Mexican Airforce films UFOs

[wipeout]

Questions:

• Has there been any confirmation of the "objects" from ground-based radar or other equipment, or is all this data solely from the C26A's onboard systems?
  
• What were the weather/atmospheric conditions in the region at that time?
  
• Was any seismic activity recorded in the region at that time?
  

The city of Ciudad del Carmen airport 100 km away saw nothing, it's unknown if they have radar. As far as I know, it's all from the plane.

For your second and third questions, near the bottom of this page are answers for weather and seismic activity, which is fairly good weather and no seismic activity:

http://www.rense.com/general52/deff.htm

 

[wipeout]

By the way, from the reports, here is the rough guide as to what went on, generally correct as far as I can know...

1) Aircraft radar picks up an object behind
2) Infrared camera turns and sees a different object to the behind-left
3) Infrared camera sees more and more objects to the behind left until there are 11 of them
4) Radar picks up 2 more objects in front and in front to the right
5) Radar readings of the 3 objects are bizarre and erratic

Important points about what the aircrew did and didn't see...

The 11 objects on camera are never seen on radar
The 3 objects on radar are never seen on camera

Also, the 11 objects on infrared camera are close to being in line with the horizon, and never change positions relative to each other, while the 3 objects on radar bounce around like angry fleas.

Basically, I think the radar went a bit nuts for some reason and the aircrew looked with the infrared camera at the distant oil-facilities on the Campeche coast and got spooked when they mistook the 11 heat sources there for lots of flying objects like the 3 objects the radar was imagining during its episode of radar-psychosis.

Simple as that.

 

[Wolverine]

http://www.rense.com/general52/deff.htm

Is there corroborative data available which doesn't trace back to Jeff Rense's web site? Rense as well as Jaime Maussan could proclaim the sky to be blue, and I'd still have to go check.

 

[wipeout]

Not that I know of for weather or seismic, so it's the best we got...

... and yeah, you made a good point about the quality of that website as the general report there contradicts the aircrew transcript on a different part of the same website!

 

[wipeout]

I've mainly been going by the footage, and this transcript...

http://www.rense.com/general53/mextt.htm

Yes, it's that site again but the transcript sounds plausible enough.... maybe I should look for the same transcript somewhere else, just to be sure.

 

[wipeout]

Try telling that to this guy.

Ahahaha! Good stuff.

This whole incident has taught me is that even with clear numbers on the footage showing the location of the plane and direction of the camera, a lot of scientists, skeptics and UFO believers just go off on theories without looking at the details, in this case checking where the plane was on a map and what its camera might be looking at.

Trust no-one.

 

[mummymonkey]

Wipeout, here are some figures I've come up with.
Assuming height = 3.5km & distance to coast 90km.

Distance to horizon = 230km
Angle below level flight of coastline = 2.2 degrees
Angle below level flight of horizon = 0.9 degrees

(You might want to check my trig!)

Now lets have a look at this image:

The numbers going up the left hand side never change throughout the footage and I am assuming they are the vertical gimbal limits of the camera. In other words, the camera can point up a maximum of 30 degrees and down a maximum of 120 degrees. The marker is just above zero which agrees with the elevation displayed underneath of 2 degrees.
The fact that the numbers on the left never vary is important because it strongly suggests that the camera is fixed wrt the aircraft and that it is not adjusted to allow for aircraft bank. This is important when we compare the image with the next one:

In this image taken some 16 seconds later, the camera's elevation is the same, but the objects now appear above the horizontal marker. If the camera is fixed, this would be caused by either:
1. The objects all moving in a synchronised manner
2. The aircraft altering its angle of bank slightly
If the camera is stabilized however it can only be caused by the objects moving.

The specs for the camera are here. They state that inputs from the aircraft navigation systems are optional.

Now, to return to the numbers I gave at the start. This means that it is possible for the camera to pick up heat sources as much as 100km or more out at sea. At that distance, even a tiny change in the angle of bank will result in significant vertical movement of the displayed objects. The spec sheets gives the fields of view for the camera but I can't tell what it is set to in these pictures.

Anyway, enough from me for now.

 

[wipeout]

I'll take your trignometry as all present and correct.

The plus 30 minus 120 is indeed confirmed on the specifications at the link you give.

You can actually watch that exact bit of footage if you want.

You can turn down the brightness and read the time, the pictures in your post coming at 1:40 to 1:56...

http://www.ufocasebook.com/mexico-03-05-04.mpg

The camera elevation in degrees goes 2, then 3, then 2, then 1, then 2 during those 16 seconds.

I'm guessing most of it is the aircraft moving around.

It seems slightly bumpy, so it's maybe no surprise if the camera is pointing up slightly above and below 0 degrees during the footage.

I did find one link that talks about picking up the heat signature of a human at 30,000 feet for a different system(?) on the same aircraft:

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/c-26.htm

A red hot ball of fire from an oil-chimney at tens of kilometers distant suddenly sounds more like something really noticeable....

 

[Patricio Elicer]

I've made an analysis of the situation, based on the following 2 IR camera screens:

First, the raw data:

FRAME 1
Time: 17:03:41
Plane location:18º 26.52' north latitude, 90º 46.27' west longitude

FRAME 2
Time: 17:07:05
Plane location: 18º 28.29' north latitude, 90º 34.98' west longitude

From these data I've figured out the following info:

Plane direction: E 8.91º N (or 81.09º Azimuth)
Elapsed time between the two captions: 204 seconds
Angles swept out between captions: 1.77' northbound, 11.29' eastbound.
Aprox. distance covered by plane between captions: 21 km
Average plane speed between captions: 370 km/hr

The following sketch shows both the plane direction and the IR camera direction:

And here's a map of the region with the aprox direction info (plane direction in red, IR camera direction in blue)

So, it seems to be quite correct that the IR camera was pointing to Ciudad del Carmen at the moment the UFOs appeared, but is not consistent with the pilots version that they saw the objects at the left hand side of the plane. Rather, they appear to be in the behind-right side.

Please feel free to correct me if I've got something wrong

 

[Hand Bent Spoon]

After seeing this footage on CNN, IMHO those are just reflections of light on what I would assume to be a glass dome covering the camera.

Seeing the broadcast version of the footage, as opposed to the compressed avi footage available on the net made all the difference.

 

[Batman Jr.]

Originally posted by Patricio Elicer

Plane direction: E 8.91º N (or 81.09º Azimuth)

I see that you have derived the plane's direction by taking arctan(1.77/11.29)=8.91º. Though a minute of latitude always corresponds to approx. one nautical mile, the distance of a measure of longitude depends on the latitude of the points which define the horizontal measurement (as you move away from the equator, a given measure of longitude is equivalent to progressively smaller distances). 8.91º may, however, still be close to the real value as the plane was relatively close to the equator where longitude becomes about equal to latitude in distance. Lat/Long bearing equations are kinda messy, so maybe someone else here can work them out as I don't have the time right now.

 

[Thomas]

So, it seems to be quite correct that the IR camera was pointing to Ciudad del Carmen at the moment the UFOs appeared, but is not consistent with the pilots version that they saw the objects at the left hand side of the plane. Rather, they appear to be in the behind-right side.

True, they said the eight FLIR-only objects appeared at nine o' clock.

They also said that they discovered the objects when they made a turn for Campeche. According to the direction you have calculated, it seems that they cancelled that direction shift at some point.

Please feel free to correct me if I've got something wrong

I would have to argue that the sample size of two, is too small to determine the entire route of the airplane. It is possisble that they got quite confused when they saw the objects and shifted direction several times. Perhaps you should use a larger sample size for the calculations. You may be right though.

I have written an email to FLIR Systems Inc., and asked them some questions concerning the technical details of their StarSAFIRE II cam which is left out in their brouchure. Their answer can clear up a lot of things, so now we'll just have to wait and see.

 

[Thomas]

After seeing this footage on CNN, IMHO those are just reflections of light on what I would assume to be a glass dome covering the camera.

However, infrared images should not respond to refections of light, only to heat sources. Infrared is an energy with a longer wavelength.

 

[Prester John]

Synchronised in flight refueling?

 

[Patricio Elicer]

Thanks for your input, Batman

Yes, I think I made a mistake in my calculations, as you clearly pointed out

For determining the direction of the plane, I first determined from the raw data, that in those 204 seconds the plane moved 1.77 minutes of arc to the north and 11.29 minutes of arc to the east. Then, by assuming the earth to be a perfect sphere of 40,000 km in circumference, 1.77' translates to (40,000/360/60)*1.77=3.28 km across the surface of the earth, northbound.

Then I wrongly calculated the eastbound shift assuming the same 40,000 km circumference, that obviously at 18º latitude is less than that.

As you said, being close to the equator, the difference may be insignificant. I know I can do the proper calculations, but at 3:20 am and after 2 whiskey-coke glasses, I don't think I'm lucid enough to do them . My guess is that the real angle may be around 10 degrees.

EDIT:
My mistake makes the distance covered by the plane and its average speed to be a bit less than what I calculated originally

 

[Patricio Elicer]

True, they said the eight FLIR-only objects appeared at nine o' clock.

I reviewed the video once more, and the pilots said twice that the objects were at seven o'clock, though other direction figures are heard as well in their conversation.

I would have to argue that the sample size of two, is too small to determine the entire route of the airplane.

Ohh yes, it's perfectly possible that in those 3.4 minutes (204 seconds) the plane shifted direction, so the direction I calculated for the plane is just an "average direction", so to speak.

I'll see if I can refine my analysis later.

 

[mummymonkey]

The following sketch shows both the plane direction and the IR camera direction:

And here's a map of the region with the aprox direction info (plane direction in red, IR camera direction in blue)

So, it seems to be quite correct that the IR camera was pointing to Ciudad del Carmen at the moment the UFOs appeared, but is not consistent with the pilots version that they saw the objects at the left hand side of the plane. Rather, they appear to be in the behind-right side.

Please feel free to correct me if I've got something wrong

The displayed camera azimuth may be referenced to the aircraft's heading, rather than North.

 

[mummymonkey]

The camera elevation in degrees goes 2, then 3, then 2, then 1, then 2 during those 16 seconds.

I'm guessing most of it is the aircraft moving around.

It seems slightly bumpy, so it's maybe no surprise if the camera is pointing up slightly above and below 0 degrees during the footage.

The camera is stabilized so there should be no movement other than that commanded. Any change in elevation should happen only due to inputs from the operator. (Or maybe the aircraft's flight instruments)

 

[Patricio Elicer]

The displayed camera azimuth may be referenced to the aircraft's heading, rather than North.

Well,... yes, that's quite possible, and adds another piece to the puzzle.

But,... not being an expert nor having any experience on the field, I'd tend to think that azimuth referenced to the plane's heading won't be of much importance, a rather usless info, seems to me.

This is a technical definition of "azimuth":

Azimuth is the angle along the horizon, with zero degrees corresponding to North, and increasing in a clockwise fashion. Thus, 90 degrees is East, 180 degrees is South, and 270 degrees is West.

Taken from http://aa.usno.navy.mil/data/docs/AltAz.html

 

[mummymonkey]

But,... not being an expert nor having any experience on the field, I'd tend to think that azimuth referenced to the plane's heading won't be of much importance, a rather usless info, seems to me.

Maybe, but it may be useful to get a targets position in terms of aircraft heading. In the pictures sown, azimuth is displayed as (minus)139 degrees, that's an odd way to show it if it is referenced to North. Why not 221 degrees?