Mexican Airforce films UFOs

Come on, you have to change several given facts to make the oilflare-theory fit. This is what you have to assume:
  • SEDENA lie when they say they caught the objects on radar.
  • SEDENA lie when they say the altitude of the objects was 11.000 feets.
  • SEDENA lie when they say they were chased.
  • SEDENA forgot to consider ground objects, or their conclusion was dismissed because general Gerardo Clemente Vega Garcia like UFO's.
You can't just change the given facts and conclude that the SEDENA people are liars and fools, only to falsify the given facts so they will fit your oilflare-theory :)

If we can just add and delete to the given facts, this could be atleast ten things I can think of; ranging from drug traffic diversions to Santa Claus :)

When ball lightning can be the product of gas in disequilibrium, it fits all the given facts like a glove:
  • There are gas facilities in the area.
  • Elleven objects were detectable by the FLIR STAR ZAPPHIR II camera.
  • Three of the elleven objects were detectable by an AN/PS 143 BRAVO VICTOR 3 radar.
  • Three of the elleven objects were estimated by the radar to appear at an altitude of 11.000 feet.
  • The objects were attracted by the airplane.
  • The objects were in formation.
All the claims, and all the material we have, supports the ball lightning-theory 100%.
With the oilflare-theory we have to both add and delete to the given facts.
Furthermore, the flames from the chimneys should have been quite huge to come out that big on the FLIR when the chimneys is much more than 11.000 feet away from the camera.

Unless new evidence should appear, I'll stick with the Julio Herrera theory. All I have read about ball lightning, and all I have heard and seen from the episode, supports that theory 100%.
 
Albert Einstein at one of the famous Solvay Conferences said he had proven that quantum theory was inconsistent, and showed how. Niels Bohr and his collaborators worked hard over the next few days and found out that Einstein was wrong and had forgotten to include the effect of something... general relativity. :D

If Einstein can screw up that badly, then don't tell me the military can't. ;)

All but four of the infrared sources in the footage shown are in the wrong direction to be detected by radar, and those four are perfectly stationary relative to clear ground features and so appear to be on the ground.

I'm not going to dispute that ball lighting exists as I've actually seen it once (and a house roof was damaged in the exact area it landed!), but human error is much, much more commonly observed than ball lightning.

We can only go for exotic theories once we rule out the mundane ones. :)
 
wipeout said:
We can only go for exotic theories once we rule out the mundane ones. :)
Click to expand...
Then let's go for the Santa Claus theory, I would say that's quite exotic, and not at all mundane :)

No really, you can assume anything if your basis for your assumption is that all given data is based on misinterpreted observations and failed calculations. Gods, Ghosts, UFO's, anything.
I take account on the given data within certain limits, but when I have to choose between two theories, I will go for the one that explains the most. If both theories explains equally much, the next criteria is to choose the one that calls for the least modification of the given data.

A superior criteria is that the theory have to fit the given laws of nature. This is of course not bulletproof, because it keeps out theories that contains radical changes of science. They are however quite rare. The Einstein/Bohr-problem you mentioned, is an example of such a phenomena.

That's the far most secure way to choose between two theories, and that's how science works.

'Most exotic' and 'least mundane' is not considered a good starting point :)
 
Actually, I just noticed that at the clip at 22 seconds in, if you look closely at the rear of the aircraft, you can see a object underneath it, which may be some kind of radar.

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

So maybe the plane can use radar in all directions after all, if that's what that is.

However, even if the plane was detecting radar objects, that still doesn't change the facts that the infrared camera is pointing at a city surrounded by oil facilities, or that four strong infrared sources are clearly visible on the ground at 0:09 and 0:17 in the footage, or why Ciudad del Carmen airport didn't notice anything at all, amongst other problems like why a radar, if that's what it is, only picks up a few of the objects....

It'll only be settled if a map of the oil facilities around Ciudad del Carmen shows the arrangement of potentially strong infrared sources like chimneys.
 
"I can't wait to hear from the "big boys" of the skeptic side of the coin"

You mean the debunkers. Skeptics withhold judgement till the is enought evidence too assume something is true.

Debunkers assume is it true, and go too any length or explaination too prove it.
 
hi newbie speaking

:dr:
first hello to you guys and thank you for all and hello to you Mr. Randi!!! hope you follow this case because it is amazing footage!
and i dont like sylvia brown(and other frauds including all sorts of religions), to make that point clear. she should sit in jail instead of a villa in sunny cali.

but i do think that intersolar spacetravel is(for us, one far away day will be) possible and therefore visitation from et if he is older and more experienced than us is possible.


on http://www.rense.com/general53/mextt.htm is a transcript of an interview with the pilots. u people dont like rense do you?



as for the theories asuming this transcript is real and the whole thing is not a hoax:

a)oilrig, maybe if it has wheels or is able to fly otherwise nonsense.

b)balllightning, if there is a force that connects several of this balls together than this is the most probable explanation as they are not visible for the eye but are visible to FLIR.

c)ballons, dont move that way and would have been seen by the pilots at a distance of two miles.

d)flares, maybe but why wouldnt they be visible to the eye.

one of the sceptics on cnn states that he thinks that those 2 triangular assigned formations are a reflection, the same could be said about those 2 ballonlike objects sooner in the video.

any idea how such a vertical reflection could happen with an ircam or is this guy only a not knowing mr.blabla(MICHAEL SHERMER, SKEPTIC MAGAZINE on cnn transcript athttp://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0405/12/acd.01.html )???

@thomas u look more like slackeractor johnny depp or did you borrow his photo?:p
 
Thanks for those links, feyd rautha! :D

The transcript one is just what I wanted to read.
 
Oh, and as to why the radar might pick up something in the air if it was chimneys that were giving the infrared sources, what if dust and soot from the oil facilities can give false radar readings?

That could be the key to explaining this. :)
 
come et come et et come, well you gotta give me lovin and....

in my opinion( i have watched 5 different versions of the videos including the mpg2 which is of the best quality) these objects moved in a clear horizontal path without signifficant change of altitude.

dust and soot: radar only picks up objects of a certain size. birds for example are not detectable by aircraft radar.

i hope the whole footage and data will be made available to the public one time.

i do not say or even think these objects are of alien nature, but neither do i believe in one of the theories provided from the debunkers. those explanations are for the dumb masses not for me.
 
Re: come et come et et come, well you gotta give me lovin and....

feyd rautha said:
in my opinion( i have watched 5 different versions of the videos including the mpg2 which is of the best quality) these objects moved in a clear horizontal path without signifficant change of altitude.
Click to expand...
I don't believe it's possible to say if the objects are moving or not from the footage. I think they are at roughly equal altitude to the aircraft but may be stationary or moving only slowly.

feyd rautha said:
dust and soot: radar only picks up objects of a certain size. birds for example are not detectable by aircraft radar.
Click to expand...
Radar is quite capable of picking up anything that reflects radio waves. That includes rainclouds, dust clouds and yes, flocks of birds. When a radar set is faulty and producing spurious returns, they are known as birdies, because they resemble the returns given from flocks of birds.

feyd rautha said:
i hope the whole footage and data will be made available to the public one time.
Click to expand...
Agreed.

feyd rautha said:
i do not say or even think these objects are of alien nature, but neither do i believe in one of the theories provided from the debunkers. those explanations are for the dumb masses not for me.
Click to expand...
A career in the diplomatic corps awaits.
 
i dont think that military radar is adjusted to pick up such small objects.


before the objets vanish behind the clouds they are left of the plane and move faster then the plane or do i understand the perspective wrong?


and why do woowoos have the ugliest looking websites without exeption? is it because of LSD?http://www.crank.net/
that carla baron is sure the hottest woowoo(but again buttugly website!!http://home.att.net/~carla.baron/mainpage.html)!
hmm as i am a webdesigner maybe i ll write a tutorial for woowoowebsites?!?:D
 
Well, the transcript tells us that the aircraft's radar can indeed detect backwards.

So, some conclusions from the footage and the aircrew transcript:

The main group of 11 infrared sources seen in the footage all over the news was almost certainly the oil facilities at Ciudad del Carmen. Infrared picked it up but radar never saw it because it's on the ground. The city is in the exact direction they were looking with the infrared camera so there is no real mystery there anymore.

However, three objects were detected on radar and these were to the front, front-right and behind, and their behaviour was completely erratic.

It sounds like at first, they detected a radar object behind them, but looked and saw the 11 infrared sources in a slightly different direction and kept that onscreen while they followed the first radar object and the other two radar objects by radar alone.

The mystery now isn't the infrared objects, it's the erratic radar ones we haven't seen.

Maybe dust and soot from the oil facilities was playing with their radar and giving false readings? If that was the case then the whole incident seems pretty much answered as a mystery.
 
if these 11 objects are the oilfacilities than this must be known to the pilots no doubt about that!!! therefore-->hoax

if not, consider it took two months for them to go public, they would have thought about that possibility and would have investigated it.

oilfacilities dont move, watch the video again these objects move relativ to the clouds before they vanish behind them!!!

and what about the doubt about the radar detecting backward? every aircraftradar can do that! probably u seen only the hud-display in flightsims!?!:p
 
feyd rautha said:
i dont think that military radar is adjusted to pick up such small objects.
Click to expand...
I don't know what radar set the Mexicans have, but any radar will detect any object, of any size, as long as it reflects radio waves. Remember that chaff, designed to jam radars, is only tiny strips of metal.

feyd rautha said:
before the objets vanish behind the clouds they are left of the plane and move faster then the plane or do i understand the perspective wrong?
Click to expand...
Judging by the cameras azimuth readings at the bottom, the objects are either close to the aircraft and moving at the same speed, or far away and stationary, or something in between. The azimuth barely moves as the objects pass behind the clouds, meaning that their angular position wrt the aircraft was hardly changing.
 
I've certainly began to wonder about it being a hoax as this video clip show 4 similar objects were visible and seem to be on the ground at different place long before the "flying" ones were seen:

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

That is a 19 megabyte download.

If you watch it at 9 seconds and 17 seconds into the clip, you will clearly see the ground with 2 objects both times.

Now look at the time at the far bottom right, and it shows both clips are just before the time of day is 16 hours 43 minutes.

So 4 glowing objects are seen at the same time and seem to be on the ground.

The rest of the times in the other bits of footage are later than that.

So why would the aircrew or the military people investigating it think the later objects are flying when they'd already seen similar things apparently sitting on the ground?

Something is very strange about that.
 
feyd rautha said:
and what about the doubt about the radar detecting backward? every aircraftradar can do that! probably u seen only the hud-display in flightsims!?!:p
Click to expand...
The vast majority of aircraft radars point forward only and have a detection area of roughly 60-90 degrees each side of straight ahead. The elevation limits are about the same or slightly less. I note from the transcript that this radar set can detect objects behind the aircraft. This is highly unusual and requires either two antennae, one pointing forward and one pointing backward, as in the abortive Nimrod aircraft; or more likely a single antenna in a pod under the wing or body of the aircraft. Like the old Shackleton. The AWACS aircraft has a massive rotating radome carried above the aircraft.
 
mummymonkey,

I noticed earlier today that the plane does indeed have a sort of tub underneath it near the back, with an arrow pointing to it in the TV footage, so that's probably the radar.
 
@mummymonkey

ok i brabbled about radar:bs:, sorry, but do you agree that the objects are moving and not on the ground???
 
wipeout said:
mummymonkey,

I noticed earlier today that the plane does indeed have a sort of tub underneath it near the back, with an arrow pointing to it in the TV footage, so that's probably the radar.
Click to expand...
It will be. I see rense has the radar set listed as RADAR AN/PS 143 BRAVO VICTOR 3. This is most likely the AN/APS-143B(V)3 'Ocean Eye' maritime surveillance radar made by Telephonics. I don't know the exact capabilities of this set but it is a new synthetic aperture design. Its primary role would be the detection of surface ships but it may have some limited air to air capabilty.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom