Mexican Airforce films UFOs

[Thomas]

Quote:

Originally posted by wipeout
I don't think the good Captain has been reading us. I can tell from a few things he says.

He have stolen your theory Wipeout! Sue him!

[Thomas]

quote/edit mistake

[wipeout]

Quote:

Originally posted by Thomas

He have stolen your theory Wipeout! Sue him!

No! He's too useful to my cause.

[wipeout]

Quote:

Originally posted by Thomas
Yea, and many interesting contra-arguments that I hadn't even thought about aswell:

http://www.virtuallystrange.net/ufo/.../m27-015.shtml (hehe)

Well, that would explain the erratic radar signals as well...

Quote:

Very incompetent aircrew, dysfunctional radar, psychic FLIR equipment etc. etc., we know the story already.

Maybe the radar malfunctioned because some of the ball-lightning hit it...

[Thomas]

Quote:

Originally posted by wipeout
Maybe the radar malfunctioned because some of the ball-lightning hit it...

Actually, I have just stumbled over an interview with Alberto Hernandez Unzon, a very interesting interview. It goes like this:

Quote:

These are the statements made by Alberto Hernandez Unzon
yesterday, during an interview on television about the Mexican
Air Force UFO case.

Engineer in Geophysics Alberto Hernandez is sub-manager of the
National Meteorological Services, Mexico's official
meteorological center. He is also a Member of the Scientific
Advisory Comitee of the National System for Civil Protection,
and Member of the Hurricane Committee of the Worldwide
Meteorological Association.


Question: Alberto, you made the National Meteorological Service's
complete study of the March 5, 2004 meteorological conditions
over the Campeche area. What are the results?

Answer: According to the satellite images, the conditions
registered in the observatories and the satellite RADAR images,
there were stable conditions in the entire Campeche zone. In the
specific area of interest in this issue, there were cloud
formations and some stratus clouds that are stable conditions for
this season.

There were no rains registered and the cloud type was very
stable as we can see in these satellite images and the Air Force
video.

Question: There have been some statements pointing that there
were flash-lightning conditions in the area at that time. What
were the conditions at that time?

Answer: Meteorologically speaking, a lightning flash is of a
short duration and short intensity. That's the basic definition.
We have all witnessed an electrical storm at sometime. Special
conditions are required for an electrical storm - big, vertical
clouds and a completely unstable atmosphere, ionization in the
atmosphere and the meteorological systems that create that type
of cloud.

Question: That means that the meteorological conditions were not
suitable for lightning that day over Campeche and therefore
contradicts what the UNAM scientists claimed in their report?

Answer: Yes. On March 5, we were entering into the final stage
of the winter season. The meteorological conditions in this
season are of cold fronts but that day in particular there were
none present. What we had were the type of clouds that do not
cause the flash phenomena.

Question: Did the scientists from the UNAM approach the National
Meteorological Services to request the meteorological conditions
over Campeche to support their theory?

Answer: No, they have never approached us at any time. If they
are talking about a meteorological phenomena at that location,
they should have met with us at the National Meteorological
Services to obtain the meteorological conditions just like your
team, as well as journalists did.

There were no weather ballons sent up in that area.

Question: What's the duration of a flash of lightning.

Answer: A flash lasts microseconds. We cannot talk even of one
or two seconds because it's just a single discharge. To say that
these lights on the video are ball lighting or electrical sparks
is nonsense.

I repeat, that day there were no meteorological conditions for
flash or ball lightning in the entire Campeche area. The clouds
must have been at approximately 7 kilometers high therefore what
we see are stable stratus cloud formations.

Question: What could we be seeing here in this video.

Answer: If this is an optical phenomenon it cannot be refered to
Meteorology. It is not a photo meteor, it is not a litho meteor.
They are not ice crystals nor a St. Elmo's fire. Those are all
meteorological phenomena. And this is not a mirage phenomena.

In conclusion, we do not have an explanation to this phenomena.
There are satellites Aqua and Terra and we can request NASA to
send us images of that day to continue this study and get more
information to try to find out what could have happened that
day.

That's indeed good research. This is the first objection I have seen against Herrera's ball lightning-theory, and it means that I will now reject it too.
However, I still find that the oilflare-theory patronizes the SEDENA staff, and calls for way too many modifications of the given facts. I'm a tabula rasa right now.

Here is another interview, with Gilberto Rocha, a FLIR representative of Mexico:

Quote:

As part of the investigation, the FLIR representative for
Mexico, Mr. Gilberto Rocha, was interviewed by Jaime Maussan
regarding the images recorded by the FLIR STAR SAFIRE II aboard
the Mexican Air Force Merlin airplane during the March 5, 2004
incident over the Campeche area.

NOTE: The comments and opinions expresed by Mr. Gilberto Rocha
are his own, based on his experience and knowledge of the FLIR
STAR SAFIRE II operational functions and do not necesarely
represent FLIR Systems, Inc.'s opinion and points of view.

Question: Mr. Rocha, you just have reviewed some images recorded
by the Air Force during an anti-narcotics operation over
Campeche on March 5, 2004. What is your opinion about them?

Answer: These are interesting images because they are not
common. I will try to explain myself. The human eye perceives
certain light frequencies that the sun emits. Beyond these
frequencies the human eye doesn't have the capacity to perceive
those images. The infrared source or the infrared rays can only
be detected with the FLIR or with special cameras that can
detect infrared radiation.

The equipment the Air Force is using has the capacity to detect
visible images and infrared images. The images that we saw from
the Air Force footage correspond to objects that emit
temperature - they are emitting heat and they are emitting
radiation to the exterior and the camera is reading this.

These images may have low resolution because of the distance
that we are measuring, but represent round-shaped objects that
cannot be compared to any known object that we have been looking
for in our air space.

Question: Could these have been any kind of conventional
aircraft?

Answer. No, because conventional aircraft have very well defined
temperature in their turbines and in front where friction is
registered, therefore they could not be seen as rounded lights.

If we haa a closer image of the objects, perhaps we could have a
better definition of the shape of these objects but due to the
information we have, these objects are round-shaped and we
cannot consider them as airplanes.

Question: Any posibility of the objects being a helicopter?

Answer: No, it's the same case: the turbine and blades would be
the point of highest temperature defining the shape of the
helicopter and it would be always a known shape not a round-
shaped object.

Question: If these objects are not any known aircraft what do
you think they are?

Answer: In the strict sense of the word, avoiding any distortion
or confusion, these are objects that fly and we can not identify.

Question: Is it posible that the FLIR could have been giving us
false information, that these high temperature readings were
non-existent?

Answer: Negative, because in the images we are seeing clouds
that have a higher temperature than the ambient average
temperature, and we can see the cloud silhouettes because the
FLIR is detecting their infrared frequency.

The objects that we are seeing are the points of higest
temperature there. Personally, I have never seen anything like
this. My experience with these cameras is completely industrial,
we analyse a whole variety of industrial appliances as well as
for the electrical industry, but for me the case of the Mexican
Air Force is very unusual.

I'm vexed by this phenomena, I have yet to see any plausible theory. One theory just gets rejected after the other, with plausible arguments. This is indeed an interesting case!

[Patricio Elicer]

Quote:

Originally posted by Thomas
Yea, and many interesting contra-arguments that I hadn't even thought about aswell:

http://www.virtuallystrange.net/ufo/.../m27-019.shtml
http://www.virtuallystrange.net/ufo/.../m27-021.shtml
http://www.virtuallystrange.net/ufo/.../m27-015.shtml (hehe)

Very incompetent aircrew, dysfunctional radar, psychic FLIR equipment etc. etc., we know the story already.

A counter-argument to the "oil flare theory", from one of your links:

Quote:

Alejandro,

And are we to suppose that the Mexican air crew had not the
slightest idea that the oil field excess-gas-burning fires were
out there?

I agree that this is one of the main obstacles to wipeout's hypothesis, and that's why I asked SEDENA whether they had observed such phenomena before.

But,.... we tend to think of military personnel as tough and cold people, prepared to face "everything", and we often forget that they are human beings like everyone of us. From their first hand conversation in Spanish, I can tell that those guys were very excited and scared of what they were seeing. There was a collective panic running at the moment, ground personnel included. From memory I can recall at least 5 examples of their excitement: "Oh my God, what, what.. is that?";...; "Look for what is behind us!";...;"Oh oh, amazing!";...; Are you surrounded?;...;"Fasten your seats belts!"

To my knowledge, the Mexican Air Force has been silent about the whole affair since the day they handed the video over to Jaime Maussán, except for the interviews the pilots gave to the press. I wonder if such silence is motivated by a kind of embarrasement, rather than by a lack of a reasonable explanation of the event.

Also, I wonder if they will ever reply to my email.

[Thomas]

Quote:

Originally posted by Patricio Elicer
But,.... we tend to think of military personnel as tough and cold people, prepared to face "everything", and we often forget that they are human beings like everyone of us.

I don't trust subjective judgements at all, trust me, and I don't care who makes them - I have high ranking friends in the military and among respected scientists as well.
I'll trust RADAR and FLIR readings before I'll trust subjective judgements. That's why I want the data from SEDENA. I hope they will respond to your mail, otherwise I'll have to spam them. I want this phenomena solved as soon as possible, because the theories runs out-of-order if we don't get a reasonable solution to this soon.

One thing is that argument you mention, but I still have the RADAR and FLIR readings to settle. They don't fit with the oilflare theory at all.

[wipeout]

I e-mailed Capt. Alejandro Franz about our discussion here.

[Thomas]

Quote:

Originally posted by wipeout
I e-mailed Capt. Alejandro Franz about our discussion here.

Good, let's get as many perspectives in here as possible, although he ignored the objections from both Maccabee and Stanford. Maccabee is a well known UFO debunker by the way, and Stanford is a well known scientist.. No, this is not an appeal to authority, I'm just interested to know why he ignored the obvious objections?

[wipeout]

Interesting, Thomas. I very vaguely recalled their names from somewhere.

Scientist Ray Stanford dismisses the oil-flare theory on the basis of the infrared objects radar readings... but doesn't know that the aircrew said that the 11 infrared sources in the footage had no radar readings, and so could be near or far, airborne or on the ground.

And UFO debunker Bruce Maccabee offers proof that the objects are in the air by the camera elevation and the blank background of shaded cloud... but it seems not to have occured to him that the elevation might be relative to the aircraft and not the ground and the aircraft may be tilted very, very slightly as it flies, and also that the background is very likely blank ambient infrared of the atmosphere visible in other footage and not cloud at all.

Nope, they'll need to do better than that to exclude our oil-flare theory.

[Thomas]

Quote:

Originally posted by wipeout
Nope, they'll need to do better than that to exclude our oil-flare theory.

Ok, then explain this:

Quote:

Major Magdaleno Castañon, Command pilot
The closest distance that we had from the objects was 2 miles. Our experience tells us that we can identify conventional aircraft at that distance, so that's the doubt that operation left on us.

And this:

Quote:

Lieutenant German Ramirez Marin. (non-FLIR) RADAR operator.
Question: Were the objects big in size?

Answer: They were big, especially two of them that were closer to us.

And this:

Quote:

Question: The eleven targets appeared on the normal (non-infrared) RADAR ?

Answer. No. The eleven targets were not detected on the RADAR screen. Initially, only one target was detected by the RADAR. Then another target appeared at one 'o clock, that's how we describe the position that is in the front but slightly to our right. And then a third one in back of the plane. Those were the only three targets that appeared in the RADAR screen during the incident. The other ones that were at nine 'o clock, on our left side never appeared on the RADAR.

Flying oilflares?

I'm still waiting for the answers from SEDENA. Untill then I'm gonna stay a tabula rasa. I'm not gonna buy anything from Santa Claus to oilrigs untill I have solid evidence.

Also, the heat indications on the FLIR is way too big to be heat signatures 50-90 km away.. Actually, you can't even see heat signatures of the oilflare size 90 km away through the Star SAFIRE II. Not even flares 50 km away, only huge oil tankers will be detected.

Excuse me, but as Stanford said, some theories are just a waste of time. A pelican.

It may be right anyway, but everything so far, indeed contradicts it.

[wipeout]

Explain those? But I already have several times...

Point 1) The aircrew say that 11 infrared objects had no radar reading. So the 2 mile distant object was not one of the infrared objects. It was one of the 3 radar objects and as far as I know never filmed. It appears the aircrew are making the assumption that the 11 infrared objects are a similar distance away to the radar objects. The aircrew had no justification for making claim any of distance to the 11 infrared objects. They are just guessing.

Point 2) The aircrew talk about the two objects which "were closer to us" which shows they had a known distance and so were two of the 3 radar objects and not any of the 11 infrared objects. The aircrew had no justification for making claim any of size for the 11 infrared objects. Again, they are just guessing.

Point 3) This is just confirmation that the aircrew had 14 targets, 3 on radar and 11 on infrared. 3 of those targets were seen on radar and behaved bizarrely and erratically. They were behind (west), to the front (east) and to the front and right of the aircraft (east). 11 of those targets appeared on infrared and don't move relative to each other. They are in a group behind and left of the aircraft (northwest) and later to the left and/or behind.

I believe the 11 infrared objects were oil-flares. They shown no obvious movements of their own.

The 3 radar objects are unknowns, however. Could be false readings or some kind of fault to give such bizarre results.

The 11 objects on infrared and the 3 objects on radar behave in completely different ways. They really have nothing in common.

[Thomas]

Ok, so the aircrew just guessed 2 miles? Why not 5 miles? 20 or 50 miles?

Furthermore, the radar had a psychosis?

Before I'm gonna buy that they just guessed, and that the RADAR had a psychosis, and that the FLIR equipment is psychic beyond psysical capabilities. I wanna see what SEDENA has to say about this. Even if SEDENA don't answer, I'm still not gonna buy it.
Excuse me, but I'm not gonna conclude all of the above twists to support the oilflare theory.
Too many modifications of the given facts as I said already.

I'm still waiting to hear why Franz ignored the objections by Maccabee and Stanford. If he was a real scientist he would have answered to the objections already.

[Patricio Elicer]

Quote:

Originally posted by Thomas
That's why I want the data from SEDENA. I hope they will respond to your mail, otherwise I'll have to spam them. I want this phenomena solved as soon as possible, because the theories runs out-of-order if we don't get a reasonable solution to this soon.

I also want this puzzle completely solved to the satisfaction of everybody. I'd hate that it'd go swell the list of "unexplained" cases.

I'll wait till next Wed or so for a reply from SEDENA. If I don't get any by that time, I'll insist.

BTW, if you'd want to send a message of your own to SEDENA, I can translate it into Spanish for you. Just let me know.

[Patricio Elicer]

Quote:

Originally posted by Thomas
Good, let's get as many perspectives in here as possible, although he ignored the objections from both Maccabee and Stanford. Maccabee is a well known UFO debunker by the way, and Stanford is a well known scientist.. No, this is not an appeal to authority, I'm just interested to know why he ignored the obvious objections?

I can't tell Franz has ignored Mccabee and Standford objections, as yet. Both letters are dated May 27, just yesterday. Give the guy some time!

Quote:

Mccabee said
Also shown, but not mentioned by Fran, is the elevation, EL =
3, which implies a sighting line tilted upward.

I have reviewed the footage again quite a lot of times to try to figure out the meaning of that elevation marker in the screen.

Yes, I admit it is a bit of a struggle to do it, and I may very well be wrong, but I'm under the impression that the said marker does not indicate the camera sighting line or elevation. If you look closely, and pay a lot of attention, in some segments of the footage you will see the marker almost stuck at elevation 2 or so, while the camera wildly moves up and down (the clouds being a reference point). In general, seems to me that the marker movement does not correspond with the camera vertical movement.

[mummymonkey]

Quote:

Originally posted by Patricio Elicer
Yes, I admit it is a bit of a struggle to do it, and I may very well be wrong, but I'm under the impression that the said marker does not indicate the camera sighting line or elevation. If you look closely, and pay a lot of attention, in some segments of the footage you will see the marker almost stuck at elevation 2 or so, while the camera wildly moves up and down (the clouds being a reference point). In general, seems to me that the marker movement does not correspond with the camera vertical movement.

We went through this earlier in the thread Patricio. I believe the elevation indication is wrt to the aircraft. (It shows the camera's vertical deviation from the aircraft's datum line) Any apparent vertical movement of the objects can therefore be caused by

1. A commanded elevation adjustment of the IR equipment
2. A change in aircraft atitude
3. A real vertical movement of the objetcs

When the objects appear to move in elevation, and there is no change in the elevation marker, either option 2 or 3 would be the cause. As clouds don't move in the manner you describe, that leaves only option 2. When the camera is at high magnification, only a very small change in aircraft atitude would be needed to produce a large apparent vertical movement in the objects.

[Thomas]

Quote:

Originally posted by Patricio Elicer
I'll wait till next Wed or so for a reply from SEDENA. If I don't get any by that time, I'll insist.

BTW, if you'd want to send a message of your own to SEDENA, I can translate it into Spanish for you. Just let me know.

Ok, sounds like a plan, and thanks.

[Thomas]

Quote:

Originally posted by Patricio Elicer
I can't tell Franz has ignored Mccabee and Standford objections, as yet. Both letters are dated May 27, just yesterday. Give the guy some time!

Well, he published the theory the 27th, got the objections the same day. The day after, the 28th, he wrote another letter to the list, but never mentioned the objections at all. That's why I say he ignored them.

[wipeout]

Quote:

Originally posted by Thomas
Before I'm gonna buy that they just guessed, and that the RADAR had a psychosis, and that the FLIR equipment is psychic beyond psysical capabilities.

With no radar information on the objects on infrared, anything the aircrew say about size or distance is indeed just a guess, and I'm sure they would admit that.

And when a radar system tells me there are 3 huge invisible airborne objects a few miles away and they're bouncing around like giant fleas, I'd not trust those radar signals very much.

As to the infrared camera, I see aircraft lights every night up to 30 to 40 km away no problem, so an infrared camera seeing a very hot infrared source 50 to 100 km away at a similar angle through the atmosphere doesn't seem that improbable.

A strong source of light on a dark background is not very different to a strong source of infrared on a cool background.

But we've both said this before, so no more can be said on that unless we get new information.

[Thomas]

Giant fleas? Now, send that application to FLIR Systems Inc., you could make a fortune on your knowledge of infrared technology in that company. I'm sure they would pay you well for exposing that their technology can spot oilflares at 90 km distances, because that's no less than x4.5 of the 20 km's they blindly and ignorantly estimate themselves. Truly amazing!

[Thomas]

The last couple of days I have talked to a UFO researcher via email. We have exchanged data, and he have send me his analysis and his data collection of this phenomena. His paper on this is no less than 14 A4 pages long, and is far the most structured and comprehensive analysis I've seen of this phenomena so far. I have asked him for permission to publish his findings in here, however, he have asked me not to do that since he doesn't find that it is complete, and I will respect that wish.

I have yet to get an overview of the entire analysis because it contains quite an amount of data I haven't had the time to verify yet. He have contancted FLIR Systems like I did, and asked them some very good questions, furthermore he have contacted Maussan to get in touch with SEDENA through him.

I asked him to read this thread, and he wasn't exactly positive concerning the huge amount of theories based on very few details he saw in here.

However, since we can't be 100% sure that the objects isn't grounded, I have analyzed how these objects could be grounded based on the data we have so far:

If the altitude was 3.5 km, and the maximum distance for detecting oilflare sized heatsources is 20 km. This basically means that the objects would have to be within a radius of 19.6 km of the ground point where the airplane was. Furthermore they would have to look down at a maximum of 79.9 degrees.

So, it could be quite interesting to find out if there's any industry working with heat, in one way or the other, in the area of Escarcega city(?). This could be so many things that I don't even want to guess, because it would be no more than a wild guess ranging from trucks loaded with some sort of heat sources, to simple factories. However, it's a possiblity that shouldn't be excluded at this point. Although I personally find it highly unlikely based on the data granted by SEDENA so far.

Do anyone know of any industries working with extreme heat in the Escarcega area?

[Patricio Elicer]

Quote:

Originally posted by mummymonkey
We went through this earlier in the thread Patricio. I believe the elevation indication is wrt to the aircraft. (It shows the camera's vertical deviation from the aircraft's datum line)

Thanks, mummymonkey, I guess I must pay more attention .

Then, if the camera elevation marker is wrt the aircraft, then the only way for the camera to point at a ground based object AND for the screen elevation marker to be on the positives, is that the plane is significantly tilted. Am I right on this?. Don't tell me this has been discussed earlier!

[wipeout]

This thread has grown to such proportions that it's quite understandable if people miss bits.

I pointed out earlier that the plane would need to be flying tilted by a tiny amount (only couple of degrees) for the readings to make sense for ground objects on the horizon.

Something I didn't say was that the plane was flying eastwards but I think the aircrew said they were heading for Campeche which is well to the north, so even more of a tilt than a couple of degrees might well be intentional to turn leftwards.

I really must work out the aircraft's other locations and flight directions during the footage to try and confirm where it goes.

I should do a summary of all that's for and against my oil-flare theory.

[wipeout]

Quote:

Originally posted by Thomas The last couple of days I have talked to a UFO researcher via email. We have exchanged data, and he have send me his analysis and his data collection of this phenomena. His paper on this is no less than 14 A4 pages long, and is far the most structured and comprehensive analysis I've seen of this phenomena so far. I have asked him for permission to publish his findings in here, however, he have asked me not to do that since he doesn't find that it is complete, and I will respect that wish.

I have yet to get an overview of the entire analysis because it contains quite an amount of data I haven't had the time to verify yet. He have contancted FLIR Systems like I did, and asked them some very good questions, furthermore he have contacted Maussan to get in touch with SEDENA through him.

Very interesting. I've yet to hear back from Mr. Randi, Mr. Oberg or Captain Franz.

Quote:

I asked him to read this thread, and he wasn't exactly positive concerning the huge amount of theories based on very few details he saw in here.

However, since we can't be 100% sure that the objects isn't grounded, I have analyzed how these objects could be grounded based on the data we have so far:

If the altitude was 3.5 km, and the maximum distance for detecting oilflare sized heatsources is 20 km. This basically means that the objects would have to be within a radius of 19.6 km of the ground point where the airplane was. Furthermore they would have to look down at a maximum of 79.9 degrees.

So, it could be quite interesting to find out if there's any industry working with heat, in one way or the other, in the area of Escarcega city(?). This could be so many things that I don't even want to guess, because it would be no more than a wild guess ranging from trucks loaded with some sort of heat sources, to simple factories. However, it's a possiblity that shouldn't be excluded at this point. Although I personally find it highly unlikely based on the data granted by SEDENA so far.

Do anyone know of any industries working with extreme heat in the Escarcega area?

Escarcega is an interesting alternative ground-based theory, dependent on the aircraft having a much more severe tilt as it flies. I myself haven't pursued it because the aircraft seems to be flying in a straight line while it would have this tilt.

I worked out for aircraft location and direction of the camera, the closest objects to Escarcega would need to be 5 km to the southwest of it to be in line with the camera. So they'd be just outside what looks like a large town.

Also, there are actually 4 sources of infrared seen with the clear ground features in the footage. They look exactly like the "UFO" objects. I guess they must be around 5 to 15 km away but I don't know the location of the aircraft at that time. I will try and work that out.

This is 10 minutes before the main sighting. So the aircraft flew over something ground-based and very similar to the "UFOs" at one point.

There may be more oil-facilities to the eastern side of the huge lagoon, much nearer Escarcega. I've never ruled it out, just that the aircraft tilt would have tiny for distant objects and quite severe for ones as close as this, so I prefer the distant objects version. I said in an earlier post:

I believe it is something oil-industry related in this area that the camera is seeing. Could be at sea or on land, but somewhere around that map ...

I've never ruled out that it might be oil-related to the east side of the lagoon. We'd be talking about objects maybe 40 km away then if they were on the eastern coast of the lagoon.

Of course, you can have objects near Escarcega within 20km easily and then aircraft tilt is one of the potential problems.

[Thomas]

Quote:

Originally posted by wipeout
Of course, you can have objects near Escarcega within 20km easily and then aircraft tilt is one of the potential problems.

The irony is, that even if there was any potential heat sources in that area I would still be skeptic, and not at all convinced. But according to the calculations I have made based on the data we have so far, I believe that it's the only possibility to have grounded objects obtained by the FLIR.

I've seen another theory on another forum, concerning vortex rings. I have asked the guy who proposed that theory to elaborate on the heat indications and radar readings, still no answer - but so far it's interesting.
Another guy strongly believes that it was helium ballons, he just want give it up and support his claim with one picture of hot air ballons after the other - it's quite funny to read his (nonsense) arguments.

Anyway, I'm trying to sort this out with an american scientist from MUFON who have the original video, unedited, I could see that from his analysis because he uses timestamps beyond the videos we have. It's a mini DV recording converted to S-VHS. I'm of course trying to get a copy from him and I'm somewhere near the begging stage right now.
He told me that Maussan, actually, asked him to analyse it, and he agreed to do so if he got a copy of the original video - so there. From what I can read from his analysis, a coastline seems to appear at a certain point we don't have any recording of. I still haven't recieved an answer to my request, but he have been most helpful so far I must say, and this is despite that he's a UFO researcher who doesn't very much like skeptics. I must add to that, that he works in a highly scientific manner, and is very well educated, he's not the typical woowoo at all, it's actually kind of scary that he doesn't reject the existence of ET's - keep your fingers crossed people, from the analysis of the unpublished parts of this video, I think it could clear up a great deal.

[wipeout]

An unedited video? That would be very interesting even if it was just pictures from other parts of it.

[Thomas]

Quote:

Originally posted by wipeout
An unedited video? That would be very interesting even if it was just pictures from other parts of it.

Oh yes.. And it's more than 5 hours in duration

My primary request is the entire video, still frames must remain the second choice. If I get the entire video, it will still have to be shipped from Mexico or USA to here, Denmark, and when it arrives I will then have to convert it back to a digital format from a high quality VHS recorder. Then I will publish it on my FTP server.

If my request should be turned down, I will take advantage of Patricio's offer and write a polite email to SEDENA asking them for the original mini DV recording. They can easily place it on my FTP server since they already have it in avi/mpeg-format.
If SEDENA turn me down on this request, I will remind them, politely, that they put their reputation at risk if they only allow UFO advocates to see the original recording. But still, let's see what the answer to my request to the MUFON researcher will be first.

[wipeout]

Quote:

Originally posted by Thomas
Oh yes.. And it's more than 5 hours in duration

5 hours!

The incident itself was less then an hour, I think. I guess the 5 hours must be taking off, flying around, the incident, flying around some more and then landing.

I notice that no-one's ever said how the incident ends.... I don't know why.

[Kitty Chan]

wipeout, thomas et el

Thought I would let you know from my humble observation, that you guys are doing a marveleous job.

I keep checking to see how its going, like I said I cant help with the radar tech stuff but I will forward some sites on the "politics" of this.

JAIME MAUSSAN'S PRESS BRIEFING DOCUMENT
heres a article which mentions a "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"

The above article is on this page

http://www.ufoevidence.org/feature/MexicanAirForce.htm

Also on that page is a article on the Skeptics Counterattack, I wonder if they were given all the footage and info golden boy Jamie was.

The other article about the real issue says alot. Im not surprised that the footage is not their prime concern.

Rather "researchers here in Mexico our main interest in this
investigation is not the footage itself but the long awaited UFO
disclosure by our military institutions"

Oh yes, I can see that the military disclosure is more important than what they are disclosing.

Oh silly me . . . I forgot that way we can $tudy the$e ufo'$ far into the future!

[Thomas]

Quote:

Originally posted by wipeout
I notice that no-one's ever said how the incident ends.... I don't know why.

According to the papers I got here, it all ends as the lights fade out. The tape ends at 17:28:06.

There are several interesting points in these papers, especially that one of the lights moves in front of a cloud at a certain timestamp we don't have access to - for now. If that's correct, that rules out the ground-object theory once and for all.

[Thomas]

Quote:

Originally posted by Kitty Chan
Thought I would let you know from my humble observation, that you guys are doing a marveleous job.

Thank you, and just keep those excellent links coming

Quote:

Also on that page is a article on the Skeptics Counterattack, I wonder if they were given all the footage and info golden boy Jamie was.

As you might already know, Mexico is a country with daily supernatural and paranormal observations, and it's somewhat natural to the common Mexican and not considered a big deal. In the middle of this hypocrisy, Maussan is considered a hero. A valiant knight of the truth - he's very popular in Mexico. If SEDENA had granted the material to, say, Phillip Klass or Bernard Haisch instead, the majority of the mexican population would have shouted 'Conspiracy! Cover up!'.

I think this is why SEDENA gave the material to Maussan, and I don't think they sympathize with him at all, to be quite frank. I believe they want this case solved as much as we do, and they knew the skeptics would be over this case like hawks when they got Maussan to publish it. It's a win/win-situation for SEDENA no matter if they thought about it this way, or not

[Thomas]

I have recieved an answer from the MUFON researcher: He have been asked by Maussan not to copy the video.
However, he gave me Maussan's direct email address and adviced me to ask him myself.

I will compose a request for Maussan by tomorrow.

[wipeout]

Quote:

Originally posted by Kitty Chan
wipeout, thomas et el

Thought I would let you know from my humble observation, that you guys are doing a marveleous job.

Thank you. I think we have been going on a bit, though.

[Patricio Elicer]

Damn!!,... things don't look good, and I was holding my breath about that possibility. I think I can anticipate what Maussán's answer will be like

But in the end, it is SEDENA who holds the copyright for the tape, not Maussán, right?

I don't know if SEDENA has handed the video directly to other researchers, but I recall that scientists of the Universidad Autónoma de México (UNAM) said that they would formally ask SEDENA to give them the entire material. Julio Herrera is the UNAM scientist that made the statement if my memory serves. Maybe you should try contacting him as well?. Again, I can help with the English-Spanish translation.

In the worst of all scenarios, however, we will get the report of the UFO researcher sometime, right?. If you say he's a trusty person, so be it.

[wipeout]

Quote:

Originally posted by Thomas
I have recieved an answer from the MUFON researcher: He have been asked by Maussan not to copy the video.
However, he gave me Maussan's direct email address and adviced me to ask him myself.

I will compose a request for Maussan by tomorrow.

Cool. If he does not agree to make a copy available, then I'll be the one shouting "Conspiracy! Cover up!"

[Thomas]

Quote:

Originally posted by Patricio Elicer
Damn!!,... things don't look good, and I was holding my breath about that possibility. I think I can anticipate what Maussán's answer will be like

Yea, my hopes with Maussan are not too high either. Otherwise he would already have published the original version by now.

Quote:

But in the end, it is SEDENA who holds the copyright for the tape, not Maussán, right?

Not only do they hold the copyright, they also hold a mini DV format version they can easily send me over the net.

Quote:

I don't know if SEDENA has handed the video directly to other researchers, but I recall that scientists of the Universidad Autónoma de México (UNAM) said that they would formally ask SEDENA to give them the entire material. Julio Herrera is the UNAM scientist that made the statement if my memory serves. Maybe you should try contacting him as well?

I've already been searching for Herrera's email address a couple of times because I wanted the details of the ball lightning theory, but I can't find it anywhere. All those Spanish pages drives me nuts, and the altavista babel fish makes it worse. If you can find it for me it would be great.

Quote:

Again, I can help with the English-Spanish translation.

The relevance of this offer is increasing I must say.

Quote:

In the worst of all scenarios, however, we will get the report of the UFO researcher sometime, right?. If you say he's a trusty person, so be it.

He have told me he will publish it on his website as soon as he consider it done. But despite that I admire his methods and research skills, I can't be satisfied with second hand interpretations. Let fair be fair, MUFON will do what they can to prove that UFO's are genuine.

[Patricio Elicer]

In the interim, let's relax and have some fun with this picture, that some people seriously think depicts an ET taking a walk in Santiago's Parque Forestal.

The guy who took the picture assures that there's no fakery involved, and that the photo is blurry because the camera automatically set to a low shutter speed, since it was late afternoon when the sun has already set.



I wonder if it's one of the Mexican UFOs crew members who decided to go out and take a look at this new planet, and chose Santiago city as his first touristic destination

[Thomas]

Quote:

Originally posted by Patricio Elicer
I wonder if it's one of the Mexican UFOs crew members who decided to go out and take a look at this new planet, and chose Santiago city as his first touristic destination

Hah, get real.. It's obviously a Bigfoot! Because they are known to stay in out-of-camera-focus areas

[Patricio Elicer]

Quote:

Originally posted by Thomas
Hah, get real.. It's obviously a Bigfoot! Because they are known to stay in out-of-camera-focus areas

Yeah!, Bigfoot, as well as ETs, must radiate a special kind of "energy" that makes pictures of them to go out of focus

I already found info about Julio Herrera. He's the Head of the "Department of the Physics of Plasma and Radiation Interaction with Matter" of the Institute of Nuclear Sciences (I hope I got the translation right)

http://www.nuclecu.unam.mx/modules.p...e&pid=4&page=4

His email address is this

[wipeout]

Quote:

Originally posted by Patricio Elicer

Now that is quite plainly a hobbit.

Quote:

I wonder if it's one of the Mexican UFOs crew members who decided to go out and take a look at this new planet, and chose Santiago city as his first touristic destination

I say they flew over to Campeche to check out which oil-company they should buy shares in.