Mexican Airforce films UFOs

[wipeout]

Quote:

Originally posted by Thomas Well, since Maussan still haven't responded to my mail, I'm not at all against that interpretaion, and just maybe, it was one of the theories I didn't want to mention myself

You don't have to say it, you can just sit back, relax and wait as I've got a big mouth and will say things like that sooner or later.

Quote:

This is why I haven't published the name of the MUFON researcher in here. The research is still in progress.
I find him to be a honest scientist because he shares his findings with me although I'm a, somewhat, prototype skeptic, and I will now reveal, that he's looking for a natural explanation to this phenomenon just like we do. He doesn't believe this to be extra terrestial contact at this point.

Interesting. We will see.

[Thomas]

Quote:

Originally posted by Astrophotographer
"The Star SAFIRE produces high-quality imagery, as was shown to IDR while flying by the Spanish airport of Vitoria near Bilbao. Even from a distance of 40nm and an altitude of 27,000ft the individual aircraft parked on the ramp were clearly identifiable. Cdr Noom claimed that at closer ranges, the system could make out a "bicycle standing against a wall"."

Seeing an aircraft parked on a ramp (even if the engines were running) at 40nm (about 74KM) would be much harder than seeing a burning oil fire from the same distance. The Star SAFIRE seems to be quite sensitive when operated correctly.

Based on this statement, it may be possible for the FLIR to see very high temperature objects at great distances as long as they are above the optical horizon.

One question concerning that story about the parked aircraft: Is that the Star SAFIRE II, or Star SAFIRE III?

The SAFIRE III is quite aggressive compared to the SAFIRE II. For one thing, it holds twice the sensor resolution.

[Thomas]

Quote:

Originally posted by wipeout
From what we know at the moment, I believe only a complete map of oil-flares around Campeche will settle the oil-flares theory for the 11 sources of infrared.

If there is nothing like that arrangement of oil-flares in the direction the infrared sources were seen, then the oil-flare theory ends right there.

However, if the arrangement of oil-flares fits the arrangement on the footage, it will be like a fingerprint matching and all other plausible theories end right there instead.

Objection your honor! Chances are that you can easily find some heat producing facility which matches the given pattern in that area. Heck, I can find a matching pattern for point C - the most complex of them all - just by looking out the window from where I am right now. You also have to prove that the SAFIRE was looking down at ground level(!) and that the given heat sources would be detectable within the given range, as they stand. Untill then, the evidence is strongly anecdotal.

Furthermore, that only covers point 'C' or whatever point you were talking about. There are still several issues besides that which needs to be covered, all the evidence I have seen so far to solve these issues, is 100% anecdotal.

[wipeout]

Quote:

Originally posted by Thomas
Objection your honor! Chances are that you can easily find some heat producing facility which matches the given pattern in that area.

I'm not honourable but I am often objectionable. Overruled!

Hot spots that bright and in that arrangement and direction and at sea or on empty land don't seem that likely. I want a very precise match.

Quote:

Heck, I can find a matching pattern for point C - the most complex of them all - just by looking out the window from where I am right now.

Photograph it and send a picture to Maussan!

Tell him that the Mexican UFO aliens landed next to you and told you that they are angry they were spotted and are coming back to Mexico soon but to "deal" only with Muassan because "only he has the whole footage"...

Quote:

You also have to prove that the SAFIRE was looking down at ground level(!) and that the given heat sources would be detectable within the given range, as they stand. Untill then, the evidence is strongly anecdotal.

It'd be proving the camera is looking at the horizon. And it takes only a couple of degrees of tilt of the aircraft for that to be proven so it's a requirement easily satisfied.

And as to the second point, I still say a massive wall of flame is more visible than an oil-tanker, even at 50 km.

Quote:

Furthermore, that only covers point 'C' or whatever point you were talking about. There are still several issues besides that which needs to be covered, all the evidence I have seen so far to solve these issues, is 100% anecdotal.

I feel that a small aircraft takes care of the first object, oil-flares take care of the next eleven... what's left to solve are:

1) The radar later detects two objects, at least one of which which behaves erratically. What is known about them?

2) The camera later points west and north at infrared objects that cannot be the original oil-flares. Why is the camera looking a different direction?

Now if only we could get the whole footage...

[SquishyDave]

Natural gases ignition temperature is 593 C to 649 C or 1100 F to 1200 F. That's pretty hot compared to a boat, why can this camera see a boat at 50km but not something hotter than it?

[Astrophotographer]

Quote:

Originally posted by Thomas

Just remember that it wasn't me who suggested that, but FLIR Systems Inc.. I don't suggest anything, I collect data from the relevant sources and present it. That's it.
If that data shows to be wrong, then I'm not gonna take the heat for it. However, the most relevant source from which you can collect such data, must be from the designers of the camera themselves.

Since we do not have any hard specs to go by, it is hard to determine how accurate the estimate was. Did you get a spec sheet? This would be "data". Statements without any information to back them up is not data. It is only opinion and can be inaccurate.

Recall these fires are running a temperatures of 300-1000 C (at least that is the best I can tell from information on fires). It is not something like a ship or warm airplane engine. Based on what I have read from actual operators of the equipment (seeing aircraft on a runway at 40nm), it seems that the FLIR is far more sensitive than the information you presented. Of course, this is also "only opinion" but it appears to be opinion based on actual equipment operation. If this "opinion" is fairly accurate, then seeing these high temperature flames from a distance of over 40nm would seem possible.

[Astrophotographer]

Quote:

Originally posted by Thomas

One question concerning that story about the parked aircraft: Is that the Star SAFIRE II, or Star SAFIRE III?

The SAFIRE III is quite aggressive compared to the SAFIRE II. For one thing, it holds twice the sensor resolution.

Good question and difficult to answer. However, this webpage indicates the star safire II was the one often used on P-3s. This appears to have been the AN/AAQ-22.

The previous article quoted was about operations in 1998. Was the Safire III available then? As best I can tell, it was not developed until 2003. Based on this information, it seems they had the star safire II.

[Thomas]

I will make a homepage with all the relevant data and theories, I will of course encourage you all to contribute with what you can to this site when it is finished.
This just might take a couple of days, because I run my own company, and this UFO case have stalled certain things already, mainly because I find it most interesting. However, I will make the homepage ASAP.

When the homepage is done, it's the plan to send a link to all sorts of scientists and researchers and ask them for their opinion, I've seen a lot a of good questions in here, especially those concerning the temperatures of gas flames. When the homepage is done, I'll ask Andrew Griffin the exact same questions and give him the link. If any of you have anything further to contribute to the questions for FLIR Systems, please post them in here, but be aware, that I'm not gonna send him 10+ questions. He have a job to do just like the rest of us, and I already know that other researchers are querying FLIR Systems aswell - at some point they're gonna stop answering if we don't take it easy.

Quote:

Originally posted by Wipeout
I feel that a small aircraft takes care of the first object, oil-flares take care of the next eleven

Well, feelings is not good enough, you're on a skeptics forum, here evidence is the issue, and all you've presented so far is anecdotal evidence and assumptions. I'm not saying your assumptions are wrong, but the only way we can find out is by collecting the relevant evidence.
When I hear a certain theory, I will try to falsify it by default, and I don't care if it's concerning UFO's, ghosts or dowsing rods. That's the only way we can find out if it's just remotely true when all the claims are based on assumptions and anecdotal evidence.

I'm still a tabula rasa.

[Thomas]

Quote:

Originally posted by Astrophotographer
If this "opinion" is fairly accurate, then seeing these high temperature flames from a distance of over 40nm would seem possible.

True, that's why I'm gonna ask Griffin what he thinks about those opinions. Let me know if you think there's any further questions relevant to these issues. I want to gather a few good questions in my next mail to him. I want to avoid spamming, and I think my 'questions-for-FLIR' account is already running low to be quite frank.

[SquishyDave]

Don't get me wrong Thomas, as soon as the oil flare theory can be **** on I will let it go, I just thought you discounted it without adequate evidence. We seem to be getting two contradictary points about what the camera can actually do, as soon as one or the other point is shown to be true we will be in a better position to count in or out the flares.

[Thomas]

Quote:

Originally posted by SquishyDave
Don't get me wrong Thomas, as soon as the oil flare theory can be **** on I will let it go, I just thought you discounted it without adequate evidence.

I'm not discounting it, I'm just trying to falsify it to see if it fits

We've already had to add several things to the equation to make it fit: Light airplanes, aircraft tilt in several diffrent directions, additional heat sources in the north bound direction (point D) and additional heat sources in the Carmen direction (point A and E) which are detectable almost beyond horizon level (230 km(point E)) and additional heat sources in the Checubul direction (point B and C).

We're talking three diffrent heat sources, and the airplane would furthermore have to be tilted in exactly that direction each time. Plausible? Well, I dont know. But I cant help smiling a little bit when I think about that scenario. If thats correct, the aircrew is a bunch of clowns.

I'm curious about what the next addition to the equation will be due to the explanaition of the radar signals. One of my good friends suggested extremely high chimneys on wheels to make life easier for Santa Claus

[SquishyDave]

Quote:

Originally posted by Thomas

I'm not discounting it, I'm just trying to falsify it to see if it fits

We've already had to add several things to the equation to make it fit: Light airplanes, aircraft tilt in several diffrent directions, additional heat sources in the north bound direction (point D) and additional heat sources in the Carmen area (point A and E) which are detectable almost beyond horizon level (230 km(point E)) and additional heat sources in the Checubul area (point B and C).

I'm curious about what the next addition to the equation will be due to the explanaition of the radar signals. One of my good friends suggested extremely high chimneys on wheels to make life easier for Santa Claus

Sure we have to add things, like heat sources in an oil rig field, and heat sources in a populated area, a plane near an airstrip, and a plane tilting, but none of these, even put together, seem to be as big of a leap as say, other worldly craft, or some special never before seen atmospheric condition.

A coincidence of several normal happenings seems more likely than one extremely abnormal happening, surely.

[Thomas]

Quote:

Originally posted by SquishyDave
A coincidence of several normal happenings seems more likely than one extremely abnormal happening, surely.

True, but we're talking quite an amount of diffrent coincidences almost happening at the same time here. These guys are trained to seperate ground objects from airborne objects, and do it on a daily basis. That's the core of their job. If they failed so dramatically as to believe three diffrent grounded heat sources, in three diffrent directions, to be airborne, they should apply for a job at the local McDonalds instead. The same goes for the SEDENA researchers.

The aircraft tilt in several diffrent directions is quite an amusing scenario, because they actually stayed on course in a straight line from point A to point B. So they must have tilted left and right and up and down several times. I bet the Major had a bottle of tequilla stacked under the seat.

[SquishyDave]

Quote:

Originally posted by Thomas

True, but we're talking quite an amount of diffrent coincidences almost happening at the same time here. These guys are trained to seperate ground objects from airborne objects, and do it on a daily basis. That's the core of their job. If they failed so dramatically as to believe three diffrent grounded heat sources, in three diffrent directions, to be airborne, they should apply for a job at the local McDonalds instead.

The aircraft tilt in several diffrent directions is quite an amusing scenario, because they actually stayed on course in a straight line from point A to point B. So they must have tilted back and forth and up and down several times. I bet the Major had a bottle of tequilla stacked under the seat.

The aircraft doesn't really have to tilt, depending on what altitude it was the horizon is just there, out the side.

BAH! This is pointless until we get more data, which seems harder than it should be. I'm impatient, I want to know NOW.

[Thomas]

Quote:

Originally posted by SquishyDave
The aircraft doesn't really have to tilt, depending on what altitude it was the horizon is just there, out the side.

The altitude was approximately 3.5 km, that means the distance to the horizon is approx. 230 km. If the operator are looking straight ahead with the FLIR, he'll look above horizon level. So no, that's why the Major is asking the FLIR operator if the camera is looking straight ahead if you read the transcript. Also, the camera is looking above its own elevation 0 level while having the objects centrered, so that indeed means the aircraft would have to be tilted for these objects to be grounded.

Quote:

BAH! This is pointless until we get more data, which seems harder than it should be. I'm impatient, I want to know NOW.

Exactly, that's why I wanna collect more evidence, I cant even imagine how many times I have said that word in this thread already.

Infact, I think impatience is the basis for most of the theories I've seen so far. People are spaying out theories in all directions to 'be-the-one-who-solved-the-mystery' no matter how many facts they have to modify.

So many theories based on a very small amount of data.

[Patricio Elicer]

Quote:

Originally posted by Thomas
Infact, I think impatience is the basis for most of the theories I've seen so far. People are spaying out theories in all directions to 'be-the-one-who-solved-the-mystery' no matter how many facts they have to modify.

I admit to be a bit impatient to see the puzzle solved soon. I'm not in favor of any theory in particular, just to find the truth and a reasonable explanation to the case

I agree with you that impatience can betray our sense of judgement. We often criticize believers for their propensity to jump to conclusions without sufficient scrutiny and evidence. Don't let this happen to us.

On a side note, I just reviewed the video once more a while ago, and I noticed an element that adds to the mystery. In the two groups of three lights with almost identical configurations, the last light of the first group (from right to left) clearly split in two at the end of the segment. Odd

[wipeout]

The aircraft only has to tilt a couple of degrees. That's a tiny amount. It would hardly be noticeable to the aircrew and may be the result of coping with a crosswind. We also don't know how accurate the elevation reading of the infrared camera is anyway. It may only be precise to a couple of degrees.

There is also the possible refraction-effect of the atmosphere to consider as well. The position of the sun in the sky at sunrise and sunset is not where you would see the sun if you could suddenly remove the atmosphere. Long-range optical effects could be important in this case too.

Anyway, whatever. For me, the camera elevation is very, very close to pointing at the horizon, so that's good enough.

[Patricio Elicer]

Just a quick note. If any of you want to download the "official" video to your hard drive, and doesn't know how to do it or where to find it, it is here http://www.aliensthetruth.com/movies...irforceufo.zip

[SquishyDave]

Hey I'll admit it, I'm leaning in favour of the oil flare at this stage, but I will of course drop it the instance some nice hard facts dispute it.

Now listen, this is important. Just coz I'm skeptic doesn't mean I don't get an opinion based on little to no facts, it just means I have to drop that opinion when more facts come along.

[Patricio Elicer]

Quote:

Originally posted by wipeout
The aircraft only has to tilt a couple of degrees. That's a tiny amount. It would hardly be noticeable to the aircrew and may be the result of coping with a crosswind. We also don't know how accurate the elevation reading of the infrared camera is anyway. It may only be precise to a couple of degrees.

There's also the "angle of attack" (or whatever it is called in English ) in every airplane, which means that the longitudinal axis is permanently tilted in flight. I don't know by how much, but it may have a bit a an influence in the camera to be tilted as well.

[Thomas]

Quote:

Originally posted by SquishyDave
Now listen, this is important. Just coz I'm skeptic doesn't mean I don't get an opinion based on little to no facts, it just means I have to drop that opinion when more facts come along.

And how many facts would you agree to modify to make the theory fit with the assumptions? 10? 50? x?

I have recieved a comprehensive letter from Julio Herrera, and the funny thing is Patricio, that it's in A-grade english.
Infact, the first thing he writes, is that he's fluent in english and I dont need to bother with translations

Thanks for the translation anyway, I'll make a summary of the letter tomorrow.

[Thomas]

Quote:

Originally posted by Patricio Elicer
There's also the "angle of attack" (or whatever it is called in English ) in every airplane, which means that the longitudinal axis is permanently tilted in flight. I don't know by how much, but it may have a bit a an influence in the camera to be tilted as well.

Angle-of-attack would make the airplane tilt the wrong way. So if we add that to the equation, the airplane have to be tilted even further.

[Patricio Elicer]

Wow!,.... that's cool news, Thomas. I'm really looking forward to see what Dr. Herrera has to say about the whole affair.

It's not a surprising thing that he is fluent in English (I guess you sent him the letter in both, the Spanish and English versions?). He probably completed his post-graduate studies in the US?, at least this is the case with most of Chilean high-ranked scientists.

[SquishyDave]

Quote:

Originally posted by Thomas

And how many facts would you agree to modify to make the theory fit with the assumptions? 10? 50? x?

Whoa steady on, as far as I know, I haven't modified any facts, we just don't have enough to discount any of the theories yet, and I'm just saying which theory I think is the most likely based on the facts we do have.

I'm gonna give you benifit of the doubt here and assume you didn't mean I will stick to the old oil flare theory no matter what facts come to light.

[Patricio Elicer]

Quote:

Originally posted by Thomas
Angle-of-attack would make the airplane tilt the wrong way. So if we add that to the equation, the airplane have to be tilted even further.

Well, I havent' put much thinking on this, but my impression is that if the plane steadly flies with its nose up (upper that the back), AND the camera azimuth is around -140º (that is, pointing to the back-left of the airplane), AND the camera elevation marker is close to 0º, then the camera should be pointing downwards to a certain extent.

[Thomas]

Quote:

Originally posted by Patricio Elicer
Well, I havent' put much thinking on this, but my impression is that if the plane steadly flies with its nose up (upper that the back), AND the camera azimuth is around -140º (that is, pointing to the back-left of the airplane), AND the camera elevation marker is close to 0º, then the camera should be pointing downwards to a certain extent.

True, I forgot that this wasn't a jetfighter, they lean forward during high speed to suppress the angle-of-attack.
One of the things I'm gonna ask Griffin about in the next mail, is what the elevation scale on the FLIR monitor is relative to. Then we can get that cleared up once and for all.

[Thomas]

Quote:

Originally posted by SquishyDave
Whoa steady on, as far as I know, I haven't modified any facts, we just don't have enough to discount any of the theories yet, and I'm just saying which theory I think is the most likely based on the facts we do have.

I'm not saying that you have modified any of the facts, just that several of the given facts already have been modified to make the oilflare-theory fit.

[Archangel]

Quote:

Originally posted by wipeout
[b]

One thing that no one seems to have thought about, unless the day was really still how can anything similar to the above, turn into
which dont seem to deviate from a roughly spherical shape.

[wipeout]

Quote:

Originally posted by Patricio Elicer There's also the "angle of attack" (or whatever it is called in English ) in every airplane, which means that the longitudinal axis is permanently tilted in flight. I don't know by how much, but it may have a bit a an influence in the camera to be tilted as well.

That's a good idea. I'd forgotten about that as I hadn't given a whole lot of thought to how the aircraft is flying because all that mattered to me is that the camera was roughly towards the horizon, and it's never more than 3 degrees above that when pointing at the objects in the relevant footage I've seen.

Quote:

Well, I havent' put much thinking on this, but my impression is that if the plane steadly flies with its nose up (upper that the back), AND the camera azimuth is around -140º (that is, pointing to the back-left of the airplane), AND the camera elevation marker is close to 0º, then the camera should be pointing downwards to a certain extent.

Also, when the camera is pointing at around -90 degrees (at times 2:18 to 2:39 in the video clip) the camera is pointing leftwards and the angle of attack would no longer be having an effect, the camera elevation is -1 to -2 degrees!

That fits the angle of attack idea well and supports my earlier suggestion of slight aircraft tilt to allow the objects to be ground objects as the camera elevation is just above and below zero when you'd expect it could be from angle of attack alone.

So the aircraft tilt and positive camera elevation could be completely explained simply by your idea about the aircraft's angle of attack.

Good work.

[Thomas]

Quote:

Originally posted by wipeout
Also, when the camera is pointing at around -90 degrees (at times 2:18 to 2:39 in the video clip) the camera is pointing leftwards and the angle of attack would no longer be having an effect, the camera elevation is -1 to -2 degrees!

Within anything-goes, I guess I'm as entitled as you to make unsubstantiated claims. So now I'm gonna say that the aircraft actually tilted to the right when that footage was shot. Prove me wrong.

Quote:

That fits the angle of attack idea well and supports my earlier suggestion of slight aircraft tilt to allow the objects to be ground objects as the camera elevation is just above and below zero when you'd expect it could be from angle of attack alone.

So the aircraft tilt and positive camera elevation could be completely explained simply by your idea about the aircraft's angle of attack.

Modern aircrafts use flaps to equalize the AoA, thus keep the airplane straight. In 1903 when the Wright brothers became airborne, that would have been true. Today, only extreme-high-speed jetfighters have a hard time equalizing AoA with flaps.

Two questions:

1) Within the oilflare theory, how would you explain that one of the "flares" in point C clearly splits in two and then seperates, as Patricio pointed out?

2) What is the resemblance between the two pictures Archangel posted. On one picture the shape is elliptical on the horizontal angle, on the other they are elliptical on the vertical angle?

(I'll be back later with the summary of Dr. Herrera's letter)

[wipeout]

Quote:

Within anything-goes, I guess I'm as entitled as you to make unsubstantiated claims. So now I'm gonna say that the aircraft actually tilted to the right when that footage was shot. Prove me wrong.

Now you're just arguing for argument's sake.

I prefer to assume a simple explanation that uses only a few reliable pieces of evidence and to consider all other pieces of evidence to be suspect, rather than to make the theory fit all the evidence by suggesting improbable phenomena like invisible ball-lightning, invisible stealth aircraft, etc. as I've seen a lot of people do, including yourself.

It's more likely that some of the evidence is unreliable than these phenomena are running around up there.

Quote:

1) Within the oilflare theory, how would you explain that one of the "flares" in point C clearly splits in two and then seperates, as Patricio pointed out?

The infrared source dims as well as apparently splits in two. I don't know enough about oil-chimneys or rigs or their arrangement to say why that is.

Quote:

2) What is the resemblance between the two pictures Archangel posted. On one picture the shape is elliptical on the horizontal angle, on the other they are elliptical on the vertical angle?

Again, I don't know what the oil-facilities might be able to produce in terms of shape of flare. They may not be chimneys, but something else oil-flare related.

[FutileJester]

Regarding angle of attack (and that is the correct English term, by the way). With a very few, transitory exceptions, every plane always flies with some poisitive angle of attack all the time. This is the angle between the relative wind (direction of flight) and the chord line of the wings. Note that if the plane is descending, the attitude of the plane may be nose-down relative to the horizon, but it is necessarily still nose-up relative to the (descending) flight path.

AoA varies from almost zero to about 18 degrees or so (the onset of aerodynamic stall) for most planes. A minor caveat is that the axis of the airplane may be slightly angled relative to the chord line of the wings, so that the airplane appears level when in cruise flight with an AoA of a degree or two.

Quote:

Originally posted by Thomas
Modern aircrafts use flaps to equalize the AoA, thus keep the airplane straight. In 1903 when the Wright brothers became airborne, that would have been true. Today, only extreme-high-speed jetfighters have a hard time equalizing AoA with flaps.

Flaps have nothing to do with equalizing (?) AoA. Any plane, flaps or not, is flying at a constant AoA if the airspeed is constant. In fact keeping the AoA constant is a great deal of what learning to fly straight-and-level is all about. The flaps are used (mostly) for landing. They reconfigure the wings for more lift and more drag, which also effectively lowers the stall speed. This allows an airplane to land at slower, safer speeds.

[wipeout]

Thanks for that information, FutileJester.

Quote:

A minor caveat is that the axis of the airplane may be slightly angled relative to the chord line of the wings, so that the airplane appears level when in cruise flight with an AoA of a degree or two.

I see. So depending on the aircraft, AoA may or may not be the explanation for the slight camera elevation of a couple of degrees when the camera is looking backwards at what may be an object at or close to the horizon.

[FutileJester]

Quote:

Originally posted by wipeout
I see. So depending on the aircraft, AoA may or may not be the explanation for the slight camera elevation of a couple of degrees when the camera is looking backwards at what may be an object at or close to the horizon.

Yep, just too many unknowns to say for sure. FWIW, low angles of attack are typical for fast and reasonably fuel-efficent level cruising. One might choose a higher angle of attack for better efficiency at lower speeds. I understand this is a common tactic for surveillance aircraft patrolling a fixed area, as it gives the maximum time on station for a given amount of fuel.

[Thomas]

Quote:

Originally posted by wipeout
Now you're just arguing for argument's sake.

I'm just trying to show you that anything is possible with assumptions. I could prove the existence of the easter bunny or Santa Claus if I gave assumptions any credit.
I must admit that I dont think you care much for looking in other directions than in that of oilflares. Atleast I have not seen any examples of it since you first proposed that theory.
Believe me, if the oilflare theory was proven right, I would have the laugh of a lifetime, and you would soon be able to find modified pictures of the pilots on the net wearing clown noses and funny hats

Quote:

I prefer to assume a simple explanation that uses only a few reliable pieces of evidence and to consider all other pieces of evidence to be suspect, rather than to make the theory fit all the evidence by suggesting improbable phenomena like invisible ball-lightning, invisible stealth aircraft, etc. as I've seen a lot of people do, including yourself.

I have suggested several diffrent theories as possible explanations yes, including the oilflare theory, but as soon as the equations began to be stacked up with assumptions-verifying-assumptions, I tried looking in other directions and started to collect data from various relevant sources to verify/falsify the assumptions.

I want a simple explanation to this phenomenon as well, and I actually rate the oilflare theory higher than many of the others I've heard. However, status quo is that we dont have that much data to juggle with, thus I will try to falsify as many of the assumptions as possible, because building assumptions-on-assumptions can easily run out of order and thus prove anything.

Quote:

It's more likely that some of the evidence is unreliable than these phenomena are running around up there.

That's what SEDENA thought aswell, so the first thing they did was to run a series of tests on the equipment. No malfunctions were detected.
Let's hope for the simple explanation, but as things look now, I dont find that the oilflare theory is simple at all, there are too many abnormal coincidences happening at once. Calling it a simple explanation is out of proportions. I personally call it "the theory of mixed events" at this stage, because that's what it is.

Dont take to my falsification search as personal attacks, I'm not after you, I'm after the theory, hence the truth about this phenomenon.

[Thomas]

Quote:

Originally posted by FutileJester
Flaps have nothing to do with equalizing (?) AoA.

I have a friend who designs software emulated windtunnels and aerodynamic enviroments in general, atleast that's what he claims, I have never met him in person. I asked him about AoA and straight cruising this morning on MSN, he said that it differs from airplane to airplane, and that many modern airplanes used flaps to equalize AoA. Then he send me this diagram. What do you make of that?

I suppose equalize may be the wrong term to use in that sentence though, adjust is merely a better description.

Just one thing, I have for natural reasons never tried this myself, but if you release a tennis ball in the hallway of a Boeing 747 for example, would it then roll in the opposite direction of the heading because of AoA?

[FutileJester]

Quote:

Originally posted by Thomas

I have a friend who designs software emulated windtunnels and aerodynamic enviroments in general, I asked him about AoA and straight cruising this morning on MSN, he said that it differs from airplane to airplane, and that many modern airplanes used flaps to equalize AoA. Then he send me this diagram. What do you make of that?

I guess I'm unsure what the term equalize means in this context. Certainly, if you try to do the same maneuver once with flaps and once without, you will have to use different angles of attack. And the range of allowable angles of attack is slightly different with and without flaps, as your friend's graph shows. But flaps are not used to correct some issue with managing angle of attack.

In particular, you basically never use flaps in cruise flight, or even in ascents and descents. Flaps increase drag, and lower the top speed considerably. The bonus is that they increase lift and also lower the stall speed, so you can fly slower. You only want this when you're landing and in a few other special cases (like short-field takeoffs).

In short, a pilot is always maintaining angle of attack at all times in flight (usually keeping it constant). Flaps change the aerodynamics of the plane and affect the specific AoA chosen by the pilot, but they don't assist or hinder the pilot in maintaining an AoA at all.

[FutileJester]

Quote:

Originally posted by Thomas
I suppose equalize may be the wrong term to use in that sentence though, adjust is merely a better description.

Ah, caught this edit addition after I had posted. Okay, I can agree that flaps alter which AoA must be used for a given result. But it is also true that flaps aren't used to manage AoA, that's all stick and trim.

Quote:

Just one thing, I have for natural reasons never tried this myself, but if you release a tennis ball in the hallway of a Boeing 747 for example, would it then roll in the opposite direction of the heading because of AoA?

Probably not, because the designers usually set the plane fuselage at a small angle to the wings so that the fuselage is level when the plane is in normal cruise flight with a small AoA (measured against the wings). In a hypothetical plane with the wing chord line exactly parallel to the longitudinal axis of the plane, the ball would always roll from nose to tail in level flight because of AoA.

edited to add: I should mention that pilots don't always think in terms of angle of attack, largely because civilian aircraft don't have AoA indicators. They think more in terms of airspeed, which is basically the same thing if you take a few extra things into account. In fact this is one of the tough things for new pilots to understand, that the stick is used to set your speed and the throttle is used to control ascent and descent; most people intuitively feel it should be the other way around.

[Patricio Elicer]

Quote:

Originally posted by Thomas
thus I will try to falsify as many of the assumptions as possible, because building assumptions-on-assumptions can easily run out of order and thus prove anything.

A healthy measure, indeed

[wipeout]

Quote:

Originally posted by Thomas I must admit that I dont think you care much for looking in other directions than in that of oilflares. Atleast I have not seen any examples of it since you first proposed that theory.

That's simply because I remain deeply unimpressed by all the other theories put forward for the main sighting of 11 infrared sources.

Quite frankly, given some of the deeply unlikely theories dedicated skeptics and UFO believers have produced, I'm seriously wondering what the hell people are smoking.

Quote:

Believe me, if the oilflare theory was proven right, I would have the laugh of a lifetime, and you would soon be able to find modified pictures of the pilots on the net wearing clown noses and funny hats

I can and will change my beliefs if the evidence gives me reason to, as I when I changed my belief about the first object seen from 16:42:44 to 16:59:36 possibly being a radar error once I learned from the aircrew transcript it had infrared as well and traveled at aircraft speeds in a straight line between two places with runways, appearing near one and disappearing at the other.

That the aircrew, the official investigation and ufologists apparently include what is very obviously simply another aircraft as if it was a UFO means I'm holding some beliefs about these people too right now....

Quote:

Let's hope for the simple explanation, but as things look now, I dont find that the oilflare theory is simple at all, there are too many abnormal coincidences happening at once. Calling it a simple explanation is out of proportions. I personally call it "the theory of mixed events" at this stage, because that's what it is.

My theory is not that complex:

A plane draws the aircrew's attention to a city near the horizon with oil-facilities nearby, then they mistake the heat sources from oil-flares there and in other places in the Campeche region as being flying objects like the airplane was.

The only question for me is what are the later erratic radar signals which I think were never filmed. They might simply be errors or false readings of some sort.

Quote:

Dont take to my falsification search as personal attacks, I'm not after you, I'm after the theory, hence the truth about this phenomenon.

More than anything, I am mystified why anyone kept looking for alternative causes for the infrared objects once they knew the area was covered in oil-flares.