Thomas said:
1. Maybe the radar could only detect or make sense of some parts of the oil platforms sticking up high enough from the surface.
2. The pilot operating the camera seems to zoom in to avoid the infrared from the sky blinding it, and it then becomes difficult to have any idea of size, distance or altitude of the objects since the horizon is no longer visible and nothing one the ground is either.
3. That depends on the lay out of the oil platforms themselves, and I've tried and failed to find pictures of them. I don't speak Spanish and that doesn't help when searching.
4. I believe the sky is visible early on at the top of the footage. It's blindingly bright to the camera, so I think he knew he was pointing the camera at the ground during the footage.
I think they were just misinterpreting what they were seeing.
I think we have good evidence from the numbers of the footage that they were pointing an infrared camera at region of the Earth's surface with several oil platforms.
And when they burn off something, I'd guess it'd look exactly like what we saw in terms of intensity of heat at that range.
I found some pictures from the relevant Campeche area. This is an interesting one... 
If there are more than a few of those in the oil industry area we know the camera is pointing at, then that would be our answer.
Note that there are three towers there, close together but one is not switched on. Looks a lot like one of the groups of three heat sources in the footage. Also, the flames are not bright visually, but are obviously very hot so it might be hard to spot them from a distance by eye but not by infrared camera.
So I believe it's not a big oil-platform at sea, but lots of little "burner"(?) towers like those on land. In the airforce footage, we see some burners go on, burn for a little while and go off again.
My investigation is doing okay, I think.
If there are more than a few of those in the oil industry area we know the camera is pointing at, then that would be our answer.
Note that there are three towers there, close together but one is not switched on. Looks a lot like one of the groups of three heat sources in the footage. Also, the flames are not bright visually, but are obviously very hot so it might be hard to spot them from a distance by eye but not by infrared camera.
So I believe it's not a big oil-platform at sea, but lots of little "burner"(?) towers like those on land. In the airforce footage, we see some burners go on, burn for a little while and go off again.
My investigation is doing okay, I think.
Interesting indeed. Chimneys. I like that idea because it also explains the formations far better than oilrigs.wipeout said:
As far as I have understood this, the calculations of altitude is based on the radar (the 3 objects), and not on the IR cams. However, if that is not the case, and thier calculations are entirely based on the IR, then I think the chimney-theory is rather plausible. But only if they don't have any radar confirmations of the altitude of the famous three objects.
Secondly, the chimney-theory still fails to explain why only three of the elleven objects showed up on radar. As far as I know radar tech., objects at ground level doesn't appear without they have been marked in advance, including chimneys, towers etc., but I'm not sure, maybe mummymonkey can clear that up?
All-in-all, looking at the videos, I think it's a good theory, but the issue with the three objects still needs to get cleared up. If the altitude calculations are based on the radar, then the entire chimney-theory needs modifications at the least. And flying objects or 'centellas' need to be part of the theory. As I see it, it could very well be a scenario of mixed events.
1) Was the radar used to determine altitudes?
If not,
2) How sensitive is a radar concerning high ground objects?
3) Is the pilots lying or have they been paranoid when they say that the objects started chasing them?
I don't know anything about the radar.
I do think it's odd that the plane is flying east and the objects being filmed are in the northwest how radar might pick them up. I don't know how that's possible as I think most aircraft radars are forward-looking. It suggests to me that the plane turned around, but I haven't seen any footage to confirm that.
As to the objects chasing and surrounding the plane, the impression I get is that there are oil platforms and towers dotted all over the Campeche coastline and offshore. It could be other distant burner towers started going off from several other places and this spooked the aircrew even more.
I'm thinking of e-mailing Mr. Randi himself about the oil-facility theory as it seems to be fitting together reasonably well.
I do think it's odd that the plane is flying east and the objects being filmed are in the northwest how radar might pick them up. I don't know how that's possible as I think most aircraft radars are forward-looking. It suggests to me that the plane turned around, but I haven't seen any footage to confirm that.
As to the objects chasing and surrounding the plane, the impression I get is that there are oil platforms and towers dotted all over the Campeche coastline and offshore. It could be other distant burner towers started going off from several other places and this spooked the aircrew even more.
I'm thinking of e-mailing Mr. Randi himself about the oil-facility theory as it seems to be fitting together reasonably well.
I don't consider this UFO-theory debunked yet, there are still unsolved issues, especially concerning the radar. But do it, and let's hear what the man has to say.wipeout said:
Another possibilty is to ask Phillip Klass what he thinks of the theory, he have even more experience with debunking UFO sightings. This email is to the public relations director of CSICOP Kevin Christopher: kchristopher@centerforinquiry.net, he can forward the theory to Phillip Klass. If you choose to do it, then please post the reply in this thread.
Batman Jr.
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Apr 30, 2004
- Messages
- 1,254
Good idea. It still bothers me though how I had come to think him dead.
I do admit that the smoke stacks in the picture which wipeout provides above bear a suspicious resemblance in configuration to the lights.
I think less advanced radars have problems detecting or tracking objects at significantly lower altitudes because of radar scattering off the ground, which forms a "background." I don't know how modern the radars are in the Mexican airforce, or these particular planes, but it's possible that either (a) only some chimneys returned enough energy to be detectable, others being lost behind the noise or (b) none of the "aerial" objects were actually detected on radar, but something on the ground nearby produced large enough returns to be detected, like a large building or something.Thomas said:
That assumes, of course, that the radars were aimed below the horizon to a significant degree.
BTW Thomas, don't take this the wrong way, but your avatar looks freakishly like my unemployed slacker brother-in-law. Every time I see it, I suddenly need to check to see if my fridge has been raided...
Patricio Elicer
Obsessed with Reality
Re: Update
I could only find a link in Spanish about it: http://cnnespanol.com/2004/tec/05/13/ovnis.ap/
The relevant part of the article says:
The 11 luminous objects filmed by the Mexican Air Force pilots might be "centellas", a very rare atmospheric phenomenon, and not UFOs as some have speculated, a Mexican scientist said.
"Sometimes electrical discharges take place in the atmosphere, where, unlike the lightnings where the electrical current flows from one terminal to the other, the current keeps self-contained in a sphere-like shape", said Julio Herrera, researcher of the Institute of Nuclear Sciences of the Universidad Autónoma de México (UNAM).
"This is a hypothesis we have yet to confirm" said Herrera, and added that they will ask the Secretary of Defense to hand over to them all the information available about the objects filmed in March 5th.
Well, as I said, I have no idea of what this "centella" phenomenon is all about, but it seems odd that a self-contained lightning would be active for ten minutes (that's the period of time pilots alleged the phenomenon was visible).
Also, there's the problem of how to reconcile this explanation with the fact that the objects were seen in the radar, although the Philip Klass' 9th ufological principle may account for it: " Whenever a light is sighted in the night skies that is believed to be a UFO and this is reported to a radar operator, who is asked to search his scope for an unknown target, almost invariably an "unknown" target will be found. Conversely, if an unusual target is spotted on a radarscope at night that is suspected of being a UFO, an observer is dispatched or asked to search for a light in the night sky, almost invariably a visual sighting will be made. (Klass UFOs: The Public Deceived 304)
Yes, I just read about it a moment ago. A totally new explanatory line may be emerging. I admit I had never heard of the "centellas" atmospheric phenomenon before, and obviously I don't know the english word for it. I've only heard the Spanish exclamatory expression "Rayos y Centellas!" ("lightnings and centellas!")Q-Source said:
I could only find a link in Spanish about it: http://cnnespanol.com/2004/tec/05/13/ovnis.ap/
The relevant part of the article says:
The 11 luminous objects filmed by the Mexican Air Force pilots might be "centellas", a very rare atmospheric phenomenon, and not UFOs as some have speculated, a Mexican scientist said.
"Sometimes electrical discharges take place in the atmosphere, where, unlike the lightnings where the electrical current flows from one terminal to the other, the current keeps self-contained in a sphere-like shape", said Julio Herrera, researcher of the Institute of Nuclear Sciences of the Universidad Autónoma de México (UNAM).
"This is a hypothesis we have yet to confirm" said Herrera, and added that they will ask the Secretary of Defense to hand over to them all the information available about the objects filmed in March 5th.
Well, as I said, I have no idea of what this "centella" phenomenon is all about, but it seems odd that a self-contained lightning would be active for ten minutes (that's the period of time pilots alleged the phenomenon was visible).
Also, there's the problem of how to reconcile this explanation with the fact that the objects were seen in the radar, although the Philip Klass' 9th ufological principle may account for it: " Whenever a light is sighted in the night skies that is believed to be a UFO and this is reported to a radar operator, who is asked to search his scope for an unknown target, almost invariably an "unknown" target will be found. Conversely, if an unusual target is spotted on a radarscope at night that is suspected of being a UFO, an observer is dispatched or asked to search for a light in the night sky, almost invariably a visual sighting will be made. (Klass UFOs: The Public Deceived 304)
Since it was drug interdiction aircraft that spotted the UFO's what if some drug smugglers were using some low budget stealth technology aircraft which was the initail contact and when they realized they been detected they dropped a bunch of special flares, and chaff(?) and maybe used some ecm. Then they bribed the scientists to say it was centellas.
Side note:Watching the longer movie again I noticed at the end one of the 3 light formations turns into being 4 lights.
Side note:Watching the longer movie again I noticed at the end one of the 3 light formations turns into being 4 lights.
Well, just for the record: I'm not unemployed, and I'm certainly not a slacker. But I just might raid your fridge anyway, go have a second lookZombified said:BTW Thomas, don't take this the wrong way, but your avatar looks freakishly like my unemployed slacker brother-in-law. Every time I see it, I suddenly need to check to see if my fridge has been raided...
If your avatar resemples you in any way, you shouldn't be too worried about your brother-in-law.
I've had similar thoughts myself, I just waited for someone else to say it. This entire scenario could be a diversion from a billion dollar smugling event in one way or the othercurious said:
But let's stick to the facts we have so far. There are certainly signs of many other solutions. It could be very interesting to see the original uncutted version.
mummymonkey
Did you spill my pint?
It all depends on what kind of radar the aircraft is carrying. The civillian version of this model is fitted with a basic Bendix weather radar while the latest US drug enforcement type has a radar similar to that carried in an F16. What the Mexicans have I don't know.Thomas said:
Most radars will be able to pick out a metal chimney on the ground although if they're close together, as in the photograph, they will appear as a single 'return'. However the radar operator will know they are on the ground.
By the way, I'm sure you noticed that the two "headlights" in the footage seem to have dimmer points beneath them:
http://www.rense.com/1.imagesG/C26AFLIRFRAMEB.jpg
Could this by any chance be infrared light from the oil-chimneys reflecting off the water around the bases of the chimneys? You can see water in the picture below of the chimneys in that area:
http://archive.greenpeace.org/comms/pics/rw06apr02.jpg
Maybe more evidence that the pilots were being chased by an Unidentified Flying Oil-facility?
http://www.rense.com/1.imagesG/C26AFLIRFRAMEB.jpg
Could this by any chance be infrared light from the oil-chimneys reflecting off the water around the bases of the chimneys? You can see water in the picture below of the chimneys in that area:
http://archive.greenpeace.org/comms/pics/rw06apr02.jpg
Maybe more evidence that the pilots were being chased by an Unidentified Flying Oil-facility?
mummymonkey
Did you spill my pint?
I doubt if IR reflects off water. I'm no expert though. When I saw this image I assumed it was being caused by something internal to the camera.wipeout said:
I think it would depend how far into infrared we are talking about.
Infrared light is reflecting off the clouds in the footage and we humans can't see that even though we can see the clouds and it's still essentially water.
So I think it makes some sense that water like the sea or lakes is not limited to reflecting what we humans can see but can reflect wavelengths a bit wider than that.
Infrared light is reflecting off the clouds in the footage and we humans can't see that even though we can see the clouds and it's still essentially water.
So I think it makes some sense that water like the sea or lakes is not limited to reflecting what we humans can see but can reflect wavelengths a bit wider than that.