Mexican Airforce films UFOs

[Patricio Elicer]

Furthermore, FLIR Systems estimate that common oilflares are detectable at a range of 20 kilometers.

I still wonder how rough this estimate can be. I don't think the oil flare theory should be so promptly ruled out because of the sole estimation from a FLIR thechnician. There are many factors yet to be assessed regarding this possibility.

Firstly, there's the matter of atmospheric visibility. There are times when the atmosphere can be astoundingly transparent, and visibility to the naked eye can easily extend to tens of kilometers. I have witnessed such instances myself. To the east of Santiago city there's a ski resort at about 2,800 m of altitude in Los Andes mountain range. On occasions I've been able to clearly spot houses and buildings of said resort from a distance of 50 or 60 km while driving through a motorway.

Secondly, we have the testimony of Capt. Franz regarding the oil wells in the Campeche bay: "I used to fly as a private pilot in the area of Ciudad del Carmen in the late 70's. I remember very well seeing those oil wells at night from the shore and their close proximity to Ciudad del Carmen city."

And thirdly, there's the matter of the actual size of the chimney flames. We don't know for sure how large the Campeche oil rig flames can be, but judging by the following pictures, flames can be as large as 10 or 20 meters across. In which case the 20 km range estimation could very well fall short.

 

[SquishyDave]

Yeah, what Patricio said.

Look at the wonderful map provided by Thomas, pictures A through C are looking right at the oil fields, is this not a possibility? Then when they see the "mother ship" the camera seems to pointing right at Campeche city, could a city pump out such a big heat signature like that? Could it be something else on the ground?

It's just that something simple like oil rigs seems so much more plausible than special atmospheric conditions, other than a particularly clear night for IR to travel far.

How's this for a scenario? It's a really clear night for IR radiation, then there is a small plane, or radar reflections that seem bit odd to the crew of the plane, then they notice some strange heat signatures and assume it has something to do with the radar image, so they think the glowing dots are at altitude, when in fact they are on the sea, or a bit above it. ET phone home time, thanks to 2 not all that unusual occurances happening at once and humans ability to join dots on unrelated stuff. This seems to me more likely than any other scenario.

I would really like to see the whole footage from the first thing to the last, to see if it might look like oilrigs.

Here is Thomas's most excellent map.

(click to enlarge)

 

[wipeout]

Thomas,

I see the MUFON researcher used the map I found a couple of weeks back. I hadn't plotted the full flight path so that's interesting to see it. Something I'd point out is that Captain Franz's oil-field map is not complete for the Campeche area as remember I originally pointed out that there are these on land in the Campeche. The oil-flares may be at sea or on land or even both. The direction of the first three fields-of-view do fit with the oil-flare at sea theory, though.

Kitty Chan,

Interesting link. One of these pilots may well even be the first "alien" pilot. I know approximately where the first runway is, the second I found ages ago as that is the city of Ciudad del Carmen's itself. By the way, what do you mean about it being like headlights explanation? I only meant the first "UFO" itself is a light plane. It had radar and infrared and went between two airports just like a small plane would.

Patricio Elicer,

Amazing pictures! A couple of those monsters would fit the intensity of the bright "twin" sources at the start of the incident.

 

[wipeout]

Originally posted by SquishyDave How's this for a scenario? It's a really clear night for IR radiation, then there is a small plane, or radar reflections that seem bit odd to the crew of the plane, then they notice some strange heat signatures and assume it has something to do with the radar image, so they think the glowing dots are at altitude, when in fact they are on the sea, or a bit above it. ET phone home time, thanks to 2 not all that unusual occurances happening at once and humans ability to join dots on unrelated stuff. This seems to me more likely than any other scenario.

That's roughly what I'm arguing for.

The first UFO draws the aircrew's interest to the city of Ciudad del Carmen as it takes off from a nearby runway and flies to the city and lands. This UFO has radar and infrared and flies in a straight-line between two runways.

This first "UFO" is very obviously a small, fast light aircraft. The aircrew themselves are not too bothered about the first object themselves during this as it does nothing very interesting.

Then some huge oil-flares go off in the many facilities around Ciudad del Carmen...

The aircrew mistake these oil-flares as being related to the first "UFO". But these 11 infrared objects are different to the first "UFO" as they have far more intense infrared but no radar signals at all!

The crew makes the assumption that these oil-flares at sea (or on the ground) near the horizon are really flying quite close and at the same altitude because they are level with the aircraft and very bright and therefore nearby... but it can only be only a guess as the aircrew have no radar signals from them and they are used to judging distance from the brightness of aircraft infrared, not of distant oil-flares.

And much confusion results....

Then the aircrew later think back to the first "UFO" and interpret it as being just as mysterious as the 11 they now see.

I'd like to know more about the erratic 2nd and 3rd radar signals to know what they might be if not simply the radar have "problems".

 

[Kitty Chan]

[QUOTE
Kitty Chan,

Interesting link. One of these pilots may well even be the first "alien" pilot. I know approximately where the first runway is, the second I found ages ago as that is the city of Ciudad del Carmen's itself. By the way, what do you mean about it being like headlights explanation? I only meant the first "UFO" itself is a light plane. It had radar and infrared and went between two airports just like a small plane would.

QUOTE]

Oh Im sorry wipeout, I should have edited that. I meant on another chat site they were talking about the possibility of the lights being headlights. Which maybe, but I like your plane idea better. I have known bush pilots and they can definetely get into spots.

Why dont you contact that bush pilot group and see if they have any opinons on the ufo thing??

As for the oil flare, Being in Alberta I have seen when they are "flaring off" and it can vary, We went to a boiler call on one and it was lighting up the prairie, fairly impressive actually. There was no trouble finding it at 2 in the morning.

 

[Thomas]

I don't sympathize with many of the objections, especially not those which patronizes the SEDENA researchers and FLIR Systems Inc.

However, I don't think I've collected enough data and made enough analysis to approach any solid conclusions in one way or the other at this point.

I believe you have to provide conclusive evidence for one assumption before you move on to the next. When that is said; I basically agree with the science theoretician Feyerabend's "anything goes"-principle of progressive research.
The Santa Claus-theory in my signature (Mexican UFO's revealed) is an example of how far the "anything goes"-principle can take you if you dont watch your steps along the track of assumptions though.

I still have a couple of analysis to do, and I'm waiting for some other second-hand analysis and updated documents which can contain some very interesting news.
When I've collected all the data and made all the analysis I can, I'm gonna make a complete list of pro-and-contra evidence concerning all the theories I know of.

 

[wipeout]

Oh Im sorry wipeout, I should have edited that. I meant on another chat site they were talking about the possibility of the lights being headlights. Which maybe, but I like your plane idea better. I have known bush pilots and they can definetely get into spots.

Why dont you contact that bush pilot group and see if they have any opinons on the ufo thing??

No problem, I see what you meant now. I've decided I'm not going to bother the bush pilots about UFOs. And don't get me started on the headlight theory.

 

[wipeout]

A group of three again. Just like in the UFO footage. If an oil-tanker is visible at 50 km on FLIR, I wonder how far away FLIR could see the 100 meter (?) tall wall of flame from the right chimney.

I keep finding all these environmentalist websites complaining about pollution and showing pictures of massive oil-flares meant to make this point... but I'm thinking to myself how amazingly cool these massive walls of flame are.

This one is just ludicrous.

 

[Astrophotographer]

Wipeout had written:

If an oil-tanker is visible at 50 km on FLIR, I wonder how far away FLIR could see the 100 meter (?) tall wall of flame from the right chimney.

As I have been following most of this discussion with some interest, I think there is something to add as far as the FLIR is concerned. According to the following webpage

"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.

I hope this adds to the discussion.

 

[Patricio Elicer]

Thanks for your contribution, Astrophotographer, it certainly adds an important piece of info to the discussion. And welcome to the forums!

 

[wipeout]

It certainly does add to the discussion, Astrophotographer.

Welcome, by the way.

That's very interesting the camera can see aircraft at 74km. I've never looked for written examples of what the infrared camera could do, just for photos taken from similar infrared cameras.

I've realized over the last day or two from the behaviour of the first object, it must have been a light aircraft and that it was visible as a point of heat at least 40 km away on the infrared camera.

Makes me wonder if the man from FLIR with whom Thomas was talking with thought the oil-flares I meant as little things.

As Patricio and myself have found with those photographs, oil-flares can be 20 to 50 meters in size or bigger. Makes a light aircraft look like nothing in comparison.

The flames from the oil-flares in my post just above must be 50 to 100 meters in height and are from a very similar group of three chimneys to those known to be in the Campeche area and similar to the groups of three of the infrared sources in the UFO footage.

So I think we can take it that the oil-flares would potentially be visible at the right distances.

So my theory right now is that a light aircraft drew the aircrew's attention to the city of Ciudad del Carmen and then the oil-flares going off near the city to the east confused the aircrew into thinking they were seeing flying objects.

The question remains as to what the final two radar objects are, at least one of which behaved erratically.

I really feel we have got close to all the answers nows.

 

[Astrophotographer]

I really feel we have got close to all the answers nows

I would not be too positive about this. However, I think the oil well fires idea has merit. Although, I don't think size has much to do with the FLIR image size or intensity. It is more dependent on the temperature range. Fires tend to get very hot and would make a bright object especially against a cool background (like the ocean or sky).

Still there are some nagging issues that are not solved or seem to be solvable. The FLIR image that was at an azimuth of about -90 degrees does not seem to match any oil wells.

However, if the crew really was not very good at identifying oil well fires, how good could they be at identifying another hot spot such as a large fire in the distant hills or something akin to that? From the brief clips I have seen, I don't see any of the FLIR images making any drastic maneuvers or indicate they are doing much of anything but remaining relatively stationary. This tends to make my skeptical mind think they are something "earthly".

I have read Brad Sparks posting on UFO Updates where he feels that some of the radar targets are simply trucks on the highway! This might be interesting but it assumes that the crew had training/lack of experience issues. They seem to have misinterpreted radar and FLIR contacts as something extraordinary instead of ordinary.

It appears there are several "potential" solutions that might fit. I would be more willing to listen to these ideas than to make the "prompt jump" that this event is something extraordinary.

 

[Patricio Elicer]

I don't sympathize with many of the objections, especially not those which patronizes the SEDENA researchers and FLIR Systems Inc.

As for SEDENA, I don't think they have handled the situation in a sensible manner:

• They witnessed and recorded a very unusual phenomenon, that may have an important scientific value, and handed over the material straightaway to a known-to-be-biased ufologist, not to impartial scientists
  
• If they believed the event had no scientific importance, and that it was a UFO case, they should have been impartial enough to hand over the material to UFO-advocates and UFO-skeptics alike (something that has not happened to date, to my knowledge)
  
• They have released no official announcement on their own conclusions of the phenomenon, despite the fact that it's been almost 3 months since it took place, and that it would be easy for them to reenact the whole situation to check for possible mundane explanations. I wonder why.
  
• They seem to avoid any contact with the media about the case, and also seem to dismiss any request for info by individuals (it's been more than a week that I sent them a very polite e-mail asking a few simple questions, and no reply to date, not even a receipt note). I wonder why.

With respect to your contact with FLIR Systems Inc., I can speculate on the following unfolding of events:

• Your email was received at the "Public Relations Dept."
• Then, it was forwarded to the "Technical Dept."
• The Head of the "Technical Dept." in turn, forwarded the email to a young unexperienced recently hired technician, since it was not a very important commercial prospect for the Company.
• The technician turned to a specification manual of the product and sent a reply back to you.

Well, I'm not saying that this must have been the case, nor that this was the way things went. I'm only trying to convey the idea of a possibility of this sort, that we should take into account.

I came upon this speculation while reading the technical specifications for the FLIR Star Safire II camera:

taken from here:

http://www.flir.com/imaging/nmc/media/original/8d4ea580-9857-4ac3-9df6-ef770a603101.pdf

 

[Thomas]

Patricio,

I also wonder why SEDENA haven't responded as well, and I also wonder why Maussan tries to keep the video among UFO-advocates only. I have a few theories in the last part, but they're not solid enough, so I'm not gonna throw them around.

I dont know how the military works in Mexico, but in Denmark the army wouldn't respond to the mail of a civilian by default. It's only high ranking officers who responds to public requests, and they will only take the time do so on very rare occasions.

For your interpretation of who Andrew Griffin is and who he has consulted on these issues, I dont know what procedure they would use in FLIR Systems when they get specific requests concerning one of their cameras, and nor do you.

As I already said in an earlier post, I sent Griffin the pictures of the oilflares provided by Wipeout and asked him how far away he would estimate them to detectable, he said 20 km, that's it. Since then oilflare-theory advocates have changes the size of the flares dramatically.

The data you have highlighted from the StarSAFIRE II specifications, is for the laser rangefinder, not the heat detection range. It's two diffrent issues.

 

[wipeout]

Originally posted by Astrophotographer I would not be too positive about this. However, I think the oil well fires idea has merit. Although, I don't think size has much to do with the FLIR image size or intensity. It is more dependent on the temperature range. Fires tend to get very hot and would make a bright object especially against a cool background (like the ocean or sky).

My comment was in response to Thomas suggesting that oil-tanker is visible at 50 km on FLIR but an oil-flare would not be. I'm pointing out an oil-flare in the picture I found is I'd guess about 100 meters tall and much hotter than an oil-tanker to support the idea that large oil-flares can be seem at ranges like that as well.

Still there are some nagging issues that are not solved or seem to be solvable. The FLIR image that was at an azimuth of about -90 degrees does not seem to match any oil wells.

The map of the area of sea with oil-fields is potentially misleading in that Campeche definitely has oil-wells on land as well as at sea. We don't know where the ones on land are or if there are other areas with them at sea as well.

We don't have access to the full tape or transcript so we can't tell how the camera moved so we don't know why the camera is pointing at different directions later. I'd really like to know!

I have read Brad Sparks posting on UFO Updates where he feels that some of the radar targets are simply trucks on the highway! This might be interesting but it assumes that the crew had training/lack of experience issues. They seem to have misinterpreted radar and FLIR contacts as something extraordinary instead of ordinary.

The infrared sources must be at or close to the horizon and later some do appear to have an irregular shape, so must the objects have some size to have shape at that distance if they are on the ground. The aircrew transcript suggests that the first object appears to have been a light aircraft, and it was just a tiny point of heat on infrared at 40 km. The trucks would not be that much bigger but would surely only be points themselves at that range and nowhere near that much brighter on infrared.

So this makes me think it was something over than trucks.

 

[Thomas]

This might be interesting but it assumes that the crew had training/lack of experience issues. They seem to have misinterpreted radar and FLIR contacts as something extraordinary instead of ordinary.

They believed all of these objects were in approximately the same altitude as themselves, as well as having a certain thrust.

This is what triggered the 'extraordinary' part for the aircrew and the rest of SEDENA. To seperate 'extra' from 'ordinary', we'll have to get these objects down on the ground with solid evidence.

 

[wipeout]

Originally posted by Thomas I also wonder why SEDENA haven't responded as well, and I also wonder why Maussan tries to keep the video among UFO-advocates only. I have a few theories in the last part, but they're not solid enough, so I'm not gonna throw them around.

Well, I'm not as kind as you and I'm perfectly willing to suggest that the UFOlogists don't want to properly investigate the footage or aircrew transcript as that increases the chances of a solution not involving UFOs.

Annoyingly, everyone else has only got footage and transcripts filtered and edited while in the possession of UFOlogists because of the Mexican authories. Thanks to them for that!

However, just looking at only the first part of the footage and aircrew transcript shows absolutely nothing to suggest the first object was anything other than a light aircraft. It goes in a straight line at aircraft speeds from a place with a runway to a city with another runway and disappears.

So some UFOlogists, the aircrew and the Mexican authorities are really in my "good books" for not telling us these little details...

As I already said in an earlier post, I sent Griffin the pictures of the oilflares provided by Wipeout and asked him far away he would estimate them to detectable, he said 20 km, that's it. Since then oilflare-theory advocates have changes the size of the flares dramatically.

I simply didn't know that chimneys very similar to the ones at Campeche were capable of doing something as amazing as this.

If I'd known, I'd have pointed it out.

 

[Thomas]

My comment was in response to Thomas suggesting that oil-tanker is visible at 50 km on FLIR..

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.

Everytime something contradicts the oilflare, balloon or ball lightning theories. The universal answer from all camps is: "Well, then the data must be incorrect!". That's why I would like to find a solution which supports the official data, because that would eliminate all the wrong theories at once, and leave an explanation that no one could contradict.

The balloon-theory advocate post one colorful picture after another of beautiful hot air balloons, but that's not evidence, it's just pictures of beautiful hot air balloons.

 

[Thomas]

Well, I'm not as kind as you and I'm perfectly willing to suggest that the UFOlogists don't want to properly investigate the footage or aircrew transcript as that increases the chances of a solution not involving UFOs.

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

However, just looking at only the first part of the footage and aircrew transcript shows absolutely nothing to suggest the first object was anything other than a light aircraft. It goes in a straight line at aircraft speeds from a place with a runway to a city with another runway and disappears.

So some UFOlogists, the aircrew and the Mexican authorities are really in my "good books" for not telling us these little details...

Scientists and goverments very rarely publish assumptions, because their reputation is essential for the authority they represent. If they get an assumption, they'll search for evidence to support the claim that follows that assumption, and if they can't find anything conclusive, they'll stay very, very silent.

In Randi's words: "Put up or shut up!".

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.

 

[wipeout]

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.

Okay, I can rephrase that as "My comment was in response to Thomas suggesting that oil-tanker is visible at 50 km on FLIR but an oil-flare would not be after his communications with someone at FLIR who made an estimate on this issue."

Everytime something contradicts the oilflare, balloon or ball lightning theories. The universal answer from all camps is: "Well, then the data must be incorrect!". That's why I would like to find a solution which supports the official data, because that would eliminate all the wrong theories at once, and leave an explanation that no one could contradict.

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.

The chances of anything else being in that exact direction and matching that exact formation of infrared sources would be slim, I'd say.

But how do we get our hands on a map? I might give this some thought...

The balloon-theory advocate post one colorful picture after another of beautiful hot air balloons, but that's not evidence, it's just pictures of beautiful hot air balloons.

In the first day or two of this, I half-seriously suggested balloons but once I knew the distances involved and brightness of the sources, I threw that theory away.