Mexican Airforce films UFOs

[Thomas]

Now I have done some further calculations, for this to be a oil platform:

The tallest oilrig in the world is 579m tall (quite impressive), so if we say the FLIR detected oilrigs of that magnitude, they would still have to be, aproximately 193 km away to be able to appear above the horizon.

37xTAN 0.871825 = 0.563043

230 - 37 = 193

 

[Thomas]

The oil-flare theory only runs into a real problem is the camera elevation is relative to the Earth and not to the aircraft and if it is a precise reading.

It has nothing to do with the cameras elevation, the cross you see on the above image is the horizon marker, it has nothing to do with the elevation of the airplane or the camera, except that it is relative of course. But it will always be where the horizon is.

The calculations stand, either:

1) 193 km away and 579m tall (assuming the FLIR can detect heat at the distance of 193 km, which Griffin said it couldn't)

or,

2) Above 2.7km tall or airborne.

Let's say the first choice to keep the oilflare theory, how big do you think an oilflare is at the distance of 193km?

An secondly, Griffin said 50 km, not 193 km.

 

[wipeout]

The cross appears to be the center of camera-view marker as the 19 megabyte footage shows the cross pointed at clear ground features like rivers at the time 16:43 (at 18 seconds into the clip) and a forest, a forest clearing, a small town with roads and what may be cars and what even may be a runway at 17:16 (at 12 seconds into the clip).

 

[Thomas]

The cross appears to be the center of camera-view marker as the 19 megabyte footage shows the cross pointed at clear ground features like rivers at the time 16:43 (at 18 seconds into the clip) and a forest, a forest clearing, a small town with roads and what may be cars and what even may be a runway at 17:16 (at 12 seconds into the clip).

The cross jumps around like crazy when they point at the ground, which is rather akward, it also seems to try and mark the objects on shift in the video clip.

But in the same video clip, they are actually looking at the objects slightly above the clouds. Meanwhile they, themselves, are slightly above the clouds:

Here

The objects certainly appear to be above horizon level in the beginning of this clip. Take a look.

 

[Thomas]

I find absolutely no reason to assume the objects are grounded, everybody involved says the opposite. Both the scientists and SEDENA.
All the information we have says that the objects are airborne. Especially the questions Patricio pointed at.

The video also suggests that the objects are airborne, the angle of the clouds in the beginning of the posted video talks 100% against that these objects should be grounded. They are looking straight over the clouds.

 

[Thomas]

Patricio,

Since you're the one that speaks Spanish here, could you write SEDENA and ask them how they can be sure those object were not grounded? I can't find heads and tails in that site, and I'm too lazy to translate the entire site to english or danish

 

[mummymonkey]

It has nothing to do with the cameras elevation, the cross you see on the above image is the horizon marker, it has nothing to do with the elevation of the airplane or the camera, except that it is relative of course. But it will always be where the horizon is.

 

[Thomas]

Atleast I know how to correct my errors:

The cross jumps around like crazy when they point at the ground, which is rather akward, it also seems to try and mark the objects on shift in the video clip.

Wizkid..

 

[wipeout]

But in the same video clip, they are actually looking at the objects slightly above the clouds. Meanwhile they, themselves, are slightly above the clouds:

The objects certainly appear to be above horizon level in the beginning of this clip. Take a look.

It looks at first as if that's a blank sky, or even a blank ground or sea the objects have as a background in that footage. But it can't be as the camera elevation and the plane's direction of flight show that both the camera and the plane are fairly level.

So where's the horizon? It should go righty across the middle of the footage.

I believe the answer is that it's invisible.

The infrared cameras seem to be blind to features like the sky, the clouds and the ground if they are more than maybe, at a guess, 10 km.

You can see an example of this at 18 seconds in the 19 megabyte footage. The ground just disappears into blackness beyond what I'd guess are ground features maybe 10km distant.

Only really hot objects show up at long distance, like the oil-tanker at 50km that you mention.

I'd expect the tanker to appear as a bright spot on a blank background, and the sea to be invisible that far away.

I believe the horizon is at the same place or even slightly above for example, the "headlight" objects we see in the footage.

 

[Thomas]

So where's the horizon? It should go righty across the middle of the footage.

If they look straight ahead in that altitude, the horizon will be below the middle of the footage. How much below I'm not sure about.

 

[wipeout]

Patricio,

Since you're the one that speaks Spanish here, could you write SEDENA and ask them how they can be sure those object were not grounded? I can't find heads and tails in that site, and I'm too lazy to translate the entire site to english or danish

Ah... I'd prefer if Patricio didn't involve the Mexican government!

Okay, I'll tell you now that James Randi forwarded my theory to James Oberg...

http://www.jamesoberg.com/resumejournalism.html

Given the guy worked at NASA for 22 years and was involved in the space shuttle and the ISS, I think he'll have the contacts to find out more than we ever will.

He's a great guy for Mr. Randi to have involved, given his interest in investigating UFOs or the notorious and quite similar STS-48 footage that confused a lot of people:

http://www.jamesoberg.com/ufo.html

I'd like to wait and see what Mr. Oberg says first before e-mailing any governments.

If he says anything at all, that is...

 

[Dragon3]

Well….If it had of happened in England or America we would probably all be told that it was from a car headlight that was moving up-hill and the light bounced off low-level clouds and on to a large cabbage patch 50 miles away which happened to have a large amount of dew on it, which then reflected the light upwards so the plane could see it!! ^_^

And I jest not…..believe me….they actually used that excuse once! LOL


Ta at for now
Mary

 

[wipeout]

LOL! @ Dragon3

I think I'd rate alien-piloted flying saucers as more plausible than that theory!

 

[wipeout]

If they look straight ahead in that altitude, the horizon will be below the middle of the footage. How much below I'm not sure about.

Me neither. This military infrared footage can mislead as has happened to me a couple of times already when looking at it. It takes some getting used to.

I originally thought that the whole background was the ground or the sea. I was wrong about that for sure.

 

[Thomas]

Ah... I'd prefer if Patricio didn't involve the Mexican government!

Heh, what do you think will happen? Are they gonna come for you because you're exposing a major conpiracy or a deliberate distorsion of the facts? Or do you think they will lie to us because they want this to be UFO's?

I don't see any problems with asking SEDENA for the raw facts, I don't understand your concern at all, the more facts we collect from the involved parties, the more will we be able to get a clear picture of this episode. It would be a good thing to hear their un-Maussan'ed version. And maybe even get the unedited version of the video.

The question for them is simple: How can you be sure those objects were not grounded?

 

[Thomas]

Well….If it had of happened in England or America we would probably all be told that it was from a car headlight that was moving up-hill and the light bounced off low-level clouds and on to a large cabbage patch 50 miles away which happened to have a large amount of dew on it, which then reflected the light upwards so the plane could see it!! ^_^

And I jest not…..believe me….they actually used that excuse once! LOL


Ta at for now
Mary

Hah, yea, the theories runs out of order concerning these damn UFO's.

I also try to keep this theory at a low level without too many modifications of the facts. Julio Herrera's theory of gas in disequlibrum which explain this specific phenomena meets no objections at all, simple and plain, yet explains everything. A rawmodel for good science.

 

[Thomas]

Me neither. This military infrared footage can mislead as has happened to me a couple of times already when looking at it. It takes some getting used to.

I originally thought that the whole background was the ground or the sea. I was wrong about that for sure.

Well, I have experience of looking at clouds from high altitudes from commercial flights to Africa, and way too many hours of playing several flight sims. I have never had any reason to belive that these objects are grounded at all. I think they appear airborne judging by the cloud angles and their speed in relation to the clouds hold together with the altitude. But hey, never say never

 

[mummymonkey]

The cross jumps around like crazy when they point at the ground, which is rather akward, it also seems to try and mark the objects on shift in the video clip.

Sorry Thomas I don't understand what you mean here. Are we talking about the same cross?

 

[Thomas]

Sorry Thomas I don't understand what you mean here. Are we talking about the same cross?

Yep, I made the classic flaw of using a too small sample size for the conclusion. Silly me.

 

[mummymonkey]

It would be a good thing to hear their un-Maussan'ed version. And maybe even get the unedited version of the video.

The question for them is simple: How can you be sure those objects were not grounded?

Exactly.