Mexican Airforce films UFOs

More footage has turned up here:

http://www.ufocasebook.com/mexicanmilitary.html

Needs Realplayer and is rather jerky, but still useful and 2 minutes long.

There are random spots appearing on the footage at various points. Not sure what they are. Looks more like something camera related, possibly the "x" that you see in in the video stills.

Nothing I see contradicts the oil-flare theory.

Plus two sources are shown not moving relative to clear ground features at 7 seconds in... :D
 
wipeout said:
Nothing I see contradicts the oil-flare theory.
Except this quote from that same site:
It was there that the aircraft, belonging to the 501st Air Squadron was performing its routine patrol when it suddenly detected the presence of an object on its radar at an elevation of 3500 meters, as well as through its infrared equipment (FLIR).
This has to be false for the chimney-theory to be true. You don't find any chimneys that tall. Or it could be a misinterpretation of the explanation given by the aircrew, from the media or Jaime Maussan. That is, it could mean that they detected an object when they were at altitude 11.000 feet, but to my knowledge modern radars also tell you the altitude of the objects they detect. I'm not sure about the radars the mexican SEDENA uses. Maybe someone else knows for sure?
 
I meant nothing in the footage contradicts the oil-flare theory. :p

The news reports contradict the oil-flare theory, but then the news reports also contradict the footage I've seen, and that 2 mins 9 seconds here is said to be all of it:

http://www.ufocasebook.com/mexicanmilitary.html

Not sure if that's true, though.

As to the radar picking things up, check this out...

Consider the camera direction relative to the aircraft. Numbers at the bottom of the footage go:

-180....-90....0....+90....+180

I interpret it to mean the camera is pointing behind to leftwards to forwards to rightwards to behind again.

http://www.rense.com/1.imagesG/C26AFLIRFRAMEA.jpg

Now, during the 2 mins 9 seconds of footage, the pointer on this reading for camera direction goes:

Time - Direction of Camera

0:00 - behind and left*
0:04 - behind
0:07 - forward
0:09 - behind
0:15 - behind and left
0:17 - behind and left
0:31 - behind and left
0:38 - behind and left
0:48 - behind and left
0:54 - behind and left
1:40 - left
1:57 - behind and left
2:00 - behind and left

*implied from other footage

In other words, how can the aircraft be picking all these objects up on radar when only twice are objects in front of it? That is, between -90 degrees left to +90 degrees right? And one of those is 90 degrees left as well, right on the limit of being in front of the plane, so only once is the camera pointing truly in front of the aircraft. And that's when it shows two sources and the ground at 0:07 seconds.

Doesn't radar usually cover only forwards? Maybe someone can tell us or web search might find out.

So, unless that plane has backwards-pointing radar or there is additional footage, then it was radar-blind to almost all of the objects.
 
wipeout said:
I meant nothing in the footage contradicts the oil-flare theory. :p
I know, I'm just pointing out that chimneys don't explain the altitude of the objects. It contradicts the theory if that is true, and calls for new perspectives.
In other words, how can the aircraft be picking all these objects up on radar when only twice are objects in front of it?
Well they didn't pick up all those obejcts, they only picked up three objects on radar. Which actually fits well with the directional coordinates of the IR camera.
Doesn't radar usually cover only forwards?
They do in all those flight simulators I've tried :) (F18/F16/F15/MIG-X/Commanche/Commercial etc.)
So, unless that plane has backwards-pointing radar or there is additional footage, then it was radar-blind to almost all of the objects.
Yes, it was blind to eight of the elleven objects as the story goes. And picked up one-to-three obejcts in the altitude: 11.000 feet.

I got a pizza to eat and an episode of Futurama to watch along with the feast, see you later fella.
 
Having looked at the picture of a similar plane, then without major modifications, it certainly looks like the radar could only be at the front end of the plane... ;)

http://www.futura-dtp.dk/Flysiden/images/C26.jpg

Something that makes me wonder about the radar of the aircraft and how it was behaving is this quote from the General who released the footage:

He added that "of course, the phenomenon is unexplained" and made it clear that Mexican military personnel "never speak of UFOs or saucers or anything like that--only the sighting of very strange contacts, incomprehensible in that situation, since there was absolutely nothing flying in the area, accoridng to reports from the Ciudad del Carmen, Campeche airport."

http://www.ufocasebook.com/suspicious.html

That could mean simply that the airport detected the objects on radar like the plane did but they were just not known traffic... or that the airport didn't detect anything on radar at all and only the plane did!

If the second meaning is the correct one then considering that -- unlike the plane -- the airport would have uninterupted radar coverage during the whole incident, if the airport's radar didn't detect anything then we've got to wonder what the plane was picking up, and where it was.

Assuming the airport has radar, of course. ;)

That the only time in the footage that any infrared sources are right in front of the plane is when the plane is pointing at the ground makes me wonder if that was the only time they got radar contact as well.

Maybe the pilots only saw radar contacts of the objects they knew were close to the ground and that hasn't been mentioned.

Something else a bit weird, however, is this....

These military men were interviewed and claimed having never seen a similar phenomenon, since the speed and movements detected by radar confirmed the fact that the [objects] were not aircraft.

http://www.ufocasebook.com/mexicanmilitary.html

Uh.... what movements are they talking about? :D

Something is a bit funny about the radar if it's picking up objects speeding around and yet the only sources which are in front during the footage are stationary relative to clear ground features in front, below and the closest to the aircraft at 7 seconds into the 2 minute video.

Something strange is certainly is going on somewhere... :D
 
I just got a positive sounding e-mail reply from Mr. Randi about the oil-flare theory. :D

He's forwarded the idea to someone of some knowledge whom he thinks might find it "interesting"... ;)
 
wipeout said:
I just got a positive sounding e-mail reply from Mr. Randi about the oil-flare theory. :D

He's forwarded the idea to someone of some knowledge whom he thinks might find it "interesting"... ;)
Congrats and thanks for the effort. This case has caught my interest, and I'd love to see it solved to everyone's satisfaction.

I can't wait to hear from the "big boys" of the skeptic side of the coin, though I've also been interested in what UFO advocates have to say about the case as well.
 
Re: Update

Q-Source said:
Yesterday a group of scientists from the National Autonomous University of Mexico said that the lights captured by the Mexican airforce were not UFOs but an atmospheric phenomenon known as "centellas". This is a sort of electric shocks caused by gas in disequilibrium.

Is that 'ball lightning'? That was the last explanation I saw presented on the news here in Southern California. (It was on the local NBC news, they said (IIRC) jist: mystery solved, experts say that it was an atmospheric phenomenon known as ball lightning that caused the images' etc.

Just wondering if that's the same thing? Or if the ball lightning is then an alternative theory?
 
Are the centellas invisible to the naked eye, or are the scientists just assuming that they weren't obvious enough to have been noticed without the I.R. camera?

If centellas are ball lightning, I'm guessing the latter.
 
Batman Jr. said:
Are the centellas invisible to the naked eye, or are the scientists just assuming that they weren't obvious enough to have been noticed without the I.R. camera?
Now I have done some reading on those ball lightnings.

There are several kinds of ball lightning, and two types are invisible to the naked eye: Those are the types: silver and black, they are only detectable by radar - and now IR cameras. They come in a variety of diffrent forms, shapes, colors, brightness's and behaviors. Their lifetime ranges from seconds to minutes.
They contain a massive amount of energy:
In the city of Habarovsk, Russia, a sphere of ball lightning fell into a reservoir containing approximately 7,000 liters of water. In ten second the water started to boil. It boiled for approximately ten seconds. Then the sphere of ball lightning exploded. The yield of this ball lightning was the equivalent of two tons of TNT.
Source

It's a weird phenomena. However, it's not just theory, one can actually replicate it in a microwave oven. They often have the speed of a walking person, and they are known to get attracted by airplanes. This provides a good explanation to why these mexican pilots claimed to be followed.
The more we know about lightning, the weirder it gets. And probably the weirdest of all are balls of lightning - which have invaded high-flying jets and scared the daylights out of the passengers.
Source

If we hold all the provided data together:

  • They were invisible to the naked eye.
  • Detectable by radar and IR equipment.
  • Were estimated by radar to appear at an altitude of 11.000 feet.
  • Chased the airplane.
  • Seemed to be in formation.
Then this very much looks like the silver/black ball lightning phenomena. I think the story goes like this: They detected something on the radar in the altitude of 11.000 feet, which they couldn't see with the naked eye. They then started to use the IR equipment. Now they could 'see' the silver/black 'invisible' ball lightnings appear in front and behind/left of them. However, they only detected three of them by radar due to the nature of radars as discussed in previous posts. The ball lightning started to chase them because it gets attracted by metal objects and are known to invade airplanes.

Ball lightnings are well documented, and has been researched by several scientists:

Ball lightning bibliography

I find that silver/black ball lightning is far the best theory we have so far. It explains more than any of the other theories suggested.

The oilflare-theory fails to explain the altitude of the objects, it fails to explain the chase and it includes that the pilots and mexican researchers would have failed to consider ground objects. I find that highly unlikely. The researchers from SEDENA who have analyzed this phenomena know what there is to know about the given radars and IR equipment, they know the area the observations took place in better than we do, and I really don't think they haven't thought about alternative explanations before they published the videos. Furthermore, they have experience in analyzing observations by their own aircrews.

The flare-theory includes additional airplanes/helicopters and/or white flares with a long lifetime, at the altitude of 11.000 feet. I find that equally unlikely as it fails to explain the invisibility of the objects.

The ball lightning-theory, only fails to explain the formations of the balls, and that was what made me consider other alternatives. On the other hand, nature is known to make formations from time-to-time, and these ball lightnings are quite weird. Actually the most weird meteorlogical phenomena I can think of. However, they do indeed exist, have killed and injured several people, and are well documented.

I think the nuclear researcher Julio Herrera is right when he told the media that this merely is a ball lightning phenomena. I consider this case solved, unless new data should appear. No visits from aliens included, just meteorology - again.
 
Interesting summary, Thomas.

It would be good to find a more credible source for information on ball lightning that chukanovenergy.com, since they don't seem to believe in conservation of energy... It seems to be one of those free energy/zero point energy outfits...
 
Zombified said:
Interesting summary, Thomas.

It would be good to find a more credible source for information on ball lightning that chukanovenergy.com, since they don't seem to believe in conservation of energy... It seems to be one of those free energy/zero point energy outfits...
The only information from that site used for the summary, is the quote you see above the source. The descriptions of ball lightning is from other sources. The phenomena has only been the object of scientific study for a few decades now. It doesn't suprise me that alternative groups would use a new field of study to their own advantage.

Also, that the amount of energy in the phenomena should be smaller than chukanovenergy estimate, doesn't change the credibility of Julio Herrera's theory.

This should however be a reliable source with a mixture of skepticism and evidence as premises. It contains further links.
 
Ball lightning exists all right. I know because I've seen it.

I don't think that's what's in the footage, though. It lacks a thunderstorm, for example.
 
Batman Jr. said:
Are the centellas invisible to the naked eye, or are the scientists just assuming that they weren't obvious enough to have been noticed without the I.R. camera?

If centellas are ball lightning, I'm guessing the latter.
I'd like to point out something with regard to this, that may contribute to clear things up to some extent.

To my knowledge it was ufologist Jaime Maussan the person who spread the news that the objects were invisible to the naked eye. Many ufologists are well known for their lack of objectivity when it comes to assess evidence regarding ufo sightings.

It's quite possible that the objects may indeed have been visible to the naked eye. I reviewed the conversation in Spanish between the crew members once again, and I got the strong impression that they made eye contact with the objects through the plane windows.

In the aftermath interview, crew member Magdaleno Castañón Muñoz said these words literally: "Nunca pudimos identificarlos visualmente, a simple vista nunca", meaning: "We could never identify them visually, never with the naked eye"

Note that he said "we could never identify them", and not that "We could never see them". This account suggests me that they saw the objects with the naked eye, but that they could not explain what they were.

Alright, I know that this may be just a semantic subtlety, but it's a possibility.
 
wipeout said:
Ball lightning exists all right. I know because I've seen it.

I don't think that's what's in the footage, though. It lacks a thunderstorm, for example.
Yea, they are usually connected with a thunderstorm, but not always. All the sources I have read about this phenomena says that they 'often' and 'usual' are seen during or after a thunderstorm.
There have even been reports of these bastards occuring in submarines.

What is even more interesting is that several people have described these ball lightnings to appear in formations, here is an example:

On May 10th 2002 in Hershey Pa around 11:10pm I was standing outside waiting for a friend, when I saw what I thought was a formation of jets in the sky (Ft. Indiantown Gap is nearby) when my eyes adjusted I soon realized that there were about 15 objects resembling balls of light swarming around each other in a close cluster. the entire group was traveling west. it then stopped and traveled east until it was out of my view. no noise was heard, and it was fairly calm with clear sky. I couldn't really tell what altitude the objects were at, so I'm not sure what speed they were traveling at. If this is what ball lightning is, I'm glad I got to see it.
Source

Originally posted by Patricio Elicer
Note that he said "we could never identify them", and not that "We could never see them". This account suggests me that they saw the objects with the naked eye, but that they could not explain what they were.

Alright, I know that this may be just a semantic subtlety, but it's a possibility.
It could indeed be interesting to hear what they actually saw, if they saw anything of course. It doesn't make it very comforting that all the information we have, has been filtered through an UFO-advocate.
 
Re: Update

Q-Source said:
Yesterday a group of scientists from the National Autonomous University of Mexico said that the lights captured by the Mexican airforce were not UFOs but an atmospheric phenomenon known as "centellas". This is a sort of electric shocks caused by gas in disequilibrium.
Wipeout's research which suggests that there may be industries in the area working with oil and gas, is then 100% plausible with the ball lightning-theory if this electric phenomena can be the product of gas in disequilibrium.
If the gas was released in a regular steady pace from the facility, which most likely is the case, this also provides a good explanation to why the objects appeared to be in a 'manmade' formations.

I consider this UFO mystery solved.
 
Patricio Elicer said:
To my knowledge it was ufologist Jaime Maussan the person who spread the news that the objects were invisible to the naked eye. Many ufologists are well known for their lack of objectivity when it comes to assess evidence regarding ufo sightings.
No ◊◊◊◊. Jamie Maussan is the one who released this in 1997. The video looks like an episode of the british childrens SCI-FI series Dr. Who, from the 60'ies. Jamie Maussan is nothing but a laugh.
 
Thomas said:
The oilflare-theory fails to explain the altitude of the objects

The only time the plane could get altitude from radar was when the objects would have been in front of it, and the only time anything was clearly in front of it -- in what is supposedly the complete footage that we've seen -- is when objects are clearly on the ground or close to it at 0:07 into the 2:09 footage.

This suggests to me that all altitude estimates of infrared sources were visual.

Also, you'd expect Ciudad del Carmen airport to be able to confirm all the details from its own radar if it has one but there's not been anything from there other than that they didn't notice anything.

it fails to explain the chase

The footage we've seen shows no evidence of a chase that I can tell. Most of the footage shows the sources in the same direction and some way distant.

and it includes that the pilots and mexican researchers would have failed to consider ground objects. I find that highly unlikely.

I don't rule out that the people looking at the UFO footage could have missed something that fundamental, as if they go from what the pilots say and the pilots are wrong, then they will also be wrong themselves.

Hey, I just found a great big video (19 megs), the same stuff as before but higher quality. You can read all the numbers. :D

http://207.150.221.99/leftmedi/UFO/UFOVideos/MexicanAirForce/mexico-03-05-04.mpeg

I got that from here:

http://www.ufoevidence.org/specialfeatures/mexicanairforce/mexicanAFvideos.htm
 
You can see at 0:09 that same footage of two infrared sources apparently on the ground I mentioned before.

Then at 0:17 you see more footage showing two more infrared sources also apparently on the ground, footage which is new to me.

The time for both is almost the same:

0:09 is at 16h 42m 54s
0:17 is at 16h 42m 58s

The camera is panning upwards and both shots are from the same bit. Someone edited the film and it hides that this is the case.

So we then have 4 infrared sources apparently on the ground, very early on in the incident.

Looks like what you'd expect oil-flares to look like... :D
 

Back
Top Bottom