So much for so little
I have been trying to verify the oil flare hypothesis for several months now, and I have finally obtained the answers for many of the issues we were merely just speculating about, especially concerning the camera elevation problems, and the distance problems.
I have obtained these answers from no less than Tim Wescott who was head of FLIR Systems’ airborne software division, when the SAFIRE II was designed. Furthermore, he worked on the control algorithms concerning the gyroscopes, the lenses and the optical dither stages as well as the FOV/focus mechanism.
If anyone knows all there is to know about the SAFIRE II, this is the guy.
One thing which I have promised to say is that any answer hereby given, is the opinion of Tim Wescott, and not necessarily that of FLIR Systems Inc. Because although he worked for FLIR Systems for nearly 10 years; he now runs his own company instead.
Let’s get to the core of the issue.
As you who have followed this case can imagine, I was especially concerned with the distance issue, and the elevation problems. My correspondence with Wescott has been long and rather complicated (involving highly technical issues which took my breath away several times), but I will hereby try to give a short round up on those answers I obtained which is most interesting concerning the justification of the oil flare hypothesis.
Wescott estimates, that the oil flares in question (AKAL-J, AKAL-C and NOHOCH-A) is detectable by the SAFIRE II on the given distance, due to the size of the flares - if the weather conditions is good. He adds; that the conditions in the video appeared to be good.
Another thing which is equally interesting is that of the elevation problems. When I contacted Wescott in the first place, it was because I realized by common sense, that the camera would have to be gyrostabilized. Otherwise the images would have been vibrating.
Now, gyroscopes are stabilized with respect to the inertial frame of reference. In this case, we can assume that it is fixed to the Earth. However - and this is the interesting part – the SAFIRE II has two modes: One is a hybrid mode where the camera is stabilized against image vibration by the gyros, but more or less fixed to the aircraft attitude for lower-speed motion. That this is the mode which is active while these images is shot, is documented in the top-center of the images where you can see it saysâ€INRPT†– this is the hybrid mode. The second mode is denoted as â€HDHLDâ€, and this denotes inertially stabilized position servo mode.
Let’s speak English for a while shall we? In the video, the images in question are shot with respect to the aircrafts attitude since it is in hybrid mode, but the camera is still stabilized against image vibration by the gyros. So the assumptions concerning that the camera must have been relative to the mounting point on the fuselage, is hereby documented to be correct.
Furthermore Wescott adds that it is common practice for pilots to crank a few degrees of flap so they can cruise a little slower while keeping the airplane level.
As you may have realized, I know a lot about this camera now, but I think I have covered the issues which is most essential to this case, so I’ll stop here, but you’re all welcome to ask me any questions if you want.
One thing I was concerned about was to provide evidence for the angle inclinations that you’ll find doing the math, so I thought it was about time to provide some evidence which would close these gaps. In respect of this, I worked out a theorem to have a guide towards a solution (remember that I study this case due to my interest in philosophy of science, and not because I care about ETs). My result is this:
<center>
(click to enlarge)
</center>
Some of the things which is worth to notice here, is that I have made the formulas for the distance calculations in pixels, using sine and cosine for each clock direction (latitude longer than longitude due to the curvature of our dear planet). I haven’t seen anyone else taking notice of this issue, so I thought it was about time.
Also notice that you’ll find a blue marking which covers most of the map: This is the distance to the horizon from the given altitude, and no, it’s not entirely circular, because we’re pretty close to equator at this point. The green and blue points on the travel line are points used for the theorem. They both follow a set of rules I have worked out for precise azimuth calculations, and I want go in-depth with this at this point, because it would be quite time consuming.
The theorem itself is explained in the top of the image, but the thing is, that I haven’t been able to actually prove it. I strongly suspect, that this is due to the fact, that the GPS only updates every 5 seconds, and the result is that we can’t really measure that exact bearing at any point. Hence, we’re trapped.
I have worked on several models to solve this issue, and one is more inaccurate than the other, I will, however, show one way I worked out which should – in sloppy theory - be quite accurate, but it doesn’t work either. It looks like this:
<center>
(click to enlarge)
</center>
If anyone wants to take this any further, I have made a template I will be happy to provide.
Now to something quite interesting:
When I read Smith’s report on E-Skeptic, I was thrilled. I realized that he had found a pattern of oilrigs which matched the famous formation(s) – excellent work indeed. One thing bugged me though, if this pattern was a complete match, why would he have to cut them out individually to make them fit? The same analyses on Franz’s homepage seemed to be stretched ad hoc as well, could this solution be rigged after all?
I remade the analysis to find out, and here is the result:
<center>
(click to enlarge)
</center>
That I used an image where the two famous gather/split radiation sources are overlapping is not all random. I did this because that would tell would tell us the exact direction they would have to obtaining this scenario from (see the parallax line).
Now, two things are of essence here:
1) Either the angles didn’t fit, or the image provided by Smith was not shot with 100% respect to North. Because if you look at the diagram, you’ll realize that I had to rotate the map 2.8 degrees to make it fit with that of the theorem map.
2) The pattern is not a complete match (as you can see if you look at the image in the lower-left corner).
I figure that a sound solution to the first problem is that the satellite which took this image may not have been 100% fixed on North. Or, the theorem map doesn’t correspond to this map in one way or the other.
Without having a keen knowledge of atmospheric effects, I’ll guess that the mismatch of the pattern is what you’ll expect from atmospheric disturbances at the huge distance in question (183.1 km to AKAL-C IIRC).
Ok, another thing, that both Maccabee and I noticed somewhat simultaneously and 100% independently of each other; is the fact that the camera appears to be headed towards the Cantarell oilfield in the beginning of the video - in MED FOV. This holds an essential problem, because later in the video â€the twins†is observed in MED FOV, but this time the airplane is even further away from the oilfield. How could this be?
I did the calculations on the scenario to verify or falsify that they were actually looking at the oilrigs in question (Without going into detail, I believe the oilrig NEPTUNO to be â€the twinsâ€). This is my result:
<center>
</center>
The solution is simple; they’re not looking towards the oilfield at this point, but it certainly appeared so at first glance.
Ok, phew.. The last issue: This is one of the hardest to solve (for me at least), if you watch the video frame-by-frame, you’ll notice that the famous formation actually change dramatically. To my knowledge, nobody else had raised this issue before I did, and I don’t really know if I should congratulate myself, or bang my head on the table (no, suggestions are not welcome).
I have made some diagrams which were part of my first report, but nobody seemed to take notice of these although they present quite a problem for the oil flare hypothesis. They go like this:
<center>
</center>
Now, this formation disappears behind a cloud, and when it appears again, it looks like this:
<center>
</center>
Now it has become the formation which was presented by the medias worldwide, the formation which, somewhat, fits the map provided by Smith. But how could this be? Oil flares wouldn’t go about changing formation so quickly; this couldn’t even be due to parallax issues. So I speculated and speculated until I realized one thing which I think is of essence.
The FOV has changed, so could the radiation sources in the center of the Clan (C3 to C12), actually be the Stray? Well, maybe it is, or maybe it’s an entirely different group of oilrigs we see here, I don’t know, but I should mention that the azimuth change enough to justify that it is the same formation, or at least parts of, that we’re looking at in both diagrams. The pattern is a serious mismatch, but maybe this can be explained by focus issues. I don’t know, but if anyone forced me to give my opinion, I would say that it’s most likely due to FOV and focus issues.
Now I think it’s time to wrap this up, but I should mention that the ufologists I know do believe the Smith-pattern to justify the formation(s) – more or less. However, the hot issue now, is the erratic RADAR signals. I will personally not engage in any speculations concerning these readouts, because:
1) I don’t anything about RADARs.
2) The RADAR output wasn’t recorded, so all we have is statements. No hard evidence.
My current position towards the oil flare hypothesis is that it is no longer a hypothesis, but a genuine theory. However, it’s not conclusive, but then again, without getting into the philosophy of Thomas Kuhn; no theory actually is.
Now that I have rounded up most of the critical issues concerning this theory, I would like to make a few comments to the conversations that have been ongoing in this thread during my absence.
â€And now... to something completely differentâ€: One is entitled to ask why the heck the aircrew didn’t realize they were pointing the camera down towards the Cantarell oilfield? I think this is a combination of several unlucky coincidences which they had never encountered in combination before:
1) The radar operator most likely got some erratic readout, and due to this the FLIR operator was forced to use the SAFIRE in ways - and especially FOV modes - he was not used to.
2) When a radiation source is seen on those camera elevations, it is usually airborne. Oil flares of that size emits huge amounts of IR radiation, and had it not been for the excellent weather conditions, they properly wouldn’t have seen them at all. It is simply not usual to detect earthly radiation sources on that distance.
3) The camera is not mounted for precision surveys, they use the classic â€o’clock†terminology which is good enough for the aircrew members to communicate, concerning vehicles and airplanes which can be suspected for drug trafficking.
There’s still one thing that makes no sense to me: Why on Earth would the head of SEDENA deliver this material to Maussan without having such basics checked by qualified researchers first? I don’t get it.
To all,
During this case I must say that I was strongly disappointed with the way both skeptics and believers were handling the issues. Both sides were concluding this-and-that without gathering any information or doing any actual research (here I talk especially about the solutions proposed by esteemed skeptics and skeptic magazines). Skeptics very often mock believers for not providing evidence for their claims, and when I saw that skeptics were actually doing the exact same thing during this case; my emotions began to rule my logic on several occasions. To me, the scenario looked somewhat like this:â€Hey, if you’re a believer and you make a claim, then you have to provide evidence for this, but because I’m a skeptic, I don’t have to provide any evidence!†I went furious due to this, because it placed the entire culture of skepticism in an awkward situation where our weapons against pseudoscience were beginning to lose their value.
My temper went out of order on this account, and I somewhat flamed some of you a number of times. I will not make individual excuses for this, I know I went out of order, but you all know who you are. I normally wouldn’t be that tempered.
I worked on a few ideas myself in the beginning which had been proposed by others, and soon found them to be somewhat plausible (military flares and ball lightning). There’s no doubt that the falsification of these ideas made me extremely careful afterwards, and were basically the main reason that I didn’t want to jump directly into any other idea again. I slowly became more and more serious about this case when I began to receive material from various sources, and as someone on these boards proposed, this thread could indeed serve as a study in critical thinking. However, evidence is crucial; because I for one don’t want to place skepticism in a situation like certain esteemed skeptics did with all their published baloney ideas; like that of equipment failure or mirror effects. They obviously concluded all this without having the slightest knowledge about the SAFIRE II, or even having the watched the videos available thoroughly. Not good.
Elicer,
We have already been over this in private correspondence, but I think I would like to make a more public statement about it. You have written Randi, and told him that Gemmell, others and I are somewhat responsible for the oil flare theory. One thing I know for sure is that I don’t deserve any credits in this regard – although very few of my falsifications proved to be correct.
But if we should round up this case, I think it goes like this:
1) Mummymonkey speculated about oilrigs in the area.
2) Gemmell found that oil was produced in the area.
3) Franz found the correct oilrigs in the area.
4) Smith found the pattern to match the famous formation (and I consider this the most important discovery of them all).
It’s in order to thank you for bringing Randi’s attention to the thread, and as you pointed out, the JREF boards proved to be worth the bandwidth during this case. The mission is clear, and the goal is obtainable. Let’s do more of this stuff in the future.
Franz,
I like the fact that you actually collected information about the Cantarell oilfield, this proved to be a good hint for Smith who knows a great deal about satellites ( I think I have spammed 15 satellites with no result). I will not give you any credits for anything since you don’t seem to like it, but I do have a question though: What’s up with all that banter about ETs?
The Drake equation, Fermi’s paradox and the continuing failure of the SETI project should be something worth adding to that equation shouldn’t it?
I do believe there’s something out there, because since the universe is infinite it’s somewhat impossible that there isn’t. However, that extra terrestrial life forms should be (secretly) present here on Earth is not most likely with the current knowledge of several issues. That’s at least my personal opinion.
Anyway, I saw you asked on the Virtuallystrange mailing list if anyone had the original uncut DVD. I can answer that for you: If there actually is an original uncut video, SEDENA has it, but the video you have obtained from my site and cut into several pieces is encoded from the exact same DVD Maussan and Maccabee has. Maussan sent me that DVD, and I encoded it for all to see with his permission. In this concern I would like point out that he knew I was a skeptic when he sent me that DVD.
Much of the information on your site is excellent. Outstanding efforts indeed, but please don’t use any of my diagrams or anything else. I do not wish to get entangled in those struggles which are ongoing in the UFO researcher societies – I hope you can understand my wish in this concern. I studied this case because it was relevant to my interest in philosophy of science. Thanks for your efforts.
Printy,
I know you do find that some of my statements have been personal attacks. The last statement you called a personal attack was more a piece of humor, because a distance of 400 km is quite absurd. It was not meant as a personal attack.
Interesting summary on your homepage by the way, if you have any questions concerning the camera which has not been answered in this post, just ask.
One thing I feel I should add though, is that I see you suggest that the SAFIRE is able to detect radiation in the visible light spectrum as well as the infrared simultaneously. This is not all correct: The reason that the Moon, lakes and several clouds are bright in the video is because the infrared radiation from the Sun - with the smaller wavelengths (near-infrared) - is able to penetrate the atmosphere. Near-infrared is very close to visible light; hence it will penetrate and reflect on several objects below and beyond the atmosphere – including the Moon. Of course, this all depends on the given camera, and I understand that IR detectors for astronomical issues, often detect in a spectrum with longer wavelengths, and therefore are used in high altitudes.
Gemmell,
You’re an interesting person, and I hope you’ll keep sticking that sensitive nose of yours into paranormal issues. I once read that skeptics were the rottweilers of science, making sure that no pseudoscientific claims entered the scene unchallenged. If this is the case, you’re a happy bloodhound sniffing around for ideas and bugging the hell out of the more aggressive and rigor watchdogs. All-in-all, many of your assumptions proved to be correct - despite the extreme absence of facts and contradictory information at the given time - and if you can do that again, you’re surely an asset to skepticism. Well done indeed.
As a final statement to all, I have made a lot of statements above which could be easy to mistake for me thinking that I’m some sort of judge, I don’t think that I am at all. For one thing, this is my first so called UFO case ever, and most likely my last. However, I thought it was about time to give my 2 cents about this entire scenario.
Wescott wrote to me that the aircrew might had found some: Unceasingly Flaming Objects. Enough said
