He's too useful to my cause. Re: Re: Re: Re: BREAKING NEWS!
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:
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!
Actually, I have just stumbled over an interview with Alberto Hernandez Unzon, a very interesting interview. It goes like this:wipeout said:Maybe the radar malfunctioned because some of the ball-lightning hit it...
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:
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
Obsessed with Reality
Re: Re: Re: BREAKING NEWS!
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.
A counter-argument to the "oil flare theory", from one of your links:Thomas said:
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.
Re: Re: Re: Re: BREAKING NEWS!
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.
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.Patricio Elicer said:
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.
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 said:I e-mailed Capt. Alejandro Franz about our discussion here.
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.
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.
Ok, then explain this:wipeout said:Nope, they'll need to do better than that to exclude our oil-flare theory.
And this:
And this:
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
Obsessed with Reality
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: BREAKING NEWS!
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.
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.Thomas said:
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
Obsessed with Reality
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!Thomas said: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 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
Did you spill my pint?
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 byPatricio Elicer said:
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 said:
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.
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!