Mexican Airforce films UFOs

[Thomas]

Now listen, this is important. Just coz I'm skeptic doesn't mean I don't get an opinion based on little to no facts, it just means I have to drop that opinion when more facts come along.

And how many facts would you agree to modify to make the theory fit with the assumptions? 10? 50? x?

I have recieved a comprehensive letter from Julio Herrera, and the funny thing is Patricio, that it's in A-grade english.
Infact, the first thing he writes, is that he's fluent in english and I dont need to bother with translations

Thanks for the translation anyway, I'll make a summary of the letter tomorrow.

 

[Thomas]

There's also the "angle of attack" (or whatever it is called in English ) in every airplane, which means that the longitudinal axis is permanently tilted in flight. I don't know by how much, but it may have a bit a an influence in the camera to be tilted as well.

Angle-of-attack would make the airplane tilt the wrong way. So if we add that to the equation, the airplane have to be tilted even further.

 

[Patricio Elicer]

Wow!,.... that's cool news, Thomas. I'm really looking forward to see what Dr. Herrera has to say about the whole affair.

It's not a surprising thing that he is fluent in English (I guess you sent him the letter in both, the Spanish and English versions?). He probably completed his post-graduate studies in the US?, at least this is the case with most of Chilean high-ranked scientists.

 

[SquishyDave]

And how many facts would you agree to modify to make the theory fit with the assumptions? 10? 50? x?

Whoa steady on, as far as I know, I haven't modified any facts, we just don't have enough to discount any of the theories yet, and I'm just saying which theory I think is the most likely based on the facts we do have.

I'm gonna give you benifit of the doubt here and assume you didn't mean I will stick to the old oil flare theory no matter what facts come to light.

 

[Patricio Elicer]

Angle-of-attack would make the airplane tilt the wrong way. So if we add that to the equation, the airplane have to be tilted even further.

Well, I havent' put much thinking on this, but my impression is that if the plane steadly flies with its nose up (upper that the back), AND the camera azimuth is around -140º (that is, pointing to the back-left of the airplane), AND the camera elevation marker is close to 0º, then the camera should be pointing downwards to a certain extent.

 

[Thomas]

Well, I havent' put much thinking on this, but my impression is that if the plane steadly flies with its nose up (upper that the back), AND the camera azimuth is around -140º (that is, pointing to the back-left of the airplane), AND the camera elevation marker is close to 0º, then the camera should be pointing downwards to a certain extent.

True, I forgot that this wasn't a jetfighter, they lean forward during high speed to suppress the angle-of-attack.
One of the things I'm gonna ask Griffin about in the next mail, is what the elevation scale on the FLIR monitor is relative to. Then we can get that cleared up once and for all.

 

[Thomas]

Whoa steady on, as far as I know, I haven't modified any facts, we just don't have enough to discount any of the theories yet, and I'm just saying which theory I think is the most likely based on the facts we do have.

I'm not saying that you have modified any of the facts, just that several of the given facts already have been modified to make the oilflare-theory fit.

 

[Archangel]

One thing that no one seems to have thought about, unless the day was really still how can anything similar to the above, turn into

which dont seem to deviate from a roughly spherical shape.

 

[wipeout]

Originally posted by Patricio Elicer There's also the "angle of attack" (or whatever it is called in English ) in every airplane, which means that the longitudinal axis is permanently tilted in flight. I don't know by how much, but it may have a bit a an influence in the camera to be tilted as well.

That's a good idea. I'd forgotten about that as I hadn't given a whole lot of thought to how the aircraft is flying because all that mattered to me is that the camera was roughly towards the horizon, and it's never more than 3 degrees above that when pointing at the objects in the relevant footage I've seen.

Well, I havent' put much thinking on this, but my impression is that if the plane steadly flies with its nose up (upper that the back), AND the camera azimuth is around -140º (that is, pointing to the back-left of the airplane), AND the camera elevation marker is close to 0º, then the camera should be pointing downwards to a certain extent.

Also, when the camera is pointing at around -90 degrees (at times 2:18 to 2:39 in the video clip) the camera is pointing leftwards and the angle of attack would no longer be having an effect, the camera elevation is -1 to -2 degrees!

That fits the angle of attack idea well and supports my earlier suggestion of slight aircraft tilt to allow the objects to be ground objects as the camera elevation is just above and below zero when you'd expect it could be from angle of attack alone.

So the aircraft tilt and positive camera elevation could be completely explained simply by your idea about the aircraft's angle of attack.

Good work.

 

[Thomas]

Also, when the camera is pointing at around -90 degrees (at times 2:18 to 2:39 in the video clip) the camera is pointing leftwards and the angle of attack would no longer be having an effect, the camera elevation is -1 to -2 degrees!

Within anything-goes, I guess I'm as entitled as you to make unsubstantiated claims. So now I'm gonna say that the aircraft actually tilted to the right when that footage was shot. Prove me wrong.

That fits the angle of attack idea well and supports my earlier suggestion of slight aircraft tilt to allow the objects to be ground objects as the camera elevation is just above and below zero when you'd expect it could be from angle of attack alone.

So the aircraft tilt and positive camera elevation could be completely explained simply by your idea about the aircraft's angle of attack.

Modern aircrafts use flaps to equalize the AoA, thus keep the airplane straight. In 1903 when the Wright brothers became airborne, that would have been true. Today, only extreme-high-speed jetfighters have a hard time equalizing AoA with flaps.

Two questions:

1) Within the oilflare theory, how would you explain that one of the "flares" in point C clearly splits in two and then seperates, as Patricio pointed out?

2) What is the resemblance between the two pictures Archangel posted. On one picture the shape is elliptical on the horizontal angle, on the other they are elliptical on the vertical angle?

(I'll be back later with the summary of Dr. Herrera's letter)

 

[wipeout]

Within anything-goes, I guess I'm as entitled as you to make unsubstantiated claims. So now I'm gonna say that the aircraft actually tilted to the right when that footage was shot. Prove me wrong.

Now you're just arguing for argument's sake.

I prefer to assume a simple explanation that uses only a few reliable pieces of evidence and to consider all other pieces of evidence to be suspect, rather than to make the theory fit all the evidence by suggesting improbable phenomena like invisible ball-lightning, invisible stealth aircraft, etc. as I've seen a lot of people do, including yourself.

It's more likely that some of the evidence is unreliable than these phenomena are running around up there.

1) Within the oilflare theory, how would you explain that one of the "flares" in point C clearly splits in two and then seperates, as Patricio pointed out?

The infrared source dims as well as apparently splits in two. I don't know enough about oil-chimneys or rigs or their arrangement to say why that is.

2) What is the resemblance between the two pictures Archangel posted. On one picture the shape is elliptical on the horizontal angle, on the other they are elliptical on the vertical angle?

Again, I don't know what the oil-facilities might be able to produce in terms of shape of flare. They may not be chimneys, but something else oil-flare related.

 

[FutileJester]

Regarding angle of attack (and that is the correct English term, by the way). With a very few, transitory exceptions, every plane always flies with some poisitive angle of attack all the time. This is the angle between the relative wind (direction of flight) and the chord line of the wings. Note that if the plane is descending, the attitude of the plane may be nose-down relative to the horizon, but it is necessarily still nose-up relative to the (descending) flight path.

AoA varies from almost zero to about 18 degrees or so (the onset of aerodynamic stall) for most planes. A minor caveat is that the axis of the airplane may be slightly angled relative to the chord line of the wings, so that the airplane appears level when in cruise flight with an AoA of a degree or two.

Modern aircrafts use flaps to equalize the AoA, thus keep the airplane straight. In 1903 when the Wright brothers became airborne, that would have been true. Today, only extreme-high-speed jetfighters have a hard time equalizing AoA with flaps.

Flaps have nothing to do with equalizing (?) AoA. Any plane, flaps or not, is flying at a constant AoA if the airspeed is constant. In fact keeping the AoA constant is a great deal of what learning to fly straight-and-level is all about. The flaps are used (mostly) for landing. They reconfigure the wings for more lift and more drag, which also effectively lowers the stall speed. This allows an airplane to land at slower, safer speeds.

 

[wipeout]

Thanks for that information, FutileJester.

A minor caveat is that the axis of the airplane may be slightly angled relative to the chord line of the wings, so that the airplane appears level when in cruise flight with an AoA of a degree or two.

I see. So depending on the aircraft, AoA may or may not be the explanation for the slight camera elevation of a couple of degrees when the camera is looking backwards at what may be an object at or close to the horizon.

 

[FutileJester]

I see. So depending on the aircraft, AoA may or may not be the explanation for the slight camera elevation of a couple of degrees when the camera is looking backwards at what may be an object at or close to the horizon.

Yep, just too many unknowns to say for sure. FWIW, low angles of attack are typical for fast and reasonably fuel-efficent level cruising. One might choose a higher angle of attack for better efficiency at lower speeds. I understand this is a common tactic for surveillance aircraft patrolling a fixed area, as it gives the maximum time on station for a given amount of fuel.

 

[Thomas]

Now you're just arguing for argument's sake.

I'm just trying to show you that anything is possible with assumptions. I could prove the existence of the easter bunny or Santa Claus if I gave assumptions any credit.
I must admit that I dont think you care much for looking in other directions than in that of oilflares. Atleast I have not seen any examples of it since you first proposed that theory.
Believe me, if the oilflare theory was proven right, I would have the laugh of a lifetime, and you would soon be able to find modified pictures of the pilots on the net wearing clown noses and funny hats

I prefer to assume a simple explanation that uses only a few reliable pieces of evidence and to consider all other pieces of evidence to be suspect, rather than to make the theory fit all the evidence by suggesting improbable phenomena like invisible ball-lightning, invisible stealth aircraft, etc. as I've seen a lot of people do, including yourself.

I have suggested several diffrent theories as possible explanations yes, including the oilflare theory, but as soon as the equations began to be stacked up with assumptions-verifying-assumptions, I tried looking in other directions and started to collect data from various relevant sources to verify/falsify the assumptions.

I want a simple explanation to this phenomenon as well, and I actually rate the oilflare theory higher than many of the others I've heard. However, status quo is that we dont have that much data to juggle with, thus I will try to falsify as many of the assumptions as possible, because building assumptions-on-assumptions can easily run out of order and thus prove anything.

It's more likely that some of the evidence is unreliable than these phenomena are running around up there.

That's what SEDENA thought aswell, so the first thing they did was to run a series of tests on the equipment. No malfunctions were detected.
Let's hope for the simple explanation, but as things look now, I dont find that the oilflare theory is simple at all, there are too many abnormal coincidences happening at once. Calling it a simple explanation is out of proportions. I personally call it "the theory of mixed events" at this stage, because that's what it is.

Dont take to my falsification search as personal attacks, I'm not after you, I'm after the theory, hence the truth about this phenomenon.

 

[Thomas]

Flaps have nothing to do with equalizing (?) AoA.

I have a friend who designs software emulated windtunnels and aerodynamic enviroments in general, atleast that's what he claims, I have never met him in person. I asked him about AoA and straight cruising this morning on MSN, he said that it differs from airplane to airplane, and that many modern airplanes used flaps to equalize AoA. Then he send me this diagram. What do you make of that?

I suppose equalize may be the wrong term to use in that sentence though, adjust is merely a better description.

Just one thing, I have for natural reasons never tried this myself, but if you release a tennis ball in the hallway of a Boeing 747 for example, would it then roll in the opposite direction of the heading because of AoA?

 

[FutileJester]

I have a friend who designs software emulated windtunnels and aerodynamic enviroments in general, I asked him about AoA and straight cruising this morning on MSN, he said that it differs from airplane to airplane, and that many modern airplanes used flaps to equalize AoA. Then he send me this diagram. What do you make of that?

I guess I'm unsure what the term equalize means in this context. Certainly, if you try to do the same maneuver once with flaps and once without, you will have to use different angles of attack. And the range of allowable angles of attack is slightly different with and without flaps, as your friend's graph shows. But flaps are not used to correct some issue with managing angle of attack.

In particular, you basically never use flaps in cruise flight, or even in ascents and descents. Flaps increase drag, and lower the top speed considerably. The bonus is that they increase lift and also lower the stall speed, so you can fly slower. You only want this when you're landing and in a few other special cases (like short-field takeoffs).

In short, a pilot is always maintaining angle of attack at all times in flight (usually keeping it constant). Flaps change the aerodynamics of the plane and affect the specific AoA chosen by the pilot, but they don't assist or hinder the pilot in maintaining an AoA at all.

 

[FutileJester]

I suppose equalize may be the wrong term to use in that sentence though, adjust is merely a better description.

Ah, caught this edit addition after I had posted. Okay, I can agree that flaps alter which AoA must be used for a given result. But it is also true that flaps aren't used to manage AoA, that's all stick and trim.

Just one thing, I have for natural reasons never tried this myself, but if you release a tennis ball in the hallway of a Boeing 747 for example, would it then roll in the opposite direction of the heading because of AoA?

Probably not, because the designers usually set the plane fuselage at a small angle to the wings so that the fuselage is level when the plane is in normal cruise flight with a small AoA (measured against the wings). In a hypothetical plane with the wing chord line exactly parallel to the longitudinal axis of the plane, the ball would always roll from nose to tail in level flight because of AoA.

edited to add: I should mention that pilots don't always think in terms of angle of attack, largely because civilian aircraft don't have AoA indicators. They think more in terms of airspeed, which is basically the same thing if you take a few extra things into account. In fact this is one of the tough things for new pilots to understand, that the stick is used to set your speed and the throttle is used to control ascent and descent; most people intuitively feel it should be the other way around.

 

[Patricio Elicer]

thus I will try to falsify as many of the assumptions as possible, because building assumptions-on-assumptions can easily run out of order and thus prove anything.

A healthy measure, indeed

 

[wipeout]

Originally posted by Thomas I must admit that I dont think you care much for looking in other directions than in that of oilflares. Atleast I have not seen any examples of it since you first proposed that theory.

That's simply because I remain deeply unimpressed by all the other theories put forward for the main sighting of 11 infrared sources.

Quite frankly, given some of the deeply unlikely theories dedicated skeptics and UFO believers have produced, I'm seriously wondering what the hell people are smoking.

Believe me, if the oilflare theory was proven right, I would have the laugh of a lifetime, and you would soon be able to find modified pictures of the pilots on the net wearing clown noses and funny hats

I can and will change my beliefs if the evidence gives me reason to, as I when I changed my belief about the first object seen from 16:42:44 to 16:59:36 possibly being a radar error once I learned from the aircrew transcript it had infrared as well and traveled at aircraft speeds in a straight line between two places with runways, appearing near one and disappearing at the other.

That the aircrew, the official investigation and ufologists apparently include what is very obviously simply another aircraft as if it was a UFO means I'm holding some beliefs about these people too right now....

Let's hope for the simple explanation, but as things look now, I dont find that the oilflare theory is simple at all, there are too many abnormal coincidences happening at once. Calling it a simple explanation is out of proportions. I personally call it "the theory of mixed events" at this stage, because that's what it is.

My theory is not that complex:

A plane draws the aircrew's attention to a city near the horizon with oil-facilities nearby, then they mistake the heat sources from oil-flares there and in other places in the Campeche region as being flying objects like the airplane was.

The only question for me is what are the later erratic radar signals which I think were never filmed. They might simply be errors or false readings of some sort.

Dont take to my falsification search as personal attacks, I'm not after you, I'm after the theory, hence the truth about this phenomenon.

More than anything, I am mystified why anyone kept looking for alternative causes for the infrared objects once they knew the area was covered in oil-flares.