.mikethehatter.com/img/christydeerstalk.jpg) and a pipe. :D

[Astrophotographer]

It appears that Captain Franz (http://www.virtuallystrange.net/ufo/updates/2004/sep/m08-019.shtml) has read my webpage and has taken notice of this forum.

He has an interesting video (http://www.alcione.org/FRAUDES/FAM/CANTARELL_SEP_2004/) that is worth the download. He also seems to have acknowledged wipeout as one of the first to recognize this possible solution. I hope to update my webpage soon but have been somewhat busy and I also am curious as to the response on the UFO Updates list. Based on what I have read, I think some have become more receptive to the idea of this explanation. However, some of the biggest opponents of the oil well fire theory have remained silent.

[Patricio Elicer]

That's very interesting and exciting news, Astrophotographer. A well deserved recognition of your efforts and wipeout's

[Batman Jr.]

Originally posted by Astrophotographer
It appears that Captain Franz (http://www.virtuallystrange.net/ufo/updates/2004/sep/m08-019.shtml) has read my webpage and has taken notice of this forum.

He has an interesting video (http://www.alcione.org/FRAUDES/FAM/CANTARELL_SEP_2004/) that is worth the download. He also seems to have acknowledged wipeout as one of the first to recognize this possible solution. I hope to update my webpage soon but have been somewhat busy and I also am curious as to the response on the UFO Updates list. Based on what I have read, I think some have become more receptive to the idea of this explanation. However, some of the biggest opponents of the oil well fire theory have remained silent.
Well, I'm convinced! The light formations created by the oil flares bear an uncanny resemblance to those of the Mexican Air Force movies. Hats off to Captain Franz and wipeout!

[feyd rautha]

this is a link to another forum:Photos of whatever it is over Louisville Ky (http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread78743/pg1)

doesnt this formation look exactly like our mexican ufos?!?

[Capt.Franz]

Originally posted by Astrophotographer
It appears that Captain Franz (http://www.virtuallystrange.net/ufo/updates/2004/sep/m08-019.shtml) has read my webpage and has taken notice of this forum.

He has an interesting video (http://www.alcione.org/FRAUDES/FAM/CANTARELL_SEP_2004/) that is worth the download. He also seems to have acknowledged wipeout as one of the first to recognize this possible solution. I hope to update my webpage soon but have been somewhat busy and I also am curious as to the response on the UFO Updates list. Based on what I have read, I think some have become more receptive to the idea of this explanation. However, some of the biggest opponents of the oil well fire theory have remained silent.

Hello Astrophotographer(Tim), Wipeout and all members.

I am not only satisfied but gratefull to you and all who have
followed my research on this case that is almost cocluded.

I would like to add this from my web page for the record:

Source:
http://www.alcione.org/FRAUDES/FAM/FLIR_CONCLUSION.html

I think BEFORE myself and Richard Gemmell aka "wipeout"
the credit belongs to Julio Herrera, a mexican nuclear science
researcher at Mexico's National Autonomous University who
said on MAY 13th, 2004:

"He said more data than is available on the videotape would
be necessary to determine if that hypothesis is correct, including
precise information on atmospheric conditions at the time the
lights appeared."

"The Campeche coast on the Gulf of Mexico, where the objects
were filmed, is Mexico's main oil- and gas-producing region.
Oil platforms release or burn off some of the gas they produce."

Sources:

CNEWS:http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/WeirdNews/2004/05/11/455568-ap.html
SPTIMES:http://www.sptimes.com/2004/05/14/Worldandnation/UFOs_could_be_gas_lig.shtml

In this important step of extraterrestrial contact, it doesn't mater
who is first but who is right.

Regards,

Capt. Alejandro Franz
director@alcione.org

[wipeout]

Ah, hello, Captain Franz. :D

I'd like to point something out to both you and Astrophotographer.

It wasn't me but it was actually a different forum member here at the JREF forums who was the first person to suggest oil flares.

Originally posted by mummymonkey
As it stands I still think the objects may be on the ground some distance to the north. Perhaps at sea. Are there oil/gas rigs in that area?

3rd post down from the top on this page:

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=40244&perpage=40&pagenumber=3

I suggested the hot spots were industrial chimneys in Ciudad del Carmen but it was Mummymonkey who suggested it was oil/gas flares at sea and I confirmed that there were oil facilities on land and at sea in the Campeche area by doing internet searches.

The nuclear scientist, Julio Herrera, he doesn't suggest oil flares are what are seen in the footage, he suggests some kind of strange electrical flashes way up in the sky possibly related to oil facilities.

It was Mummymonkey who was the first to suggest the correct answer for the main part of the incident.

Please credit him, not me. :)

[Patricio Elicer]

Capt. Franz,

Welcome to the forums, I'm glad to see you aboard.

Just wanted to congratulate you for your fine job regarding this case.

As wipeout mentioned earlier, there are many more here who also deserve to be credited for their great contributions on solving this mystery. Certainly Mummymonkey shares the top position with him.

I'm looking forward to reading more from you on this board.

[Capt.Franz]

Originally posted by wipeout
Ah, hello, Captain Franz. :D

I'd like to point something out to both you and Astrophotographer.

It wasn't me but it was actually a different forum member here at the JREF forums who was the first person to suggest oil flares.



3rd post down from the top on this page:

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=40244&perpage=40&pagenumber=3

I suggested the hot spots were industrial chimneys in Ciudad del Carmen but it was Mummymonkey who suggested it was oil/gas flares at sea and I confirmed that there were oil facilities on land and at sea in the Campeche area by doing internet searches.

The nuclear scientist, Julio Herrera, he doesn't suggest oil flares are what are seen in the footage, he suggests some kind of strange electrical flashes way up in the sky possibly related to oil facilities.

It was Mummymonkey who was the first to suggest the correct answer for the main part of the incident.

Please credit him, not me. :)

Mummymonkey wasn't right, he said "the objects may be on
the ground some distance to the north" and he wasn't right,
the objects were northwest. Mummymonkey posted on may
14 and Herrera related post was on may 13th.

I am not a credit deliverer, nor a judge, I am a UFO researcher
who is looking forward for answers, not credits. This is not a
racing street or contest, we have to look forward to know if
human kind is ready or not to approach an appropriate level
to have an ET contact. What do you think ET's need from us?
Credits or knowledge?

One more question, how did you know about Campeche's
oil rigs? Can you give a background data supporting your
oil well theory? Can you afford data before may 13th 2004?

Regards,

Capt. Alejandro Franz
director@alcione.org

[Astrophotographer]

Originally posted by wipeout
It was Mummymonkey who was the first to suggest the correct answer for the main part of the incident.

Please credit him, not me. :)

I was just giving you credit because you appeared to make the first connection with heat sources in the area. Certainly, MummyMonkey made the next leap in the process to resolve the issue.
In my searching on the web about this case, I noticed others also made the oil well fire connection. Which persons made it first is hard to pinpoint. However, it seems there are a good number that have confirmed the theory.
I came into this discussion much later than those that started it. However, I was impressed by how the discussion progressed looking back at the postings. While I would not consider it a perfect process, there was a great deal of interaction and open discussion that kept revealing a new piece of information each day. Sadly, as one can see by my webpage (http://members.aol.com/tprinty2/Mexico04a.html) this was not the case on the one forum devoted for UFO research. There seemed to be more pontification than open discussion on possible sources after the release of the video. It wasn't until Captain Franz posted his comments did anyone openly admit that this was a possibility. Immediately after his presentation, this theory was subjected to the usual knee-jerk response to possible explanations that often occurs on that list. As Robert Sheaffer noted, not one of the UFO "leaders" on the list bothered to state that the oil well flame idea had merit.
I believe the Captain Franz video is another step in confirming the solution to this case. Until those supporting this as a case of true "UFOS" provide a solid argument against the oil well theory, I think the case is pretty much closed.

[Capt.Franz]

Originally posted by Patricio Elicer
Capt. Franz,

Welcome to the forums, I'm glad to see you aboard.

Just wanted to congratulate you for your fine job regarding this case.

As wipeout mentioned earlier, there are many more here who also deserve to be credited for their great contributions on solving this mystery. Certainly Mummymonkey shares the top position with him.

I'm looking forward to reading more from you on this board.

Hello Patricio, thank you for your welcome message.

I have been in the UFO investigation since 1963 and here and
there it is a sense that who speaks first is the one who lead
the theme and has a positive credit. That's wrong, I think the
main purpose is to give true and honest information that could
feed human knowledge about ET existence. It doesn't matter
who or why, it does matter what you learn from that.

I don't care if you or anyone give me a credit or not.
I care if my results are good enough to feed your needs.

Regards,

Capt. Alejandro Franz
director@alcione.org

[wipeout]

Capt. Franz,

I learned about Campeche's oil industry when I was doing internet searches on Ciudad del Carmen and Campeche to see what was in the area, such as airports and industry that might explain the heat sources in the footage.

I also found the news story about Herrera's theory which included the information that there were oil platforms there (and I posted the link to the article here), but Herrera believed the heat sources in the footage were flying electrical flashes, which I found unlikely and I suggested that the footage fitted our theory here at the JREF of it being heat sources from industry.

It doesn't matter to me if anyone credits me or not for anything. I only did some UFO investigating for fun. And when I asked Mummymonkey a month or so back, getting credit didn't seem to matter to him either.

So people can credit (or not) whoever they like. :)

[wipeout]

Originally posted by Astrophotographer
I was just giving you credit because you appeared to make the first connection with heat sources in the area. Certainly, MummyMonkey made the next leap in the process to resolve the issue.

I think, if any, just a credit to the JREF forum would do. It bothers me that I might be credited for something I didn't say.

As Robert Sheaffer noted, not one of the UFO "leaders" on the list bothered to state that the oil well flame idea had merit.

So much for any of them boasting of being "unlike skeptics" and "keeping an open mind"... ;)

[Capt.Franz]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by wipeout
[B]Capt. Franz,

I also found the news story about Herrera's theory which included the information that there were oil platforms there (and I posted the link to the article here), but Herrera believed the heat sources in the footage were flying electrical flashes, which I found unlikely and I suggested that the footage fitted our theory here at the JREF of it being heat sources from industry.

--------------------


Herrera said on may 13th:

"The Campeche coast on the Gulf of Mexico, where the objects
were filmed, is Mexico's main oil- and gas-producing region.
Oil platforms release or burn off some of the gas they produce."


Regards,

Capt. Franz

[wipeout]

Captain Franz,

I'd be perfectly happy to credit Herrera if he had suggested the correct solution first to the Mexican airforce UFOs, but he didn't do that.

If I was to write an article myself, and if I included who said what first, then in that article I'd say Mummymonkey and myself were both on the right track but that he was the first to suggest the correct answer to the main part of the incident, which I then confirmed was a very real possibility. I'd then credit you for coming up with the same solution independently and your investigation for identifying the actual platforms involved and gathering much interesting additional information.

I'd only mention Herrera in passing as someone who was speculating about rare electrical phenomena high up in the atmosphere somehow related to the oil-industry.

Personally, however, I'm not concerned who gets what credit.

I've never contacted anyone who had written articles crediting others to point out we at the JREF had come to the correct solution first, even though it seems we were.

I was just happy to have helped solve a UFO mystery before it became something for UFO believers to really believe in.

I guess we will just have to agree to disagree on Herrera's place in this, but I will end by saying that I enjoyed reading about your own investigation and the information you and others put together was a great effort. :)

[Capt.Franz]

Originally posted by wipeout
Captain Franz,

I'd be perfectly happy to credit Herrera if he had suggested the correct solution first to the Mexican airforce UFOs, but he didn't do that.

snip

I was just happy to have helped solve a UFO mystery before it became something for UFO believers to really believe in.

I guess we will just have to agree to disagree on Herrera's place in this, but I will end by saying that I enjoyed reading about your own investigation and the information you and others put together was a great effort. :)

Now we are all happy.

If you like to visit the page with the un-cut translation
of the video here: http://www.alcione.org/CAMPECHE/

If really somebody wants to help I need to include the video
timing, I am flying very often and don't have enough time,
please contact me. Credit will be given.

Regards to all,

Capt. Franz

[wipeout]

Captain Franz,

I just saw the videos you took from that aircraft for the first time a few minutes ago. Superb! :D

I didn't know you'd done that. Those flares are amazing to be that easily visible to the human eye at that range!

[Kitty Chan]

Well, like I said earlier you guys are doing a marveleous job.

Im wondering now that some of this is surfacing just how much will be presented.

Im sure it wont get the headlines the original story did ;)

[Thomas]

I have been trying to verify the oil flare hypothesis for several months now, and I have finally obtained the answers for many of the issues we were merely just speculating about, especially concerning the camera elevation problems, and the distance problems.
I have obtained these answers from no less than Tim Wescott who was head of FLIR Systems’ airborne software division, when the SAFIRE II was designed. Furthermore, he worked on the control algorithms concerning the gyroscopes, the lenses and the optical dither stages as well as the FOV/focus mechanism.
If anyone knows all there is to know about the SAFIRE II, this is the guy.

One thing which I have promised to say is that any answer hereby given, is the opinion of Tim Wescott, and not necessarily that of FLIR Systems Inc. Because although he worked for FLIR Systems for nearly 10 years; he now runs his own company instead.

Let’s get to the core of the issue.

As you who have followed this case can imagine, I was especially concerned with the distance issue, and the elevation problems. My correspondence with Wescott has been long and rather complicated (involving highly technical issues which took my breath away several times), but I will hereby try to give a short round up on those answers I obtained which is most interesting concerning the justification of the oil flare hypothesis.

Wescott estimates, that the oil flares in question (AKAL-J, AKAL-C and NOHOCH-A) is detectable by the SAFIRE II on the given distance, due to the size of the flares - if the weather conditions is good. He adds; that the conditions in the video appeared to be good.

Another thing which is equally interesting is that of the elevation problems. When I contacted Wescott in the first place, it was because I realized by common sense, that the camera would have to be gyrostabilized. Otherwise the images would have been vibrating.
Now, gyroscopes are stabilized with respect to the inertial frame of reference. In this case, we can assume that it is fixed to the Earth. However - and this is the interesting part – the SAFIRE II has two modes: One is a hybrid mode where the camera is stabilized against image vibration by the gyros, but more or less fixed to the aircraft attitude for lower-speed motion. That this is the mode which is active while these images is shot, is documented in the top-center of the images where you can see it says�INRPT� – this is the hybrid mode. The second mode is denoted as �HDHLD�, and this denotes inertially stabilized position servo mode.
Let’s speak English for a while shall we? In the video, the images in question are shot with respect to the aircrafts attitude since it is in hybrid mode, but the camera is still stabilized against image vibration by the gyros. So the assumptions concerning that the camera must have been relative to the mounting point on the fuselage, is hereby documented to be correct.

Furthermore Wescott adds that it is common practice for pilots to crank a few degrees of flap so they can cruise a little slower while keeping the airplane level.

As you may have realized, I know a lot about this camera now, but I think I have covered the issues which is most essential to this case, so I’ll stop here, but you’re all welcome to ask me any questions if you want.

One thing I was concerned about was to provide evidence for the angle inclinations that you’ll find doing the math, so I thought it was about time to provide some evidence which would close these gaps. In respect of this, I worked out a theorem to have a guide towards a solution (remember that I study this case due to my interest in philosophy of science, and not because I care about ETs). My result is this:
<center>
http://www.pixcells.dk/mexico/jref/fig1_thumb.jpg (http://www.pixcells.dk/mexico/jref/fig1.jpg)
(click to enlarge)
</center>
Some of the things which is worth to notice here, is that I have made the formulas for the distance calculations in pixels, using sine and cosine for each clock direction (latitude longer than longitude due to the curvature of our dear planet). I haven’t seen anyone else taking notice of this issue, so I thought it was about time.
Also notice that you’ll find a blue marking which covers most of the map: This is the distance to the horizon from the given altitude, and no, it’s not entirely circular, because we’re pretty close to equator at this point. The green and blue points on the travel line are points used for the theorem. They both follow a set of rules I have worked out for precise azimuth calculations, and I want go in-depth with this at this point, because it would be quite time consuming.
The theorem itself is explained in the top of the image, but the thing is, that I haven’t been able to actually prove it. I strongly suspect, that this is due to the fact, that the GPS only updates every 5 seconds, and the result is that we can’t really measure that exact bearing at any point. Hence, we’re trapped.

I have worked on several models to solve this issue, and one is more inaccurate than the other, I will, however, show one way I worked out which should – in sloppy theory - be quite accurate, but it doesn’t work either. It looks like this:
<center>
http://www.pixcells.dk/mexico/jref/fig3_thumb.jpg (http://www.pixcells.dk/mexico/jref/fig3.jpg)
(click to enlarge)
</center>
If anyone wants to take this any further, I have made a template I will be happy to provide.

Now to something quite interesting:

When I read Smith’s report on E-Skeptic, I was thrilled. I realized that he had found a pattern of oilrigs which matched the famous formation(s) – excellent work indeed. One thing bugged me though, if this pattern was a complete match, why would he have to cut them out individually to make them fit? The same analyses on Franz’s homepage seemed to be stretched ad hoc as well, could this solution be rigged after all?

I remade the analysis to find out, and here is the result:
<center>
http://www.pixcells.dk/mexico/jref/fig2_thumb.jpg (http://www.pixcells.dk/mexico/jref/fig2.jpg)
(click to enlarge)
</center>
That I used an image where the two famous gather/split radiation sources are overlapping is not all random. I did this because that would tell would tell us the exact direction they would have to obtaining this scenario from (see the parallax line).

Now, two things are of essence here:

1) Either the angles didn’t fit, or the image provided by Smith was not shot with 100% respect to North. Because if you look at the diagram, you’ll realize that I had to rotate the map 2.8 degrees to make it fit with that of the theorem map.

2) The pattern is not a complete match (as you can see if you look at the image in the lower-left corner).

I figure that a sound solution to the first problem is that the satellite which took this image may not have been 100% fixed on North. Or, the theorem map doesn’t correspond to this map in one way or the other.
Without having a keen knowledge of atmospheric effects, I’ll guess that the mismatch of the pattern is what you’ll expect from atmospheric disturbances at the huge distance in question (183.1 km to AKAL-C IIRC).


Ok, another thing, that both Maccabee and I noticed somewhat simultaneously and 100% independently of each other; is the fact that the camera appears to be headed towards the Cantarell oilfield in the beginning of the video - in MED FOV. This holds an essential problem, because later in the video �the twins� is observed in MED FOV, but this time the airplane is even further away from the oilfield. How could this be?

I did the calculations on the scenario to verify or falsify that they were actually looking at the oilrigs in question (Without going into detail, I believe the oilrig NEPTUNO to be �the twins�). This is my result:
<center>
http://www.pixcells.dk/mexico/jref/fig4.jpg
</center>
The solution is simple; they’re not looking towards the oilfield at this point, but it certainly appeared so at first glance.


Ok, phew.. The last issue: This is one of the hardest to solve (for me at least), if you watch the video frame-by-frame, you’ll notice that the famous formation actually change dramatically. To my knowledge, nobody else had raised this issue before I did, and I don’t really know if I should congratulate myself, or bang my head on the table (no, suggestions are not welcome).
I have made some diagrams which were part of my first report, but nobody seemed to take notice of these although they present quite a problem for the oil flare hypothesis. They go like this:
<center>
http://www.pixcells.dk/mexico/jref/image057.jpg
</center>
Now, this formation disappears behind a cloud, and when it appears again, it looks like this:
<center>
http://www.pixcells.dk/mexico/jref/image059.jpg
</center>
Now it has become the formation which was presented by the medias worldwide, the formation which, somewhat, fits the map provided by Smith. But how could this be? Oil flares wouldn’t go about changing formation so quickly; this couldn’t even be due to parallax issues. So I speculated and speculated until I realized one thing which I think is of essence.
The FOV has changed, so could the radiation sources in the center of the Clan (C3 to C12), actually be the Stray? Well, maybe it is, or maybe it’s an entirely different group of oilrigs we see here, I don’t know, but I should mention that the azimuth change enough to justify that it is the same formation, or at least parts of, that we’re looking at in both diagrams. The pattern is a serious mismatch, but maybe this can be explained by focus issues. I don’t know, but if anyone forced me to give my opinion, I would say that it’s most likely due to FOV and focus issues.

Now I think it’s time to wrap this up, but I should mention that the ufologists I know do believe the Smith-pattern to justify the formation(s) – more or less. However, the hot issue now, is the erratic RADAR signals. I will personally not engage in any speculations concerning these readouts, because:

1) I don’t anything about RADARs.

2) The RADAR output wasn’t recorded, so all we have is statements. No hard evidence.

My current position towards the oil flare hypothesis is that it is no longer a hypothesis, but a genuine theory. However, it’s not conclusive, but then again, without getting into the philosophy of Thomas Kuhn; no theory actually is.

Now that I have rounded up most of the critical issues concerning this theory, I would like to make a few comments to the conversations that have been ongoing in this thread during my absence.

�And now... to something completely different�: One is entitled to ask why the heck the aircrew didn’t realize they were pointing the camera down towards the Cantarell oilfield? I think this is a combination of several unlucky coincidences which they had never encountered in combination before:

1) The radar operator most likely got some erratic readout, and due to this the FLIR operator was forced to use the SAFIRE in ways - and especially FOV modes - he was not used to.

2) When a radiation source is seen on those camera elevations, it is usually airborne. Oil flares of that size emits huge amounts of IR radiation, and had it not been for the excellent weather conditions, they properly wouldn’t have seen them at all. It is simply not usual to detect earthly radiation sources on that distance.

3) The camera is not mounted for precision surveys, they use the classic �o’clock� terminology which is good enough for the aircrew members to communicate, concerning vehicles and airplanes which can be suspected for drug trafficking.


There’s still one thing that makes no sense to me: Why on Earth would the head of SEDENA deliver this material to Maussan without having such basics checked by qualified researchers first? I don’t get it.


To all,

During this case I must say that I was strongly disappointed with the way both skeptics and believers were handling the issues. Both sides were concluding this-and-that without gathering any information or doing any actual research (here I talk especially about the solutions proposed by esteemed skeptics and skeptic magazines). Skeptics very often mock believers for not providing evidence for their claims, and when I saw that skeptics were actually doing the exact same thing during this case; my emotions began to rule my logic on several occasions. To me, the scenario looked somewhat like this:�Hey, if you’re a believer and you make a claim, then you have to provide evidence for this, but because I’m a skeptic, I don’t have to provide any evidence!� I went furious due to this, because it placed the entire culture of skepticism in an awkward situation where our weapons against pseudoscience were beginning to lose their value.

My temper went out of order on this account, and I somewhat flamed some of you a number of times. I will not make individual excuses for this, I know I went out of order, but you all know who you are. I normally wouldn’t be that tempered.

I worked on a few ideas myself in the beginning which had been proposed by others, and soon found them to be somewhat plausible (military flares and ball lightning). There’s no doubt that the falsification of these ideas made me extremely careful afterwards, and were basically the main reason that I didn’t want to jump directly into any other idea again. I slowly became more and more serious about this case when I began to receive material from various sources, and as someone on these boards proposed, this thread could indeed serve as a study in critical thinking. However, evidence is crucial; because I for one don’t want to place skepticism in a situation like certain esteemed skeptics did with all their published baloney ideas; like that of equipment failure or mirror effects. They obviously concluded all this without having the slightest knowledge about the SAFIRE II, or even having the watched the videos available thoroughly. Not good.


Elicer,

We have already been over this in private correspondence, but I think I would like to make a more public statement about it. You have written Randi, and told him that Gemmell, others and I are somewhat responsible for the oil flare theory. One thing I know for sure is that I don’t deserve any credits in this regard – although very few of my falsifications proved to be correct.
But if we should round up this case, I think it goes like this:

1) Mummymonkey speculated about oilrigs in the area.
2) Gemmell found that oil was produced in the area.
3) Franz found the correct oilrigs in the area.
4) Smith found the pattern to match the famous formation (and I consider this the most important discovery of them all).

It’s in order to thank you for bringing Randi’s attention to the thread, and as you pointed out, the JREF boards proved to be worth the bandwidth during this case. The mission is clear, and the goal is obtainable. Let’s do more of this stuff in the future.


Franz,

I like the fact that you actually collected information about the Cantarell oilfield, this proved to be a good hint for Smith who knows a great deal about satellites ( I think I have spammed 15 satellites with no result). I will not give you any credits for anything since you don’t seem to like it, but I do have a question though: What’s up with all that banter about ETs?
The Drake equation, Fermi’s paradox and the continuing failure of the SETI project should be something worth adding to that equation shouldn’t it?
I do believe there’s something out there, because since the universe is infinite it’s somewhat impossible that there isn’t. However, that extra terrestrial life forms should be (secretly) present here on Earth is not most likely with the current knowledge of several issues. That’s at least my personal opinion.
Anyway, I saw you asked on the Virtuallystrange mailing list if anyone had the original uncut DVD. I can answer that for you: If there actually is an original uncut video, SEDENA has it, but the video you have obtained from my site and cut into several pieces is encoded from the exact same DVD Maussan and Maccabee has. Maussan sent me that DVD, and I encoded it for all to see with his permission. In this concern I would like point out that he knew I was a skeptic when he sent me that DVD.

Much of the information on your site is excellent. Outstanding efforts indeed, but please don’t use any of my diagrams or anything else. I do not wish to get entangled in those struggles which are ongoing in the UFO researcher societies – I hope you can understand my wish in this concern. I studied this case because it was relevant to my interest in philosophy of science. Thanks for your efforts.


Printy,

I know you do find that some of my statements have been personal attacks. The last statement you called a personal attack was more a piece of humor, because a distance of 400 km is quite absurd. It was not meant as a personal attack.
Interesting summary on your homepage by the way, if you have any questions concerning the camera which has not been answered in this post, just ask.

One thing I feel I should add though, is that I see you suggest that the SAFIRE is able to detect radiation in the visible light spectrum as well as the infrared simultaneously. This is not all correct: The reason that the Moon, lakes and several clouds are bright in the video is because the infrared radiation from the Sun - with the smaller wavelengths (near-infrared) - is able to penetrate the atmosphere. Near-infrared is very close to visible light; hence it will penetrate and reflect on several objects below and beyond the atmosphere – including the Moon. Of course, this all depends on the given camera, and I understand that IR detectors for astronomical issues, often detect in a spectrum with longer wavelengths, and therefore are used in high altitudes.


Gemmell,

You’re an interesting person, and I hope you’ll keep sticking that sensitive nose of yours into paranormal issues. I once read that skeptics were the rottweilers of science, making sure that no pseudoscientific claims entered the scene unchallenged. If this is the case, you’re a happy bloodhound sniffing around for ideas and bugging the hell out of the more aggressive and rigor watchdogs. All-in-all, many of your assumptions proved to be correct - despite the extreme absence of facts and contradictory information at the given time - and if you can do that again, you’re surely an asset to skepticism. Well done indeed.


As a final statement to all, I have made a lot of statements above which could be easy to mistake for me thinking that I’m some sort of judge, I don’t think that I am at all. For one thing, this is my first so called UFO case ever, and most likely my last. However, I thought it was about time to give my 2 cents about this entire scenario.

Wescott wrote to me that the aircrew might had found some: Unceasingly Flaming Objects. Enough said :)

[wipeout]

Hi, Thomas! :D I'd wondered where you'd gone. I've read your post and will come back and add some comments some time later.

Gotta go.

[Capt.Franz]

Originally posted by wipeout
Captain Franz,

I'd be perfectly happy to credit Herrera if he had suggested the correct solution first to the Mexican airforce UFOs, but he didn't do that.

<snip>

I guess we will just have to agree to disagree on Herrera's place in this, but I will end by saying that I enjoyed reading about your own investigation and the information you and others put together was a great effort. :)

-------------------------------

Hello Wipeout,

Here is a post from Dr. Julio Herrera who wrote clarifying his posture
and his comments. I think it is fair to let all of you know this.
I did the appropriate change in the oil well theory page at:

http://www.alcione.org/FRAUDES/FAM/FLIR_CONCLUSION.html

Ican't find Mummymonkey

Regards,

Capt. Franz
_________________________________

From: Dr. Julio Herrera -herrera@nuclecu.unam.mx-
Date: September 28, 2004 9:05 am
To: Cap. Alejandro Franz -director@alcione.org-

Dear Cap. Franz,

I saw your page on the "oil flare hypothesis". I'm thankful that
you gave me the credit on the basis of something that was
published at some web page, where indeed it looks like it's my
idea. However, I must clarify that's a misunderstanding
induced by the reporter who wrote the note. I can't tell where
the idea originated.

In any case, I recognize this hypothesis may explain many things.
What matters by the end is to find out the true about this affair.

Best regards,
Julio Herrera

P.S.: I'm writing this in English so you may quote me if you wish.
--
Dr. Julio Herrera
Instituto de Ciencias Nucleares, UNAM
A.P. 70-543, Ciudad Universitaria
Del. Coyoacán, 04511 México, D.F. MEXICO
tel.: +52-55-56224672; FAX: +52-55-56162233
e-mail: herrera@nuclecu.unam.mx

[Astrophotographer]

Originally posted by Thomas
I know you do find that some of my statements have been personal attacks. The last statement you called a personal attack was more a piece of humor, because a distance of 400 km is quite absurd. It was not meant as a personal attack.
Interesting summary on your homepage by the way, if you have any questions concerning the camera which has not been answered in this post, just ask.

One thing I feel I should add though, is that I see you suggest that the SAFIRE is able to detect radiation in the visible light spectrum as well as the infrared simultaneously. This is not all correct: The reason that the Moon, lakes and several clouds are bright in the video is because the infrared radiation from the Sun - with the smaller wavelengths (near-infrared) - is able to penetrate the atmosphere. Near-infrared is very close to visible light; hence it will penetrate and reflect on several objects below and beyond the atmosphere – including the Moon. Of course, this all depends on the given camera, and I understand that IR detectors for astronomical issues, often detect in a spectrum with longer wavelengths, and therefore are used in high altitudes.



Re: Personal attacks
This is water under the bridge in my opinion.

Re: SAFIRE and IR
Interesting point that the IR was not recording the visible wavelengths. I will have to ammend my page, which I am currently doing anyway.

Is your webpage going to go back on line soon?

[Patricio Elicer]

Thomas, good stuff. Thanks for the effort. I already read the report a couple of times and put some thought on it. I will post some comments and... questions!,... later :)

[Astrophotographer]

In an interesting side note, it appears that all the work done in this forum is nothing more than a hoax. Santiago Yturria has stated that the oil well fire explanation (http://www.virtuallystrange.net/ufo/updates/2004/sep/m29-020.shtml) is nothing more than a hoax generated by a single person. I assume this exposed "hoaxer" is Captain Franz but he does not say. Congratulations everyone for creating a hoax explanation.

[wipeout]

Originally posted by Thomas
In the video, the images in question are shot with respect to the aircrafts attitude since it is in hybrid mode, but the camera is still stabilized against image vibration by the gyros. So the assumptions concerning that the camera must have been relative to the mounting point on the fuselage, is hereby documented to be correct.

Interesting to learn that.

Ok, phew.. The last issue: This is one of the hardest to solve (for me at least), if you watch the video frame-by-frame, you’ll notice that the famous formation actually change dramatically. To my knowledge, nobody else had raised this issue before I did, and I don’t really know if I should congratulate myself, or bang my head on the table (no, suggestions are not welcome).
I have made some diagrams which were part of my first report, but nobody seemed to take notice of these although they present quite a problem for the oil flare hypothesis. They go like this:

<center>
http://www.pixcells.dk/mexico/jref/image057.jpg
</center>

Now, this formation disappears behind a cloud, and when it appears again, it looks like this:

<center>
http://www.pixcells.dk/mexico/jref/image059.jpg
</center>

Now it has become the formation which was presented by the medias worldwide, the formation which, somewhat, fits the map provided by Smith. But how could this be? Oil flares wouldn’t go about changing formation so quickly; this couldn’t even be due to parallax issues. So I speculated and speculated until I realized one thing which I think is of essence.

The FOV has changed, so could the radiation sources in the center of the Clan (C3 to C12), actually be the Stray? Well, maybe it is, or maybe it’s an entirely different group of oilrigs we see here, I don’t know, but I should mention that the azimuth change enough to justify that it is the same formation, or at least parts of, that we’re looking at in both diagrams. The pattern is a serious mismatch, but maybe this can be explained by focus issues. I don’t know, but if anyone forced me to give my opinion, I would say that it’s most likely due to FOV and focus issues.

I can't say that I ever paid much attention to this first group as I barely noticed them so, for me, you've brought up a new problem. :)

Thinking about this -- and also the disappearance of the most distinct flares people called "the twins" has always bothered me a little as they would surely would be the most easily spotted again after the cloud-- I realized a possible solution.

I came back to the important fact that the horizon is invisible at that range in infrared but also that clouds that are perhaps some kilometers closer to the camera will also be invisible. Just because we can't see these distant clouds, doesn't mean that they're not there and the blankness of the background -- and thus the apparent clearness of the very distant sky -- may be seriously misleading us.

These clouds which are invisible to the camera at that distance could block the line of sight to parts of the oil-field.

So I suggest that "the twins", your "c" formation and "s" formation appear and disappear because distant clouds which are invisible to the camera are revealing and hiding them.

The "c" and "s" formations might indeed be partly seperate or completely seperate oil-platforms.

I had actually briefly wondered myself how the flares like "the twins" seem to appear and disappear so quickly. Well, that's an explanation. :)

And like you say, there might be a whole other set of oil-platforms to fit to this first formation.

Er... where did those guys get the satellite pictures from again? :D

I think the final job of "fingerprinting" all the platforms responsible might be only half finished. :)

I slowly became more and more serious about this case when I began to receive material from various sources, and as someone on these boards proposed, this thread could indeed serve as a study in critical thinking.

That was me again. Actually, I was thinking about going back through the thread and making a list of what I got right and what I got wrong, simply for my own personal amusement.

However, evidence is crucial; because I for one don’t want to place skepticism in a situation like certain esteemed skeptics did with all their published baloney ideas; like that of equipment failure or mirror effects. They obviously concluded all this without having the slightest knowledge about the SAFIRE II, or even having the watched the videos available thoroughly. Not good.

Yeah, I think the same on this. Now when famous skeptics says something, I'll be watching them just as carefully as I would others.

Trust no-one. ;)

It’s in order to thank you for bringing Randi’s attention to the thread, and as you pointed out, the JREF boards proved to be worth the bandwidth during this case. The mission is clear, and the goal is obtainable. Let’s do more of this stuff in the future.

If there's one thing I'm happy about what we did here, it's getting the forum some recognition. :)

The reason that the Moon, lakes and several clouds are bright in the video is because the infrared radiation from the Sun - with the smaller wavelengths (near-infrared) - is able to penetrate the atmosphere. Near-infrared is very close to visible light; hence it will penetrate and reflect on several objects below and beyond the atmosphere – including the Moon.

Sounds like this confirms my suggestions that the light patterns under "the twins" were water reflections due to infrared just outside the human visible range reflecting just like it does in the human visible range.

I'll add a little more later again...

[wipeout]

Originally posted by Astrophotographer
In an interesting side note, it appears that all the work done in this forum is nothing more than a hoax. Santiago Yturria has stated that the oil well fire explanation (http://www.virtuallystrange.net/ufo/updates/2004/sep/m29-020.shtml) is nothing more than a hoax generated by a single person. I assume this exposed "hoaxer" is Captain Franz but he does not say. Congratulations everyone for creating a hoax explanation.

Damn it! We've been found out! :D

If it wasn't for those pesky UFOlogists, we'd have gotten away with it too... ;)

They've got to admit that us sneaking into the Gulf of Mexico at night and secretly moving several kilometer-wide oil-platforms to make their oil-flares line up with the infrared sources in the footage is an impressive bit of hoaxing, though. :D

When we hoax, we hoax big! :p

[wipeout]

Originally posted by Capt.Franz
Hello Wipeout,

Here is a post from Dr. Julio Herrera who wrote clarifying his posture and his comments. I think it is fair to let all of you know this.

Okay, thank you. :)

I can't find Mummymonkey

A few months ago, I used the personal messaging option of this forum to contact him. You might try that if you haven't already.

From: Dr. Julio Herrera -herrera@nuclecu.unam.mx-
Date: September 28, 2004 9:05 am
To: Cap. Alejandro Franz -director@alcione.org-

Dear Cap. Franz,

I saw your page on the "oil flare hypothesis". I'm thankful that
you gave me the credit on the basis of something that was
published at some web page, where indeed it looks like it's my
idea. However, I must clarify that's a misunderstanding
induced by the reporter who wrote the note. I can't tell where
the idea originated.

In any case, I recognize this hypothesis may explain many things.
What matters by the end is to find out the true about this affair.

Best regards,
Julio Herrera

P.S.: I'm writing this in English so you may quote me if you wish.
--
Dr. Julio Herrera
Instituto de Ciencias Nucleares, UNAM
A.P. 70-543, Ciudad Universitaria
Del. Coyoacán, 04511 México, D.F. MEXICO
tel.: +52-55-56224672; FAX: +52-55-56162233
e-mail: herrera@nuclecu.unam.mx

Interestingly, it sounds like it may have been the reporter who knew that the oil-platforms were there. I did wonder that at the time I first read the original article.

Althought different people had different ideas first, I'd say it was a joint effort of a lot of people -- possibly including this reporter -- that put together the apparent explanation.

[Kitty Chan]

Originally posted by Astrophotographer
In an interesting side note, it appears that all the work done in this forum is nothing more than a hoax. Santiago Yturria has stated that the oil well fire explanation (http://www.virtuallystrange.net/ufo/updates/2004/sep/m29-020.shtml) is nothing more than a hoax generated by a single person. I assume this exposed "hoaxer" is Captain Franz but he does not say. Congratulations everyone for creating a hoax explanation.

It was said that it was important that a Government had come forward and not covered it up. What the actual explanation of what happened is secondary. Now its being said in this article that if you question this, you are questioning the air force.

Truth and facts are becoming secondary to agendas. Agenda in the way that the cry of ufoists is that the government is covering up, now one hasnt and they will not let that go. :(

[Patricio Elicer]

Originally posted by wipeout
Damn it! We've been found out! :D

If it wasn't for those pesky UFOlogists, we'd have gotten away with it too... ;)

They've got to admit that us sneaking into the Gulf of Mexico at night and secretly moving several kilometer-wide oil-platforms to make their oil-flares line up with the infrared sources in the footage is an impressive bit of hoaxing, though. :D

When we hoax, we hoax big! :p See?, we were caught!. I told you it was not going to work. I think we better move those platforms back to their original position, soon :D

Seriously now, I'm curious to know the details of the alleged hoax. I think nobody is willing to involve the Mexican Air Force in a hoax of this sort, implying that they made up the footage, the conversations and the interviews. Then, how can this case be possibly hoaxed?

Well, there are people out there saying that the moon landing was a hoax, or that humans dropped nuclear bombs on the Sidonea region on Mars to destroy "The Face" after it was revealed by Global Surveyor that it is merely a mountaneous feature. So I guess we can expect any far-fetched explanation in this case as well.

[Patricio Elicer]

Originally posted by Thomas
In respect of this, I worked out a theorem to have a guide towards a solution (remember that I study this case due to my interest in philosophy of science, and not because I care about ETs). My result is this:
<center>
http://www.pixcells.dk/mexico/jref/fig1_thumb.jpg (http://www.pixcells.dk/mexico/jref/fig1.jpg)
(click to enlarge)
</center>

The green and blue points on the travel line are points used for the theorem. Well, I'm stuck at this point. I have some comments/questions regarding "The Theorem", and please pardon my ignorance if I'm mistaken.

1) When you refer to the "green and blue points", you mean the "blue and red points", don't you?

2) If I re-write the formula, for either alpha or beta frames, this way:

KA = l Az l + (HM + AaO)

Then I figure that (HM + AaO) represents a correction term for systematical error on the instrument azimuth readings. I can understand HM's role in it, but I don't get AaO's. Quite likely I don't understand AaO's definition to begin with.

3) It's interesting to note that in both points, blue and red, the instrument azimuth readings are shifted in clockwise fashion with respect to the known values (5.1º and 7.5º resp), which is probably a regular pattern of the camera miscalibration.

[wipeout]

Originally posted by Patricio Elicer
See?, we were caught!. I told you it was not going to work. I think we better move those platforms back to their original position, soon :D

Okay, you were right. When we put them back, let's paint them a very slightly different colour just to subconsciously unnerve the oil-workers. :D

Hey, I hear someone has just spotted strange lights moving around in the sky. Tonight, we had better sneak in and move an airport in the direction they were spotted. ;)

Seriously now, I'm curious to know the details of the alleged hoax. I think nobody is willing to involve the Mexican Air Force in a hoax of this sort, implying that they made up the footage, the conversations and the interviews. Then, how can this case be possibly hoaxed?

I can understand why you might think that but I think what Yturria seems to mean is that the UFO believers are calling the oil flare explanation the hoax! :D

Yturria says:

During the broadcast every element of the Campeche case was
analysed, proving and confirming the unknown origin and nature
of the phenomena.

I think they're calling Captain Franz the hoaxer for pointing out that the oil flares are what caused it. They cannot accept that it isn't flying saucers and are trying to discredit the explanation! :D

[Capt.Franz]

Originally posted by wipeout


I think they're calling Captain Franz the hoaxer for pointing out that the oil flares are what caused it. They cannot accept that it isn't flying saucers and are trying to discredit the explanation! :D

Hello Wipeout and all,

You are right once again. I am the "hoaxer"


A coward journalist named Jaime Maussan instead of facing me in UFO UpDates list or calling me to present my theory
he decided to use his nationwide TV show to expose my page at ALCIONE.ORG and used his talking skills to call out
loud my name and request to my company 'Aeromexico' to take care from 'a mexican pilot' who has offended the Mexican
Air Force pilots all around the world. All what I did was answer when my opinion was needed in UFO UpDates list.
He also called Dr. Bruce Maccabee a 'hoax promoter' so here maybe is going to be a lawsuit.

You may follow the thread of my messages here:
http://www.virtuallystrange.net/cgi-bin/search-email.cgi?index=/ufo/updates/&key=alfafox

Anyway, I am calm, my family is giving me all the support and help so I don't have to worry because I know the truth
always will win. I have been doing this since 1963 and I can deal with this stormy weather. Piece of cake.

Thank you ALL for your kind interest in my work and I am peaceful an laughing with my mouth wide open. Here in Mexico
we have our Constitution who protects freedom of speech so while I am still investigating the case and telling the
truth there are some obstacles I knew they will arrive as today.

Please visit the UFO UpDates list an read what I told to John Velez '-rumormonger of Maussan-'
http://www.virtuallystrange.net/ufo/updates/2003/dec/m18-001.shtml

For those who would like to see the sunday 27 video in spanish (wmv) here:
http://www.alcione.org/FRAUDES/FAM/CAMPECHE/video_maussan_pozos.wmv

Jaime Maussan accused me of offending the Mexican Air Force pilots
using a post from Albert Lehmberg in UFO UpDates list, see:
http://www.virtuallystrange.net/ufo/updates/2004/sep/m14-014.shtml

Here is Frank Warren's input which Alfred Lehmberg didn't reply:
http://www.virtuallystrange.net/ufo/updates/2004/sep/m16-002.shtml

This is Jaime Maussan's frenzy and delirium...

Military UFO video could be key to credibility in enthusiast's career
(Jaime Maussan) http://www.virtuallystrange.net/ufo/updates/2004/aug/m08-001.shtml

Regards,

Capt. Alejandro Franz
director@alcione.org
(non-profit)

P.D. I will post this to UFO UpDates list.

[wipeout]

I hope this goes well for you, Captain Franz. And I hope it goes badly for your opponents.

Being attacked on national television must be a bit of a shock. I'm glad that you're taking it in your stride.

If the oil flare explanation wasn't well known before, then Maussen has made a mistake by trying to discredit it as it'll be a lot more widely known now.

I didn't understand much from the video, other than they certainly tried to discredit the oil flare thoery by the camera's elevation angle. Thomas has studied the answers for that from an expert.

If I was in your position, I'd contact prominent skeptics and skeptical groups who might give help and advice.

Perhaps we should contact James Randi again and see what he thinks of all this.

[Astrophotographer]

Originally posted by Capt.Franz
Hello Wipeout and all,

You are right once again. I am the "hoaxer"


A coward journalist named Jaime Maussan instead of facing me in UFO UpDates list or calling me to present my theory
he decided to use his nationwide TV show to expose my page at ALCIONE.ORG and used his talking skills to call out
loud my name and request to my company 'Aeromexico' to take care from 'a mexican pilot' who has offended the Mexican
Air Force pilots all around the world. All what I did was answer when my opinion was needed in UFO UpDates list.
He also called Dr. Bruce Maccabee a 'hoax promoter' so here maybe is going to be a lawsuit.



Sad to say that Maussan is considered the lead authority in Mexico. Even sadder is the lack of any significant response to these comments on the Updates list. I guess most on that list are still interested in maintaining this event "unknown", which is what I predicted in my webpage article.

[Capt.Franz]

Originally posted by Astrophotographer
Sad to say that Maussan is considered the lead authority in Mexico. Even sadder is the lack of any significant response to these comments on the Updates list. I guess most on that list are still interested in maintaining this event "unknown", which is what I predicted in my webpage article.

Hello Astrophotographer,

You are right, if they accept the oil wells flames to be the
source of the sighting the media would lost interest in it
and by that less money and audience. Just business... :(

regards,

Capt.Franz

[Thomas]

Originally posted by Astrophotographer
Is your webpage going to go back on line soon?
When/if my last report will come up again, it'll be concerned with the research process seen here, on other boards and mailing lists. What is relevant in relation to your report, would rather be the calculations I guess. Well, I dont know, maybe it would be better to link to this board instead?

The thing is, that if a reader has no interest in philosophy of science it would be easy to think: "What does this has to do with this case?".

Another thing is, that all the AoA business in my last report has proven to be incorrect, so it would demand quite a rewrite - to say the least. It gets even worse, because AoA (which, in this case, is a wrong definition) only takes account of the airplanes pitch, and then we also have roll and yaw. It's quite a job to get all these things in order for this particular case, or should I say rather impossible? So here we are, sorry for any inconvenience this may have, or will, cause you.

[Thomas]

Originally posted by wipeout
I can't say that I ever paid much attention to this first group as I barely noticed them so, for me, you've brought up a new problem. :)

Thinking about this -- and also the disappearance of the most distinct flares people called "the twins" has always bothered me a little as they would surely would be the most easily spotted again after the cloud-- I realized a possible solution.

I came back to the important fact that the horizon is invisible at that range in infrared but also that clouds that are perhaps some kilometers closer to the camera will also be invisible. Just because we can't see these distant clouds, doesn't mean that they're not there and the blankness of the background -- and thus the apparent clearness of the very distant sky -- may be seriously misleading us.

These clouds which are invisible to the camera at that distance could block the line of sight to parts of the oil-field.

So I suggest that "the twins", your "c" formation and "s" formation appear and disappear because distant clouds which are invisible to the camera are revealing and hiding them.


Indeed, good point.



The "c" and "s" formations might indeed be partly seperate or completely seperate oil-platforms.

I had actually briefly wondered myself how the flares like "the twins" seem to appear and disappear so quickly. Well, that's an explanation. :)

And like you say, there might be a whole other set of oil-platforms to fit to this first formation.


Yes, that's another possibility. At least, the FOV changes between the Clan and the Stray observations.

You know the square (where only the corners are visible) you'll see in most of the video. That shows what you'll be able to see in the next - stronger - zoom mode.


Er... where did those guys get the satellite pictures from again? :D

I think the final job of "fingerprinting" all the platforms responsible might be only half finished. :)


IIRC, I believe Smith got them from some of the Landsat satellites (maybe Landsat 7?). Let's get him in here right now! :)


Sounds like this confirms my suggestions that the light patterns under "the twins" were water reflections due to infrared just outside the human visible range reflecting just like it does in the human visible range.


Yes it does. I believe Franz had something to say about this as well, in his report.

[Thomas]

Originally posted by Patricio Elicer
1) When you refer to the "green and blue points", you mean the "blue and red points", don't you?


Exactly. I saw this mixup after I couldn't edit it anymore, but thought it to be obvious enough to not mention it. Good you pointed it out though, because maybe someone else has been in doubt as well.


2) If I re-write the formula, for either alpha or beta frames, this way:

KA = l Az l + (HM + AaO)

Then I figure that (HM + AaO) represents a correction term for systematical error on the instrument azimuth readings. I can understand HM's role in it, but I don't get AaO's. Quite likely I don't understand AaO's definition to begin with.

HM can be several things, even things we haven't thought of. AaO is the bearing of the airplane. All the measures are made w.r.t. North of East angles (East = 0 degrees). But, the azimuth readouts are measured w.r.t. the airplanes bearing (as you know already). So, AaO has impact on the SAFIREs azimuth readout - unless the airplane has a bearing of true east of course.


3) It's interesting to note that in both points, blue and red, the instrument azimuth readings are shifted in clockwise fashion with respect to the known values (5.1º and 7.5º resp), which is probably a regular pattern of the camera miscalibration.
The main reason is merely what I've just described above. The thing is that the airplane is headed towards east, but also slightly north. This is why you'll see that pattern, that the inclinations shift in a clockwise fashion. I suspect that the HM will be very small, and the real deal here is to find an exact method for determining the bearing of the airplane at these timestamps (AaO). If one can make a plausible method which can be used to find both inclinations, well, then the theorem has been proven.

Just for the fun of it, let's say we measured an average angle of 5 degrees bearing from the AKAL-C observation to the Moon observation, and use that as an AaO value in the theorem (for both alpha and beta - just for fun). Then were pretty close already.
If I make no sense here, please just ask again, and I'll see if I can find a better way of explaining this. No questions are stupid, only my explanations is - but I'm working on it :)

[Dr Adequate]

Originally posted by Thomas
Just for the fun of it, let's say we measured an average angle of 5 degrees bearing from the AKAL-C observation to the Moon observation, and use that as an AaO value in the theorem (for both alpha and beta - just for fun).
It takes all sorts to make a world, doesn't it?

[Thomas]

Originally posted by Dr Adequate
It takes all sorts to make a world, doesn't it?

I guess you're right, but I don't really know what it has to do with this?
I'm trying to explain part of the theorem which was poorly explained - using a strongly hypothetical example. I don't think I got your point there, could you please elaborate?

[Dr Adequate]

I was implying that you have a really, really strange idea of "fun"...

[Thomas]

Originally posted by Dr Adequate
I was implying that you have a really, really strange idea of "fun"...
I guess you're right again :)

[wipeout]

Originally posted by Thomas
IIRC, I believe Smith got them from some of the Landsat satellites (maybe Landsat 7?). Let's get him in here right now! :)


Ah, I found today he lists where he got the images:

http://home.earthlink.net/~bigvideo4/mexican_ufo.html

The FTP place is not immediately obvious how to navigate around it, it has a special image viewer and it also said "downloading 103 megabytes"... when I tried to look at one image.

Now that's a big picture. :D

I might get back to it later and see if the Landsat stuff shows other platforms as in your "c" group and "the twins".

Today, I also noticed from a Google search to see how many people are still following this case that over the last couple of months Captain Franz has been posting summaries in various internet forums.

Standard reaction from people in forums: "It's a silly theory as the UFOs appeared on radar!"

Which as we know, of course, is not what the aircrew said. ;)

I'm ever so slightly tempted to join these forums... :D

[Capt.Franz]

Originally posted by wipeout
Today, I also noticed from a Google search to see how many people are still following this case that over the last couple of months Captain Franz has been posting summaries in various internet forums.

Standard reaction from people in forums: "It's a silly theory as the UFOs appeared on radar!"

Which as we know, of course, is not what the aircrew said. ;)

I'm ever so slightly tempted to join these forums... :D

Hi there,

It is very difficult to promote my work but worst is to make
people to visit the related pages, read carefully the data and
then emit their thoughts. No way, they are UFO's! :D

It's kind of wierd humans are frantic when turn on their TV's
and take for real what in a UFO tricky show is presented.

Regads,

"How often have I said to you that when you have eliminated
the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable,
must be the truth?" -Sherlock Holmes in The Sign of the Four -

[Capt.Franz]

Originally posted by wipeout
I hope this goes well for you, Captain Franz. And I hope it goes badly for your opponents.

Being attacked on national television must be a bit of a shock. I'm glad that you're taking it in your stride.
Please all call me Alex...ok? ;)

Thank you Wipeout, I was shocked at first now I am calm.
If the oil flare explanation wasn't well known before, then Maussen has made a mistake by trying to discredit it as it'll be a lot more widely known now.
I don't know how stupid they are, what really makes me think is how far this people are willing to go and why? :p

[Capt.Franz]

Originally posted by Thomas
I have been trying to verify the oil flare hypothesis for several months now,
and I have finally obtained the answers for many of the issues we were merely
just speculating about, especially concerning the camera elevation problems,
and the distance problems.

Franz,

I like the fact that you actually collected information about the Cantarell
oilfield, this proved to be a good hint for Smith who knows a great deal
about satellites ( I think I have spammed 15 satellites with no result).
I will not give you any credits for anything since you don’t seem to
like it, but I do have a question though:

What’s up with all that banter about ETs?

The Drake equation, Fermi’s paradox and the continuing failure of the SETI
project should be something worth adding to that equation shouldn’t it?

I do believe there’s something out there, because since the universe is
infinite it’s somewhat impossible that there isn’t. However, that extra
terrestrial life forms should be (secretly) present here on Earth is not
most likely with the current knowledge of several issues. That’s at least
my personal opinion. Anyway, I saw you asked on the Virtuallystrange
mailing list if anyone had the original uncut DVD. I can answer that for you:
If there actually is an original uncut video, SEDENA has it, but the video
you have obtained from my site and cut into several pieces is encoded from
the exact same DVD Maussan and Maccabee has. Maussan sent me that DVD,
and I encoded it for all to see with his permission. In this concern
I would like point out that he knew I was a skeptic when he sent me that DVD.


Much of the information on your site is excellent. Outstanding efforts indeed,
but please don’t use any of my diagrams or anything else. I do not wish to get
entangled in those struggles which are ongoing in the UFO researcher societies
I hope you can understand my wish in this concern..

I studied this case because it was relevant to my interest in philosophy
of science. Thanks for your efforts.


Hello Thomas,

First of all I want to congratulate you for your excellent work
your skills and knowledge. I wish I could have half of that.

I hope this could help in some way:

The most important geomagnetic fact to remember, the earth’s magnetic field
is neither uniform, stationary, nor perfectly aligned with the planet’s poles.
True north can be determined with a compass reading plus/minus (as appropriate)
the location’s magnetic deviation. Magnetic deviation (also called magnetic
declination, magnetic variation, or compass variation) is the angle between
the north compass (magnetic) heading and the heading to true (geographic) north.

The VARIATION in Campeche's oil rigs area is 4 degrees EAST so maybe that could
help to have a more accurate result. I have a directory with NAVIGATION
CHARTS of 1:1,000,000 scale and maybe you would like to use some of them.

See:

http://www.alcione.org/FRAUDES/FAM/CHARTS/

Examples:

variation 4 DEGREES east
http://www.alcione.org/FRAUDES/FAM/CHARTS/DSC01410.JPG

http://www.alcione.org/FRAUDES/FAM/CHARTS/carmen_chart5.JPG

Here it shows VARIATION exactly where the oil wells are located:
http://www.alcione.org/FRAUDES/FAM/CHARTS/Copy%20of%20DSC01411.JPG


Regards,

Alex

[Thomas]

Originally posted by Capt.Franz
Hello Thomas,

First of all I want to congratulate you for your excellent work
your skills and knowledge. I wish I could have half of that.


Thanks for those kind words, I appreciate it very much. However, if we could trade knowledge and skills for a day, I'm sure you would be quite disappointed when I took off in a Boeing and you had to stay on the ground with a pile of theories :)


I hope this could help in some way:

The most important geomagnetic fact to remember, the earth’s magnetic field
is neither uniform, stationary, nor perfectly aligned with the planet’s poles.
True north can be determined with a compass reading plus/minus (as appropriate)
the location’s magnetic deviation. Magnetic deviation (also called magnetic
declination, magnetic variation, or compass variation) is the angle between
the north compass (magnetic) heading and the heading to true (geographic) north.

The VARIATION in Campeche's oil rigs area is 4 degrees EAST so maybe that could
help to have a more accurate result. I have a directory with NAVIGATION
CHARTS of 1:1,000,000 scale and maybe you would like to use some of them.

See:

http://www.alcione.org/FRAUDES/FAM/CHARTS/

Examples:

variation 4 DEGREES east
http://www.alcione.org/FRAUDES/FAM/CHARTS/DSC01410.JPG

http://www.alcione.org/FRAUDES/FAM/CHARTS/carmen_chart5.JPG

Here it shows VARIATION exactly where the oil wells are located:
http://www.alcione.org/FRAUDES/FAM/CHARTS/Copy%20of%20DSC01411.JPG

That sounds extremely interesting, and I will look into it as soon as I can, but I'm very, very busy these days. Thank you for posting this, I think it can be essential and maybe provide the final proof for the actual observation angles. Excellent.

Maybe I should add, that If the SAFIRE is mounted correctly it will be accurate to better than 2.5 milliradians, so that's pretty precise. Maybe the final adjustments to the maps are to be done with magnetic deviation - as you propose.
Well, we'll find out. Thanks for posting this, it's quite interesting indeed.

[Thomas]

Originally posted by wipeout
Ah, I found today he lists where he got the images
Beautiful, so it was Landsat 7 (this bird is able to obtain images in the infrared spectrum).
However, as I told Alex, I have no time for at least the next couple of days - although I would love to be the one to find the patterns to match the last radiation sources :)

I wasn't aware that Smith had made such a thorough report.

[Capt.Franz]

Originally posted by Thomas
Thanks for posting this, it's quite interesting indeed.
I wish I could do more.

By the way, I posted many months ago to Tim Wescott
and I didn't have a response from him. Can you let me use
the data you provided about the SAFIRE II- two modes,
the hybrid and the �HDHLD� mode. It is very important
to let the people know how this FLIR system maybe was used
incorrectly. Can I use that info without mentioning you?

I couldn't find any info in the whole www.

Regards,

Alex

[wipeout]

Originally posted by Capt.Franz
It is very difficult to promote my work but worst is to make
people to visit the related pages, read carefully the data and
then emit their thoughts. No way, they are UFO's! :D

It's kind of wierd humans are frantic when turn on their TV's
and take for real what in a UFO tricky show is presented.

The truth is out there... but they can't handle the truth. :D

"How often have I said to you that when you have eliminated
the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable,
must be the truth?" -Sherlock Holmes in The Sign of the Four -

That's funny because I thought about that quote just a day or two ago.

Please all call me Alex...ok? ;)

Thank you Wipeout, I was shocked at first now I am calm.

You -- or anyone else -- can call me Richard or Richey if you want.

"Wipeout" is the act of falling off something (like a surfboard) or crashing into something. It's also a futuristic racing videogame series that I like. :D

I don't know how stupid they are, what really makes me think is how far this people are willing to go and why? :p

I can only hope they go too far for their own good. ;)

[wipeout]

Originally posted by Thomas
Beautiful, so it was Landsat 7 (this bird is able to obtain images in the infrared spectrum).
However, as I told Alex, I have no time for at least the next couple of days - although I would love to be the one to find the patterns to match the last radiation sources :)

I'll leave it up to you to match them up then. :D

I've had a brief look at some of the satellite pictures. Winrar and then Paint Shop Pro and no problems.

So far, I've only looked at the first group of pictures ("2001-01-16").

Very interesting. There's a group of similar platforms to the west but they are right on the edge of the picture and there's a real possibility that some are off this set of pictures. Need to look at all the pictures to know for sure.

I wasn't aware that Smith had made such a thorough report.

I found it when I did a Google search on him a couple of months ago, then found it again a couple of days ago from another Google search when seeing who was saying what about oil flares.

By the way, I made a mistake when I said I thought "the twins" had disappeared as we see them again a couple of times just before the picture zooms to the main "s" formation.

It's that the picture is so zoomed in that misses them, although distant cloud-cover may well still be involved in any group of flares appearing and disappearing suddenly during the footage.

[Kitty Chan]

Originally posted by Capt.Franz
It is very difficult to promote my work but worst is to make
people to visit the related pages, read carefully the data and
then emit their thoughts. No way, they are UFO's!

It's kind of wierd humans are frantic when turn on their TV's
and take for real what in a UFO tricky show is presented.


Like I said keep in mind the ufoers for YEARS have wanted a government to come forward. Dont forget they think government is covering up ufo's. So now one has come forward and said they saw one and didnt cover it up....they are not, I repeat not going to let it go :(

But, the truth is the truth. When I read this thread I may not know exactly what everyone is talking about but the main point about the flares and how it all relates to an explaination comes through. Im trusting those here as a good source and the explanation seems logical.

But perhaps whats needed( if you havent already) is an explaination in a "nutshell" "layman terms" for those like myself that do not understand the "science" completely. Then if they want further explanation then they could dive deeper into the rest of the info.

So if was related in a easy to understand way, perhaps a telling of what happened and because it was a understandable mistake on the pilots part so there is no offence.

Perhaps you could find a netural party to present your evidence. I really think this is a defining case with the governement coming forward and all. They wont relent easily as its what they have wanted to happen since Roswell.

My sincere best wishes.

[wipeout]

Kitty Chan,

I agree with you that we need a brief but thorough summary of the case for people who are interested but don't want all the technical details.

I had actually been thinking about putting together all the information we know here in a straightforward way.

I would create a single big picture made up of smaller pictures, diagrams and maps with boxes with written explanations of the case.

I might give it a try and we will see if it is any good or not. :D

[Thomas]

Originally posted by Capt.Franz
Can I use that info without mentioning you?

Yes you can, but then I'll request that you make sure to add; that this information has been provided by Tim Wescott, and that his opinion may not necessarily be the same as that of FLIR Systems.

[Thomas]

Originally posted by wipeout
I'll leave it up to you to match them up then. :D

Dont hesitate due to me, because the thing is:

1) I'm flooded with deadlines right now.

2) I'm not in Copenhagen right now, and the bandwidth here is a travesty. I don't know exactly when I'll be back again, either.


I've had a brief look at some of the satellite pictures. Winrar and then Paint Shop Pro and no problems.

I have to recommend Geomatica Freeview, I used this to plot out the stable lights (as you can see in most of my diagrams on page 16). The .tiff for these lights are 667 mb in size, so I made a screendumb from Geomatica and modified the gradients and aspect ratios in photoshop - for illustrative purposes.
There is a lot of nice options in Geomatica (if the maps are correct).

You gave me the chills when I saw you recommended Paint Shop Pro, I'm a Photoshop'per! ..It's like recommending Microsoft Word to someone using Paint Shop Pro :) ..But enough of that, if it works, it works.

[Thomas]

Originally posted by Kitty Chan
But perhaps whats needed( if you havent already) is an explaination in a "nutshell" "layman terms" for those like myself that do not understand the "science" completely.
The thing is that we're not really sure what many of the heat/radiation sources are at this point. We can - more or less - safely assume that many of them is grounded, but that's it.

For example, the very first object which triggered the camera operators curiosity, is still unknown in origin.
Many of the unknowns could easily be infrared radiation from the Sun, reflecting on clouds, lakes, metal and so forth, but nobody knows. Could you imagine what would happen if we made an "explanation in a nutshell" where we had to state that we don't know the origin of atleast half of the heat sources? :)

Anyway, as you know, those heat sources which was presented by the medias worldwide as being "mysterious/unexplainable", is - most likely - oil flares, so that's atleast another victory for skepticism :)

[Kitty Chan]

Thomas thanks and I understand completely, I did not know that part.

Thanks again, I guess I can be the "test" audience but does it work if Im biased ;)

[Thomas]

Originally posted by Kitty Chan
Thanks again, I guess I can be the "test" audience but does it work if Im biased ;)
You're more than welcome.. and.. bias seems to work just fine for the believers, so why shouldn't it work for us? ;)

[Capt.Franz]

Originally posted by Thomas
Yes you can, but then I'll request that you make sure to add; that this information has been provided by Tim Wescott, and that his opinion may not necessarily be the same as that of FLIR Systems.
Thank you Thomas, I will surely respect your request.

Alex

[Capt.Franz]

Originally posted by Kitty Chan
[I]
Like I said keep in mind the ufoers for YEARS have wanted a government to come forward. Dont forget they think government is covering up ufo's. So now one has come forward and said they saw one and didnt cover it up....they are not, I repeat not going to let it go :(
Hello Kitty Chan ,

I am sorry I didn't answer until today. I was very busy doing some
transcript and translation of the Mexican Air Force FLIR video.

Now it is available at: http://www.alcione.org/CAMPECHE/

So if was related in a easy to understand way, perhaps
a telling of what happened and because it was a understandable
mistake on the pilots part so there is no offence.

It is going to be very difficult they accept an error while there was an error to make it public
to the media and worst to a very well known charlatan as Jaime Maussan.

Perhaps you could find a netural party to present your evidence. I really think this is a defining case with the governement coming forward and all. They wont relent easily as its what they have wanted to happen since Roswell.

My sincere best wishes.

Thank you,

I know it will be very difficult but know I have some people behind
me I can't tell who they are by now but many of them are scientist
from Mexico and other countries who are supporting my theory and
at the right time will provide a great deal of information.

I have another extremely good news I can't tell by now.
It has to do with a prestigious world wide TV program
that will recreate the Mexican Air Force flight like
the sighting of march 05, 2004 in the same location.
I will participate on board the airplane and I hope
the weather will be good to get a similar scenario.

I will tell here when it is done.

Best regards,

Alex

P.D. I apologize to other members who I have not answered yet,
I have a lot of work ahead. TK's ;)

[Lucianarchy]

Originally posted by Thomas
Could you imagine what would happen if we made an "explanation in a nutshell" where we had to state that we don't know the origin of atleast half of the heat sources? :)




Yes. You would be telling the truth. Why is that such a difficult thing to admit to?

Instead, you have to fall back on supposition and technical mumbo-jumbo and appeal to authority. The only people buying that are other skeptics, so if your plan is to debunk the sightings in the interests of the general public, you have failed.

[Thomas]

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
Yes. You would be telling the truth. Why is that such a difficult thing to admit to?

I just did exactly that in the very post you quote from.

The point is that any conclusions concerning these radiation sources is premature, but; that it is most likely quite mundane reflections of infrared radiation from the Sun (on clouds, lakes, metal plates etc.). In the beginning of the video you can see these kind of reflections which is clearly coming from lakes and clouds.


Instead, you have to fall back on supposition and technical mumbo-jumbo and appeal to authority. The only people buying that are other skeptics, so if your plan is to debunk the sightings in the interests of the general public, you have failed.

It's not an appeal to authority to ask a chief engineer behind the SAFIRE II how his camera works in detail, it's just gathering facts.
These are the facts you call "technical mumbo-jumbo", but that is, however, what you need to know if you want to understand how the SAFIRE II works.

[wipeout]

Originally posted by Capt.Franz
I was very busy doing some
transcript and translation of the Mexican Air Force FLIR video.

Now it is available at: http://www.alcione.org/CAMPECHE/

I learned a couple of things from your translation, namely, they were low on fuel and that the radar was behaving a bit strangely.

I had wondered why they didn't follow the first object --which is probably just a plane, particularly since it travels between two places with runways.

I had also suggested that the radar was having problems once we realized that oil-flares fitted the mystery.

I didn't know that they had actual radar objects in the direction of the oil-flares but that these objects were not giving proper readings, though. I'll make a guess and say they would be unrelated and perhaps just coincidental readings of ground objects at Ciudad del Carmen.

I know it will be very difficult but know I have some people behind me I can't tell who they are by now but many of them are scientist from Mexico and other countries who are supporting my theory and at the right time will provide a great deal of information.

Ah good, I was hoping people like that would help out and support you. :)

I have another extremely good news I can't tell by now. It has to do with a prestigious world wide TV program that will recreate the Mexican Air Force flight like the sighting of march 05, 2004 in the same location. I will participate on board the airplane and I hope the weather will be good to get a similar scenario.

That's great news! Good luck with this. :D

[Thomas]

Originally posted by wipeout
I had also suggested that the radar was having problems once we realized that oil-flares fitted the mystery.

Sadly, all which remains here, is speculations. Anyway, here is the radar diagrams I made for my initial report.
<center>
http://www.pixcells.dk/mexico/d1.jpg
http://www.pixcells.dk/mexico/s1.jpg

http://www.pixcells.dk/mexico/d2.jpg
http://www.pixcells.dk/mexico/s2.jpg
</center>


I'll make a guess and say they would be unrelated and perhaps just coincidental readings of ground objects at Ciudad del Carmen.

Good guess, because I stated in this very thread several months ago that they seemed to be unrelated :)
There is a mismatch of the angles, as I said back then.

A triangualtion places the first FLIR object (the dancer) here:

<center>
http://www.pixcells.dk/mexico/jref/fig5.jpg
</center>

I wouldn't personally trust that map all together, there are too many unknown variables - which is impossible to account for - when you try to measure the precise bearing of the airplane.


Ah good, I was hoping people like that would help out and support you. :)

If I didn't know you by now, I would take that statement as an insult against James Smith, Laurent Leger and myself :)

[wipeout]

Originally posted by Thomas
Sadly, all which remains here, is speculations. Anyway, here is the radar diagrams I made for my initial report.

I'm sorry, I didn't make it clear what I meant. Nice diagrams, by the way.

I was referring to my original speculation that any strange radar readings could be explained if the radar was simply going wrong in some way.

That was before I knew there were no radar readings for main group of objects.

What is new to me is that this is wrong -- there were radar readings after all in the direction of the oil-platforms, just very ambiguous ones, so Captain Franz's translation shows there were more early radar objects than just the first object:

http://www.alcione.org/CAMPECHE/Pozos6.html

It refers to "little spots" at 17:05:03 but "no speed or anything". I believe the oil-platforms are well out of radar range -- judged from what seems to be the the first object going off radar at about 35 miles -- so that's why I'm suggesting that it's perhaps something on the ground in (or around) the city of Ciudad del Carmen they are picking up.

This possibly explains the mysterious later comment at around 17:07:40 that the radar operator was seeing something but it's gone now. I'd always wondered if that was about the first object or not and it turns out that it's probably from the start of the time that they were spotting the main group.

http://www.alcione.org/CAMPECHE/Pozos7.html

Good guess, because I stated in this very thread several months ago that they seemed to be unrelated :)
There is a mismatch of the angles, as I said back then.

Like I said when I saw the full footage, I'm not even convinced the first radar object is ever seen on FLIR.

We see something... but it's not like a city with a related oil-industry and an oil-field is an area lacking hot spots. ;)

If I didn't know you by now, I would take that statement as an insult against James Smith, Laurent Leger and myself :)

I assumed Alex meant UFO skeptics and scientists who got involved after seeing the oil-flare theory being attacked by Maussan on TV in the last couple of weeks and might be able to help counter the attack through their TV and other media contacts.

I don't see why Alex might say he "can't tell who they are by now" if he means you're or James Smith as you both on a couple of public internet boards talking about the issue for some time.

Same as he "can't tell by now" of the details of the TV programme, I assume he means people we don't know about yet.

[Thomas]

Originally posted by wipeout
I was referring to my original speculation that any strange radar readings could be explained if the radar was simply going wrong in some way.

That was before I knew there were no radar readings for main group of objects.

What is new to me is that this is wrong -- there were radar readings after all in the direction of the oil-platforms, just very ambiguous ones, so Captain Franz's translation shows there were more early radar objects than just the first object:

My diagrams above is based on Patricio's transcript, and it resembles Franz's transcript pretty well (notice the timestamps on the first object). The aircrew - at least - believed that this object was the same all along, but they we're at the same time in doubt about the radars capability.

That is what is illustrated in my diagram.

I think a few things is worth noticing here:

a) They don't seem to trust the radar very much.

b) There is confusion concerning who-is-who (radar operator / camera operator / pilot / ground control) in all the transcripts I have seen. I guess it's hard to make out the voices 100%?

c) Who has access to what? They seem to have access to eachothers screens. Or do the pilot use his own radar?

Under all circumstances, we're but left with speculations, and this is why I don't really find the radar signals stated in the transcripts usefull for measures.
I'm not gonna contact Telephonics, because I'm quite frankly bored with this case by now. I'm on standby untill thorough experiments has been conducted - enough speculations and calculations already.


I assumed Alex meant UFO skeptics and scientists who got involved after seeing the oil-flare theory being attacked by Maussan on TV in the last couple of weeks and might be able to help counter the attack through their TV and other media contacts.

...


I guess you're right. Hazy statements can often lead to hazy interpretations :)

[Capt.Franz]

Originally posted by Thomas
I'm not gonna contact Telephonics, because I'm quite frankly bored with this case by now. I'm on standby untill thorough experiments has been conducted - enough speculations and calculations already.

I guess you're right. Hazy statements can often lead to hazy interpretations :)

Hello Thomas,

I think it was a mistake to give insights of what is going on about this case and what
I told looks like a secret and it is. You know what you are doing. I also know what I am doing.

Please forgive me in my last post regarding the scientists.

You are not a scientist, you are an engineer or skeptic artist, so I think you are
on a different thought basis.

My interest is to keep you informed of what is going on. I hope you understand why
I decided to keep some information incomplete. My honor and reputation have been
put under doubt world wide and I have to keep certain information under my control.

This is not only a forum debate, it is my future reputation as an honest investigator.
I will fight against a huge monopoly that protects Maussan. I am lonely defending
myself against a mega-monster media power.

Maybe you don't know or can't imagine what I am facing now.

Anyway I appreciate your input.

Regards,

A

[Thomas]

Originally posted by Capt.Franz
You are not a scientist, you are an engineer or skeptic artist, so I think you are on a different thought basis.

You'll soon find that I'm certainly not an engineer or a skeptic artist (whatever that is). It's more than ten years ago I made my first grand theory and was dispensed for a Danish university - only to study philosophy of science due to my theories. Before that I studied philosophy at three diffrent schools.

You see, I don't believe status quo science, in fact, I never have. If a scientist is someone who blindly believes the active theories as presented (and it indeed is in most cases), then you're right: I'm not a scientist, and nor would I like to be called as such.

In the second grade of elementary school my teachers used to call me "The philosopher". Maybe that's the most accurate desciption if one should choose, but I prefer: Thomas. These days I'm working on a doctor thesis concerning evolutionary algorithms.


My interest is to keep you informed of what is going on. I hope you understand why
I decided to keep some information incomplete. My honor and reputation have been
put under doubt world wide and I have to keep certain information under my control.

For natural reasons, I wouldn't know why you hold back information before I know what that information actually is. I think I should add to this; that I personally only hold back information if I know it's incomplete.
As for your honor and reputation, I think you brought this on yourself when you published a theory as conclusive before it had been tested. You should've known what you were up against; believers don't hesitate to discredit their opposition if they have the slightest opportunity.


This is not only a forum debate, it is my future reputation as an honest investigator.
I will fight against a huge monopoly that protects Maussan. I am lonely defending
myself against a mega-monster media power.

Maybe you don't know or can't imagine what I am facing now.

My approach would have been diffrent, but then again, I don't know much about your actual situation - I can only guess.

I know that Maussan is a very popular man in Mexico, and that many of his findings are rather hazy.
It looks to me like a major goal of yours, is to get to Maussan as you consider him a promoter of pseudoscience. However, even if you succed with this, you will still have failed, because the problem is not really with Maussan, but with the Mexican culture. Miracles and paranormal events is an integrated part of your culture through your extremely strong devotion to Catholicism.
The many religious people of Mexico needs additional "miracles" to justify this devotion. It basically goes like this:

"If this-and-that paranormal phenomenon is true, then why shouldn't the miracles of God be true as well?".

There you have it. That's why Mexico is a record holder concerning paranormal sightings and ideas. You will see the same phenomenon in other strongly religious cultures, because when modern science discredit religious ideas, religion has to discredit science - or expose it as more incomplete than it actually is.
Discredit and ruin Maussan and you have achieved nothing but created room for a new Maussan. The root of paranormal ideas is - in most cases - religion, cut off a branch; and a new will grow elsewhere.

Religion and uncertainty is your "mega-monster", the media just feed the hungry crowd.


Let's return to the topic of this thread:

I wish you best of luck with the recontruction flight, and are looking very much forward to see the results.

[JMA]

I wish you best of luck with the recontruction flight, and are looking very much forward to see the results.

Did we had some news about this reconstruction flight? Is there a webpage about it? Or a paper publication?

[Tokenconservative]

LOL!

I'm a newcomer here and haven't dabbled in the paranormal in some time, but I can't believe people are still debating the UFO issue. I thought, like "crop circles" it was dead.

One need only look at the history of this phenomenon (as I have) to figure out its all wishful thinking, hoaxing, or cons.

Here is the question anyone who "wants to believe" should ask themselves: From about 1947, up until about the early 1990s, you could count on literally THOUSANDS of UFO reports, often including fuzzy, shaky photos and sometimes (later) bad video of "sightings." It died rather quickly, though a few hangers-on and typical charlatans tried to milk it (remember the spate of "seers" who were able to video "the visitors" making the stars move or as they shot about the sky in their craft, but were invisible to everyone else?).

For some reason, these thing just went away beginning in oh, about 1995-95

Why?

I know...anybody else care to take a guess?

Tokie

[JMA]

Well, I have another question, and I hope it'll be answered (because this thread is so long and so complex, I coudn't find the answer):

In an interview, Germán Marín said that the objects were flying at 300 knots:

http://www.univision.com/content/content.jhtml?chid=3&schid=321&secid=0&cid=380711

El radar indicó que los objetos realizaron drásticos cambios de rumbo, las velocidades podían estar, "no sé de 60 nudos e incrementándose a 120, 220 o 300 nudos, cosa que jamás había visto", señaló el teniente Germán Marín, operador de radar infrarrojo.

This is from a website in spanish...

Now, this quote is widely use in french ufology in order to argue that the oil falre explanation is false. Who do you explain away this quote?

Because obviously 300 knots means something like 550 km/h. Even for a truck on a highway, it's really fast...

Thanks,

[Patricio Elicer]

Did we had some news about this reconstruction flight? Is there a webpage about it? Or a paper publication?

Yes, there are two videos of that flight that I know of at this address (http://www.alcione.org/main.html).

The first one is about 4/5 down the page, under the heading "ULTIMA HORA" in big yellow capitals.

The second video is a segment of a National Geographic TV program featuring Captain Franz and his reconstruction flight. It's almost at the bottom of the page, and the link to the video is: VEA EL VIDEO DE LA PARTICIPACION DEL CAP ALEJANDRO FRANZ (in Spanish).

[JMA]

Thanks for the two links. :)

[CurtC]

In an interview, Germán Marín said that the objects were flying at 300 knots:

Now, this quote is widely use in french ufology in order to argue that the oil falre explanation is false. Who do you explain away this quote?It's been a while, but their perception of the lights doing 300 knots is that they were keeping up with the planes, right? In the video, you can see clouds passing by quickly, but the lights stay right there in one position. The pilots were disoriented and thought the lights were close by, therefore their brains interpreted the scene as the lights keeping up with them. When in actuality, the lights were very far away and were in the same visual position because of that.

Did you ever notice that the Moon follows you when you drive? Same effect.

[JMA]

Je pense que c'est plausible, mais dans le journal il est écrit:

El radar indicó que los objetos realizaron drásticos cambios de rumbo, las velocidades podían estar, "no sé de 60 nudos e incrementándose a 120, 220 o 300 nudos, cosa que jamás había visto", señaló el teniente Germán Marín, operador de radar infrarrojo.

So those speeds are attributed to the radar, not to a visual estimation by the guy (who is responsible of the radar).

Is this newspaper wrong (and the radar didn't detect that kind of speeds?), or is it right?

I'm sorry, I know that it's been a long time (same for me). But since this quote is widely use in French to say that the oil flares hypothesis is wrong, I really would no what to answer to that argument (and since their is on this forum some Campeche experts...).

[JMA]

Nothing???

[wipeout]

It's easy to answer.

The aircrew themselves said that there were no radar contacts from the infrared sources that make up the main "UFO sighting" part of the flight.

This was from a transcript from what appeared to be some kind of press conference with the aircrew that was posted at the Rense.com website, it's buried back somewhere in this thread. Maybe the link still works.

It was the news media that took those infrared sources and the few scattered earlier and later radar contacts and put them together. The aircrew clearly stated it was never the case that they had an infrared source with a radar reflection during their "UFO sighting" of those infrared sources that the footage usually shows.

There was a much earlier infrared source with a radar reflection, though. We learned that from the in-flight communications. It flew towards the city airport, turned and disappeared at it. This was very obviously a plane.

But the UFO believers are wrong to say there were any radar reflections during the part they mean. The aircrew said there was nothing.

[Cainkane1]

I've seen these Videos. It looks convincing until science spoils things for the woo crowd. These seemingly UFO craft are thought by the scientific community to be plasma energy caused by tectonic activity. These things are usually seen after such events as Volcanic eruptions or earthquakes. These "UFO'S" are often seen comming out of and going into volcanos. Odd behaviour for extra terrestrials who never communicate with us in any other way.

[wipeout]

I've seen these Videos. It looks convincing until science spoils things for the woo crowd. These seemingly UFO craft are thought by the scientific community to be plasma energy caused by tectonic activity. These things are usually seen after such events as Volcanic eruptions or earthquakes. These "UFO'S" are often seen comming out of and going into volcanos. Odd behaviour for extra terrestrials who never communicate with us in any other way.

Plasma energy giving infrared sources that just so happen to be same direction on the horizon as three very distant 1 kilometer wide oil platforms with ten 100 meters tall flames? I'd like it to be something as interesting as plasma, ball-lightning or something similar, but to me the probable explanation of this sighting seems less so.

[JMA]

The aircrew clearly stated it was never the case that they had an infrared source with a radar reflection during their "UFO sighting" of those infrared sources that the footage usually shows.

Thanks for the answer!

Do you have a link who point to an interview of the crew stating that? I mean if I want to debunk what the French ufologists are saying, I need something I can quote...

[Patricio Elicer]

Thanks for the answer!

Do you have a link who point to an interview of the crew stating that? I mean if I want to debunk what the French ufologists are saying, I need something I can quote...



From the conversation of crew members it's clear that they never got anything on radar. I made a rough transcript HERE (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=661735#post661735). I think on Capt. Franz web page there's a more precise transcript with time stamps and all.

EDIT:
You may also find what you are looking for on Astrophotographer's Webpage (http://members.aol.com/tprinty2/Mexico04a.html).

EDIT 2:
On post #500 is exactly the reference of the radar operator, that he doesn't get anything on radar.