Mexican Airforce films UFOs

Patricio Elicer said:
Hi Mike, and welcome to the forums.

You make good points indeed. Most of the quotes from Maussan you brought up are far from accurate, judging solely by the video. It's possible, however, that he got additional info from interviews with the pilots.
Click to expand...
Hi Patricio,

I'm especially glad that you responded, since you're the one that independentely translated the transcript. Since you don't say now, in retrospect, that there are a lot of places in the recordings which were unintelligable, in which some of the "extra" things might have been said, I'm feeling more confident that only a few likely possibilities remain.

-The video (which leads to our translated transcript) we have is incomplete (edited), I read that some time was missing in the 30 minute "unedited" video, is this possible at more locations, where possibly those things could have been said?
-Not everything the crew says is recorded.
-The crew turned the recording off at intervals. (mind you, at the most important intervals)
-Patricio is part of a conspiracy that tries to coverup the whole incident, undoubtely funded by JREF.

Well, if the video is unedited AND a complete recording of the flight, there are the following possibilities:
-Maussan derived the extra info from interviews with the crew. Only if it can be proven that some things aren't recorded/are missing from the video is this meaningful. Otherwise it is proven that the crew has given wrong statements, which isn't that strange if they were asked to repeat the event from memory. If the recordings are complete then there is no reason to follow/include the subjective accounts the crew gave.
-Maussan made it up. Which actually seems rather unlikely, he would have been rather stupid to release the whole video himself afterwards, for all the world to see that his account is totally wrong! On the other hand, some veriviable parts ARE indeed totally wrongly depicted in his briefing. This can be proven using the video. That doesn't exactly give the missing parts a better chance of being right. He might truly feel that his report is objective or realized the video would be released in the end anyway, and that it might look better if he had done it himself.

My guess is, that Maussan will say that there are things we "don't know" and has access to material which the public has not. He will say that the recordings will not include everything that was said on the plane, well he HAS to state this to remain believable. It might even be true.

Mind you, that Patricio has a quality that no serious UFO researcher could ever hope to truly possess: independence, Patricio stands to gain nothing if this is proven to be either a human error or ET. It is however clear that Maussan has everything to win if it turns out to be ET/remain a mystery and everything to lose if it is proven a human error. We know Maussan will be writing a book about this, that can't possibly have a positive effect on one's objectivity.
 
There a lot of points I see have been brought up in the last couple of days, I'll do the distance and field of view one first. :)

I know from here that AKAL-C is about 1 kilometer long, so I did some rough calculations on that basis.

Allowing for the rotation of AKAL-C from the plane's perspective, in the image from the FLIR shown at the top in the pictures below, I worked out that the camera's field of view is showing an area roughly 1.65 kilometers wide.

Conveniently, the distance to the flares is roughly 165 km, so the area being looked at (1.65 km wide at 165 km distant) is just as big as 1 cm would be at 100 cm.

Basically, if you looked out from the plane to the oil flares with the naked eye, the camera is looking at an area that would appear about as big as your smallest fingernail when you hold your arm out at full stretch.

Image10.jpg


Just calculating about AKAL-C on its own, the distance from the furthest left AKAL-C flare to the furthest right AKAL-C flare is about 590 meters from the plane's pespective. They are about 645 meters apart on the platform itself.

That's about 1/3 of the FLIR image apart, so the furthest apart AKAL-C flares if they were visible from the plane with the naked eye would appear to be about as wide apart as 1/3 the size of your smallest fingernail with your arm at full stretch.

The gaps between the 4 flares of AKAL-C (from left to right and from the plane's perspective in the FLIR image) are roughly 115 meters, 100 meters and 380 meters. Don't ask me how big that is on your fingernail. You could draw some dots on it if you wanted, I suppose. :D

Also, this file says that the FLIR camera has a maximum magnification of 18x plus a 4x computer zoom, so I think the camera has a maximum zoom of 72x.

Overall, it sounds okay to me. I'm sure it's possible to do lots of calculations but I think you can imagine how objects seen in an area which is as big as you smallest fingernail at full stretch would appear quite like those in the FLIR image when the camera used its 18x to 72x zoom to magnify them.
 
If you look at the video (I don't know if this was mentioned before, but I hadn't noticed it before) the magnification seems to be displayed at the top, right of the centre. The different values I witnessed were: MED, NRW (narrow?), and NRX2 (narrow times 2?)
The link you supplied:
wipeout said:
file
Click to expand...
says that the field of view can have the following values: (hor X Ver)
Narrow 0.8 x 0.6
Medium 3.4 x 2.6
(and some wider)
The setting in the picture above we are talking about is NRX2 (visible at the top) so let's assume it's the half of the specified narrow setting, therefore a horizontal field of view of 0.4 degrees.

If something is seen at 175 km then the total width on the screen there would be tan(0.4) x 175 = 1.15 km. Which actually seems eerily close to your 1.65 km calculation.

This does however mean that the pilots have to be even bigger idiots, if the zoom was set this high, they should have realized that the objects were very far away. It's the equivalent of a child looking through binoculars and then saying "that building looks so close I can touch it!"

I guess they were fooled bij the excellent performance of the FLIR, as was I.
 
Looking at their webpages, NARCAP seem to be on the sensible side of UFO investigation. I wasn't aware of what they did exactly before, although I may have heard of the name somewhere.

They make this good point that someone who's done a little thinking on the case would make on their news page:

Numerous news organizations and individuals including various members of the scientific community have stated their opinions in the public forum. In almost every case these opinions were offered without examining the material beyond a cursory review of very short film clips of the FLIR camera footage and without conducting any analysis of the case and supporting evidence.

I hope they can maybe fill in some of the details of the start and end of the incident as the middle bit is obviously well looked at already.
 
Just to let everyone know that the latest issue of SI is out with Sheaffer's article. I only glanced at it briefly in the Borders bookstore but it seems to match most of what has been written here and on my webpage.
 
wipeout said:
Astrophotographer, seems this guy is neither a ufologist nor a happy bunny... :D

http://www.virtuallystrange.net/ufo/updates/2004/aug/m28-006.shtml
Click to expand...

The term "UFOlogist" can be applied rather liberally. Who is a UFOlogist and exactly what kind of education is required for this lofty profession? UFOlogy is considered the study of UFOs. Since there is no "science" that identifies the qualifications for one who studies UFOs (be it part time or full time) anyone studying UFOs can be considered a UFOlogist.

I think many people on that list are missing the point of my quoting them. I was trying to point out that most of them openly believed this to be some earth shaking event in UFOlogy. Instead of asking questions, they simply pushed the "I believe" button. Lehmberg was one of the more willing participants in this process.

If you look back at their archive, it is interesting to see the initial responses by many to the Franz announcement of the oil well theory. I only selected a few for my webpage but there were some real interesting comments. Instead of trying to see if the theory had merit, they simply dismissed the theory with little or no thought. I think Sheaffer's closing statement in his SI article says it best,

"By their reaction, the "leaders" of UFOlogy have shown themselves incapble of distinguishing logical from illogical thought, and science from pseudoscience. The lesson of the Mexican Infrared UFO video illustrates once again the inability of the UFO movement to perform critical thinking."
 
I just read Sheaffer's article in the Sept/Oct issue of Skeptical Inquirer. Interesting, though he refers only to the "main incident" segment, already discussed here in detail.

His closing statement caught my attention as well. It strikes me as significant how shallow some UFO-advocates (maybe the majority?) are when it comes to rationalize a "UFO sighting". They just jump to conclusions without a minimal critical and careful analysis of the data available.

I happen to post in a local UFO-related forum. Some forum members promptly scoffed at "ok, explain this one now, why are you silent?". There was a reason for me to be silent: I was learning! ;)

BTW, thanks Astrophotographer for crediting me in your report. I'm glad that my work has been useful. I've added timestamps to the transcript, and I'd gladly contribute with that if you think it is of any use.
 
Astrophotographer said:
The term "UFOlogist" can be applied rather liberally. Who is a UFOlogist and exactly what kind of education is required for this lofty profession? UFOlogy is considered the study of UFOs. Since there is no "science" that identifies the qualifications for one who studies UFOs (be it part time or full time) anyone studying UFOs can be considered a UFOlogist.
Click to expand...

I agree and I assumed most or all of the people over at Virtuallystrange.com were UFOlogists because that's how it looks. I'm not really into UFOs but even I recognized some of the names there.

As to the dismissive reactions that Captain Franz faced on Virtuallystrange.com, many of the more justifiable objections had been answered here in this forum and the reaction Franz got was the main reason I e-mailed him and gave him what we knew. Pity he never related to the UFOlogists what I said or he could have immediately exposed some of them as being too quick to dismiss the idea.

I think Sheaffer's closing statement in his SI article says it best,

"By their reaction, the "leaders" of UFOlogy have shown themselves incapable of distinguishing logical from illogical thought, and science from pseudoscience. The lesson of the Mexican Infrared UFO video illustrates once again the inability of the UFO movement to perform critical thinking."
Click to expand...

I'd imagine that the whole Mexican Airforce UFO case is a bit of a classic in terms of misindentification, media distortion, and believers and skeptics getting a bit too wildly speculative.
 
Patricio Elicer said:
I just read Sheaffer's article in the Sept/Oct issue of Skeptical Inquirer. Interesting, though he refers only to the "main incident" segment, already discussed here in detail.
Click to expand...

Does it say how he or anyone else realizes the oil-industry is in that area or that it seems that an aircraft made the aircrew look in that direction?

I happen to post in a local UFO-related forum. Some forum members promptly scoffed at "ok, explain this one now, why are you silent?". There was a reason for me to be silent: I was learning! ;)
Click to expand...

Hope you then taught them a lesson. ;)
 
wipeout said:
Does it say how he or anyone else realizes the oil-industry is in that area or that it seems that an aircraft made the aircrew look in that direction?
Click to expand...
He first mentions the subject with these words: "By May 20 some skeptical analysts had identified the probable source of the objects: burning oil well flares from offshore oil platforms in the Bay of Campeche".

Then he goes on with this: "One anonymous 'concerned outdoorsman' who works on offshore oil platforms wrote on the enviromentalist Web site www.myoutdoorjournal.com:

Each day while I work, I see flares burning at such a rate that it is almost unbelievable to the human eye.
.....
....
Each platform has a flare some have two, in which are roaring twenty-four hours a day, three hundred and sixty-five days a year... at night while looking across the bay of Campeche, it looks like a spotted forest fire out of control in the distant far yonder.... (excerpt)"

He continues with "On May 26, Capt. Alejandro Franz of the private Mexican UFO research organization Alcione, who is far more skeptical than Maussan came to the same conclusion"

The rest is already well known to us :)

It's interesting that Scheaffer in his article quotes an expert on infrared and electro-optical technology who he interviewed for details on the infrared recording system.
 
Patricio Elicer said:
I happen to post in a local UFO-related forum. Some forum members promptly scoffed at "ok, explain this one now, why are you silent?". There was a reason for me to be silent: I was learning! ;)
Click to expand...

UFO forums tend to go on endlessly in discussions about each case. I used to frequent a few but gave up. It was like beating my head against a wall. Just when it appears you have made your point about a specific UFO case, the UFO proponents simply bring up another case. The end result is another 3-4 weeks endlessly arguing over the same problems. I recall reading Roy Craig's work on the Condon study. He stated that Condon wanted to do just that. He wanted to take the ten best UFO cases presented by UFOlogists and perform a thorough investigation that would reveal the true story. Craig and others discouraged this because they knew the instant a case was explained, UFO groups would bring up another one in its place. Like the hydra of mythology, two new heads would pop up the instant you lopped off the original one.

Patricio Elicer said:
BTW, thanks Astrophotographer for crediting me in your report. I'm glad that my work has been useful. I've added timestamps to the transcript, and I'd gladly contribute with that if you think it is of any use.
Click to expand...

Any information that sheds more light on the matter helps out. I listened to the video and used my basic understanding of the spanish language to get the time stamps on the radar data. However, I am not so certain that I got the times with the data 100% correct.
 
Patricio Elicer said:
He first mentions the subject with these words: "By May 20 some skeptical analysts had identified the probable source of the objects: burning oil well flares from offshore oil platforms in the Bay of Campeche".
Click to expand...

Thanks, Patricio. :) May 20th? Seems we in this forum beat these "skeptical analysts" to the answer by about a week then. :D
 
Skeptical analysts? If that's us, then it makes it sound like we're all sitting around a big desk and we're looking at something sitting on the desk with suspicion. ;)

If we were, I'd want to buy a Sherlock Holmes hat and a pipe. :D
 
It appears that Captain Franz has read my webpage and has taken notice of this forum.

He has an interesting video that is worth the download. He also seems to have acknowledged wipeout as one of the first to recognize this possible solution. I hope to update my webpage soon but have been somewhat busy and I also am curious as to the response on the UFO Updates list. Based on what I have read, I think some have become more receptive to the idea of this explanation. However, some of the biggest opponents of the oil well fire theory have remained silent.
 
Astrophotographer said:
It appears that Captain Franz has read my webpage and has taken notice of this forum.

He has an interesting video that is worth the download. He also seems to have acknowledged wipeout as one of the first to recognize this possible solution. I hope to update my webpage soon but have been somewhat busy and I also am curious as to the response on the UFO Updates list. Based on what I have read, I think some have become more receptive to the idea of this explanation. However, some of the biggest opponents of the oil well fire theory have remained silent.
Click to expand...
Well, I'm convinced! The light formations created by the oil flares bear an uncanny resemblance to those of the Mexican Air Force movies. Hats off to Captain Franz and wipeout!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom