Mexican Airforce films UFOs

[wipeout]

We seem to be getting somewhat different results for the aircraft's position.

I used this map:

http://www.virtualmex.com/campeche_sct.jpg

Go straight down from the city of Campeche to just below the 18 30 latitude line and that's roughly what I got for position at the time 17:07:05.

That was 18 28.29 north, 90 34.98 west.

At that time, I get the plane's position as about 15 km south-east of Francisco Escarcega.

The camera is pointing north-west, at an area quite some way north-eastwards of Ciudad del Carmen itself, maybe 50 km from the city.

I actually made a mistake when I originally said it was Ciudad del Carmen itself the camera was pointing at, but it was a lucky mistake as that took me straight to the fact that the oil industry is based around the city.

If you just look at a map without details of what the oil industry have in the exact area the camera is looking at, you might never make the connection. It's perhaps the case that my rough estimate of camera direction has taken me to the truth when a precise calculation is unlikely to have.

I wonder if this is what happened to the official investigation....

I think the infrared sources are somewhere around the land on the east side of the huge lagoon ("Laguna de Terminos") that Greenpeace were muttering about the pollution in.

http://archive.greenpeace.org/comms/mexico/rwprapr07.html

I believe it is something oil-industry related in this area that the camera is seeing:

http://www.maps-of-mexico.com/campeche-state-mexico/campeche-state-mexico-map-b2.shtml

Could be at sea or on land, but somewhere around that map...

 

[Patricio Elicer]

I worked out my calculations about the camera direction based on the definition of "azimuth" I found on this page:

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

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.

So, an angle of -134º would be measured counterclockwise starting from the north direction, and would be on the third quadrant. But of course I assumed the camera is set according to this standard definition of how azimuth is measured. As Mummymonkey said before, the angle on the screen may be referenced to the plane heading.

Hey, too many pieces of this puzzle to put together

 

[Hellbound]

If it is labelled Azimuth, as it seems to be, my assumption would be that it references north. Remember, this is not a combat plane, but a recon plane. Thus, the data it gathers is typically routed to ground units who analyse the information. The ground units would need the real azimuth, as referenced to north, to make sense of the data. Otherwise, they have to figure the actual map direction of the camera by playing around with the plane heading numbers. Much as I pointed out earlier the sense in having camera elevation independant of the aircraft, the same would hold true for azimuth, IMO.

This seems to fit with what I recall of U.S. military intel, also, although that is not my field and my memory is sketchy, so I won't vouch for my accuracy

 

[wipeout]

A rough estimate from the sunlight on the clouds, the nearness to the equator, the time of year and the time of day in the footage suggest that the sun is low in the western sky, and since the shadows on the clouds are on the right then the camera is pointing roughly in the northwest-north-northeast direction.

The way the longtitude and latitude change show that the plane is flying roughly east, so the 140 or so azimuth reading must refer to the nose of the plane.

 

[Hellbound]

Cool, good detective work

 

[wipeout]

Thanks. What the azimuth meant was something I wondered myself, so I checked it that way a few days ago.

 

[mummymonkey]

Azimuth can also mean lateral deviation. Usually expressed in terms of positive degrees (clockwise or right) and negative degrees (anticlockwise or left). In the past I've used a large metal jig with the angles etched on it for calibrating radar dishes elevation and azimuth.

 

[wipeout]

Ah, cool.

My own investigation of this footage has reached as far as it's going to go, as the map of the layout of a dozen oil chimneys in Mexico which would confirm the oil-flare theory is not something which is easy to find...

 

[mummymonkey]

Check out the oil rig fires in the bay. I can see a row of five at least.

 

[wipeout]

Where are they?

 

[Patricio Elicer]

Perhaps?, though they are not in the "right" location and too far apart from each other.

I would guess that the oil flares explanation is beginning to make sense, although there are yet some key aspects to solve: 1) the object's altitude that pilots repeatedly said it was 3,500 m; 2) the objects' proximity to the plane, that according to crew member Magdaleno Castañón, was as close as 2 miles at one point; 3) The objects' sudden "acceleration", reported change in speed from 60 knots to 300 knots in a matter of seconds.

 

[Patricio Elicer]

A rough estimate from the sunlight on the clouds, the nearness to the equator, the time of year and the time of day in the footage suggest that the sun is low in the western sky, and since the shadows on the clouds are on the right then the camera is pointing roughly in the northwest-north-northeast direction.

Determining the direction of the sun rays judging by the light-shadow pattern in the clouds, may be a tricky thing. The shadows on the clouds seem to be on the right indeed, but it's hard to tell for sure. It's also possible that the sun is hitting the clouds in a more pronounced angle with respect to the plane trajectory.

We could get a definite answer should we know how the azimuth is measured in that particular plane.

 

[mummymonkey]

Perhaps?, though they are not in the "right" location and too far apart from each other.

Those are sediment plumes that you've highlighted. I took the row of smoke colums out in the gulf to be the oil rigs.

I'm not saying these are the actual heat sources; just that they show how rigs in the gulf are positioned. (In rows and close to each other). These just happen to be the rigs that were flaring the day the satellite photograph was taken.

Satellite images of mexico.

 

[Hand Bent Spoon]

Infrared cameras can and do pick up light reflections (infrared wavelength light, of course!) Some computer systems use reflected light to track eye movement.

I still think it's merely light reflections on glass. The above theories are very well thought out, but needlessly complex.

 

[Thomas]

Infrared cameras can and do pick up light reflections (infrared wavelength light, of course!)

Ergo, the objects generate energy above the wavelength of reflected sunlight. Furthermore, reflected sunligt fails to explain the radar readings (altitude/distance) connected with the objects.

Some computer systems use reflected light to track eye movement.

Besides the point.

The above theories are very well thought out, but needlessly complex.

Agreed.

However, I have recieved some answers from a technician of FLIR systems Inc. concerning diffrent aspects of the StarSAFIRE II camera. There are still a few more issues I would like to get cleared up with him, I expect to be able to give a full summary of the Q&A later today, or in the beginning of next week.

Maybe I should say, that the answers I have from him so far, falsifies the oilflare theory. This can however still change. The questions I have asked him now, will provide a definitive conclusion in this aspect.

 

[wipeout]

I would guess that the oil flares explanation is beginning to make sense, although there are yet some key aspects to solve: 1) the object's altitude that pilots repeatedly said it was 3,500 m; 2) the objects' proximity to the plane, that according to crew member Magdaleno Castañón, was as close as 2 miles at one point; 3) The objects' sudden "acceleration", reported change in speed from 60 knots to 300 knots in a matter of seconds.

From an aircrew interview transcript, I think it's important to make a distinction between the 14 objects, which are 11 objects seen on infrared and 3 other objects seen on radar.

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

So, to answer your points...

1) the object's altitude that pilots repeatedly said it was 3,500 m

The 11 lights seen on infrared footage are never seen on radar, so their distance, speed and altitude must simply be a guess by the aircrew!

Lieutenant German Ramirez Marin, RADAR operator: 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.

Since the 11 sources on the footage don't have any known distance, speed, direction of movement or altitude as only radar could tell the aircrew that, then there are no problems with the 11 infrared sources being distant oil-flares at all.

The aircrew don't know where the 11 objects on the infrared footage are, it's all simply assumption by them.

2) the objects' proximity to the plane, that according to crew member Magdaleno Castañón, was as close as 2 miles at one point; 3) The objects' sudden "acceleration", reported change in speed from 60 knots to 300 knots in a matter of seconds.

Since these objects have known distances, speed and direction of movement according to the aircrew, they must be on radar and so must not be the 11 objects on the footage as they were not detected by radar.

These are 3 more objects, detected behind, in front and to the front-right.

(The 11 objects on infrared are to the behind-left.)

These 3 objects rapidly and constantly changed direction, speed and position in a fairly wild way.

And, as far as I know, these 3 radar objects were never seen by the infrared camera. I say this because I believe all the infrared sources in the footage never seem to jump around like the ones on the radar are said to have done.

So we have two kinds of objects, the 11 ones seen on infrared which don't seem to do very much, and the 3 ones seen on radar which jump around madly.

I think both groups of objects are completely unrelated.

I think the infrared camera simply picked up distant oil-flares (the 11 fairly static objects) and the radar was just going nuts on its own (the 3 erratic objects).

I think the aircrew made a connection between the radar readings and the infrared sources which there isn't any evidence of.

So, anyway, that's my theory.

 

[wipeout]

Patricio Elicer and mummymonkey,

Thanks for highlighting the satellite images.

My own thoughts from first looking at the pictures were that the brown patterns in the sea on the coastline were sediment from large rivers, and that the white clouds were just white clouds, which is why I asked what you were seeing.

It's not easy to interpret satellite data, so either or both of you might be right or not, I don't know.

 

[wipeout]

Determining the direction of the sun rays judging by the light-shadow pattern in the clouds, may be a tricky thing. The shadows on the clouds seem to be on the right indeed, but it's hard to tell for sure. It's also possible that the sun is hitting the clouds in a more pronounced angle with respect to the plane trajectory.

We could get a definite answer should we know how the azimuth is measured in that particular plane.

The are really only two interpretations of the azimuth reading I can think of, that zero azimuth is the direction of the plane or that it's the direction of north.

If it's north, then the camera is pointing south-west and I'd expect we'd see shadows to the back of all clouds given the time of day, and not to the right of the clouds as we do in the footage.

So I think it's direction of the plane that azimuth is talking about.

 

[Thomas]

Now, for a short summary of the answers I have been given by Andrew Griffin of FLIR Systems Inc.:

Thomas: How far can this camera pick up heat sources?

Griffin: The rule of thumb for the distance – is the larger the target the greater the range. It is not unusual to detect oil tankers in a maritime environment at ranges in excess of 50 km.

So, you can detect an oiltanker in the range of 50 km. However, the flare of oil/gas-platforms and facilities, is nowhere near the size of an oiltanker.

Now, remember this image:

Here the objects is above the horizon marker, so let's do a little math on that.

The distance to the horizon is aproximately: 230 km

The altitude of the airplane is aproximately: 3.5 km

This gives us these calculations:

Ok, so if you look at these calculations, and asume that the objects was 50 km away, and the size of an oiltanker. The chimneys would either have to be more than 2.739 km tall, or airborne.

I have asked Andrew Griffin some further questions; I have asked him if the radar can pick up objects and transfer their coordinates to the FLIR monitor. However, his answer in this regard was rather hazy, but I belive he tried to say that the radar can send information to the FLIR equipment about the coordinates, but the only thing that will show up on the monitor is a white square to point at the coords. This is also plausible with some of the video clips we have seen. I have asked him to elaborate that part, and furthermore asked him if the azimuth is relative to North or the airplanes heading.

Wipeout, the chimneys have to be more than 2.7 km tall or airborne, and then there still is Patricio's questions to answer:

there are yet some key aspects to solve: 1) the object's altitude that pilots repeatedly said it was 3,500 m; 2) the objects' proximity to the plane, that according to crew member Magdaleno Castañón, was as close as 2 miles at one point; 3) The objects' sudden "acceleration", reported change in speed from 60 knots to 300 knots in a matter of seconds.

Which I also have questioned ealier in this thread.

 

[wipeout]

Thanks for taking the time to find out more information about FLIR, Thomas.

Originally posted by Thomas Now, for a short summary of the answers I have been given by Andrew Griffin of FLIR Systems Inc.

So, you can detect an oiltanker in the range of 50 km. However, the flare of oil/gas-platforms and facilities, is nowhere near the size of an oiltanker.

Now, remember this image:

Here the objects is above the horizon marker, so let's do a little math on that.

The distance to the horizon is aproximately: 230 km

The altitude of the airplane is aproximately: 3.5 km

This gives us these calculations:

Ok, so if you look at these calculations, and asume that the objects was 50 km away, and the size of an oiltanker. The chimneys would either have to be more than 2.739 km tall, or airborne.

While oil-flares would obviously not be the size of an oil-tanker, they are much hotter. I think only the chimneys of an oil-tanker would give out most of the tanker's infrared, and are nowhere near as hot as oil-flares, so I feel this information is actually supportive of the oil-flare idea if it can spot a larger but much cooler objects like oil-tanker chimneys at 50 km.

As to the camera elevation problem, I'd add that the curvature of the Earth might also begin to have an effect as well, so the oil-chimneys may need to be even taller than 2.739 km to make sense if the camera elevation is precise and it is either relative to the aircraft and it is flying perfectly level or it is relative to the Earth.

However, if the camera elevation is relative to the aircraft, the aircraft may not necessarily be flying perfectly level, so this would still allow for the oil-chimney flare theory.

The oil-flare theory only runs into a real problem is the camera elevation is relative to the Earth and not to the aircraft and if it is a precise reading.

Then, I'd agree, the oil-flare theory would make no sense but it still works if the plane has a very slight tilt of maybe a couple of degrees and the oil-flares are very close to (or on) the horizon.

...and then there still is Patricio's questions to answer.

I already answered those. The aircrew say that the 11 infrared objects grouped together in the footage were never on radar, therefore we can conclude that the aircrew only guessed their distance, altitude, speed and movement.

The only UFO's in the sense of unidentified and definitely airborne were 3 wildly erratic and bizarre objects on radar but these were never filmed as far as I can tell.

The 11 objects on the infrared footage were never detected by radar and thus could well be oil-chimney flares.

It's the other 3 objects on radar which are the complete unknowns, possible just false readings but maybe not.