Mexican Airforce films UFOs

Originally posted by Thomas Well, since Maussan still haven't responded to my mail, I'm not at all against that interpretaion, and just maybe, it was one of the theories I didn't want to mention myself ;)
Click to expand...

You don't have to say it, you can just sit back, relax and wait as I've got a big mouth and will say things like that sooner or later. ;)

This is why I haven't published the name of the MUFON researcher in here. The research is still in progress.
I find him to be a honest scientist because he shares his findings with me although I'm a, somewhat, prototype skeptic, and I will now reveal, that he's looking for a natural explanation to this phenomenon just like we do. He doesn't believe this to be extra terrestial contact at this point.
Click to expand...

Interesting. :) We will see.
 
Astrophotographer said:
"The Star SAFIRE produces high-quality imagery, as was shown to IDR while flying by the Spanish airport of Vitoria near Bilbao. Even from a distance of 40nm and an altitude of 27,000ft the individual aircraft parked on the ramp were clearly identifiable. Cdr Noom claimed that at closer ranges, the system could make out a "bicycle standing against a wall"."

Seeing an aircraft parked on a ramp (even if the engines were running) at 40nm (about 74KM) would be much harder than seeing a burning oil fire from the same distance. The Star SAFIRE seems to be quite sensitive when operated correctly.

Based on this statement, it may be possible for the FLIR to see very high temperature objects at great distances as long as they are above the optical horizon.
Click to expand...
One question concerning that story about the parked aircraft: Is that the Star SAFIRE II, or Star SAFIRE III?

The SAFIRE III is quite aggressive compared to the SAFIRE II. For one thing, it holds twice the sensor resolution.
 
wipeout said:
From what we know at the moment, I believe only a complete map of oil-flares around Campeche will settle the oil-flares theory for the 11 sources of infrared. :)

If there is nothing like that arrangement of oil-flares in the direction the infrared sources were seen, then the oil-flare theory ends right there.

However, if the arrangement of oil-flares fits the arrangement on the footage, it will be like a fingerprint matching and all other plausible theories end right there instead.
Click to expand...
Objection your honor! Chances are that you can easily find some heat producing facility which matches the given pattern in that area. Heck, I can find a matching pattern for point C - the most complex of them all - just by looking out the window from where I am right now. You also have to prove that the SAFIRE was looking down at ground level(!) and that the given heat sources would be detectable within the given range, as they stand. Untill then, the evidence is strongly anecdotal.

Furthermore, that only covers point 'C' or whatever point you were talking about. There are still several issues besides that which needs to be covered, all the evidence I have seen so far to solve these issues, is 100% anecdotal.
 
Thomas said:
Objection your honor! Chances are that you can easily find some heat producing facility which matches the given pattern in that area.
Click to expand...

I'm not honourable but I am often objectionable. :p Overruled! :D

Hot spots that bright and in that arrangement and direction and at sea or on empty land don't seem that likely. I want a very precise match.

Heck, I can find a matching pattern for point C - the most complex of them all - just by looking out the window from where I am right now.
Click to expand...

Photograph it and send a picture to Maussan! :D

Tell him that the Mexican UFO aliens landed next to you and told you that they are angry they were spotted and are coming back to Mexico soon but to "deal" only with Muassan because "only he has the whole footage"... ;)

You also have to prove that the SAFIRE was looking down at ground level(!) and that the given heat sources would be detectable within the given range, as they stand. Untill then, the evidence is strongly anecdotal.
Click to expand...

It'd be proving the camera is looking at the horizon. And it takes only a couple of degrees of tilt of the aircraft for that to be proven so it's a requirement easily satisfied.

And as to the second point, I still say a massive wall of flame is more visible than an oil-tanker, even at 50 km.

Furthermore, that only covers point 'C' or whatever point you were talking about. There are still several issues besides that which needs to be covered, all the evidence I have seen so far to solve these issues, is 100% anecdotal.
Click to expand...

I feel that a small aircraft takes care of the first object, oil-flares take care of the next eleven... what's left to solve are:

1) The radar later detects two objects, at least one of which which behaves erratically. What is known about them?

2) The camera later points west and north at infrared objects that cannot be the original oil-flares. Why is the camera looking a different direction?

Now if only we could get the whole footage...
 
Natural gases ignition temperature is 593 C to 649 C or 1100 F to 1200 F. That's pretty hot compared to a boat, why can this camera see a boat at 50km but not something hotter than it?
 
Thomas said:

Just remember that it wasn't me who suggested that, but FLIR Systems Inc.. I don't suggest anything, I collect data from the relevant sources and present it. That's it.
If that data shows to be wrong, then I'm not gonna take the heat for it. However, the most relevant source from which you can collect such data, must be from the designers of the camera themselves.
Click to expand...

Since we do not have any hard specs to go by, it is hard to determine how accurate the estimate was. Did you get a spec sheet? This would be "data". Statements without any information to back them up is not data. It is only opinion and can be inaccurate.

Recall these fires are running a temperatures of 300-1000 C (at least that is the best I can tell from information on fires). It is not something like a ship or warm airplane engine. Based on what I have read from actual operators of the equipment (seeing aircraft on a runway at 40nm), it seems that the FLIR is far more sensitive than the information you presented. Of course, this is also "only opinion" but it appears to be opinion based on actual equipment operation. If this "opinion" is fairly accurate, then seeing these high temperature flames from a distance of over 40nm would seem possible.
 
Thomas said:

One question concerning that story about the parked aircraft: Is that the Star SAFIRE II, or Star SAFIRE III?

The SAFIRE III is quite aggressive compared to the SAFIRE II. For one thing, it holds twice the sensor resolution.
Click to expand...

Good question and difficult to answer. However, this webpage indicates the star safire II was the one often used on P-3s. This appears to have been the AN/AAQ-22.

The previous article quoted was about operations in 1998. Was the Safire III available then? As best I can tell, it was not developed until 2003. Based on this information, it seems they had the star safire II.
 
I will make a homepage with all the relevant data and theories, I will of course encourage you all to contribute with what you can to this site when it is finished.
This just might take a couple of days, because I run my own company, and this UFO case have stalled certain things already, mainly because I find it most interesting. However, I will make the homepage ASAP.

When the homepage is done, it's the plan to send a link to all sorts of scientists and researchers and ask them for their opinion, I've seen a lot a of good questions in here, especially those concerning the temperatures of gas flames. When the homepage is done, I'll ask Andrew Griffin the exact same questions and give him the link. If any of you have anything further to contribute to the questions for FLIR Systems, please post them in here, but be aware, that I'm not gonna send him 10+ questions. He have a job to do just like the rest of us, and I already know that other researchers are querying FLIR Systems aswell - at some point they're gonna stop answering if we don't take it easy.

Originally posted by Wipeout
I feel that a small aircraft takes care of the first object, oil-flares take care of the next eleven
Click to expand...
Well, feelings is not good enough, you're on a skeptics forum, here evidence is the issue, and all you've presented so far is anecdotal evidence and assumptions. I'm not saying your assumptions are wrong, but the only way we can find out is by collecting the relevant evidence.
When I hear a certain theory, I will try to falsify it by default, and I don't care if it's concerning UFO's, ghosts or dowsing rods. That's the only way we can find out if it's just remotely true when all the claims are based on assumptions and anecdotal evidence.

I'm still a tabula rasa.
 
Astrophotographer said:
If this "opinion" is fairly accurate, then seeing these high temperature flames from a distance of over 40nm would seem possible.
Click to expand...
True, that's why I'm gonna ask Griffin what he thinks about those opinions. Let me know if you think there's any further questions relevant to these issues. I want to gather a few good questions in my next mail to him. I want to avoid spamming, and I think my 'questions-for-FLIR' account is already running low to be quite frank.
 
Don't get me wrong Thomas, as soon as the oil flare theory can be ◊◊◊◊ on I will let it go, I just thought you discounted it without adequate evidence. We seem to be getting two contradictary points about what the camera can actually do, as soon as one or the other point is shown to be true we will be in a better position to count in or out the flares.
 
SquishyDave said:
Don't get me wrong Thomas, as soon as the oil flare theory can be ◊◊◊◊ on I will let it go, I just thought you discounted it without adequate evidence.
Click to expand...
I'm not discounting it, I'm just trying to falsify it to see if it fits :)

We've already had to add several things to the equation to make it fit: Light airplanes, aircraft tilt in several diffrent directions, additional heat sources in the north bound direction (point D) and additional heat sources in the Carmen direction (point A and E) which are detectable almost beyond horizon level (230 km(point E)) and additional heat sources in the Checubul direction (point B and C).

We're talking three diffrent heat sources, and the airplane would furthermore have to be tilted in exactly that direction each time. Plausible? Well, I dont know. But I cant help smiling a little bit when I think about that scenario. If thats correct, the aircrew is a bunch of clowns.

I'm curious about what the next addition to the equation will be due to the explanaition of the radar signals. One of my good friends suggested extremely high chimneys on wheels to make life easier for Santa Claus :)
 
Thomas said:

I'm not discounting it, I'm just trying to falsify it to see if it fits :)

We've already had to add several things to the equation to make it fit: Light airplanes, aircraft tilt in several diffrent directions, additional heat sources in the north bound direction (point D) and additional heat sources in the Carmen area (point A and E) which are detectable almost beyond horizon level (230 km(point E)) and additional heat sources in the Checubul area (point B and C).

I'm curious about what the next addition to the equation will be due to the explanaition of the radar signals. One of my good friends suggested extremely high chimneys on wheels to make life easier for Santa Claus :)
Click to expand...
Sure we have to add things, like heat sources in an oil rig field, and heat sources in a populated area, a plane near an airstrip, and a plane tilting, but none of these, even put together, seem to be as big of a leap as say, other worldly craft, or some special never before seen atmospheric condition.

A coincidence of several normal happenings seems more likely than one extremely abnormal happening, surely.
 
SquishyDave said:
A coincidence of several normal happenings seems more likely than one extremely abnormal happening, surely.
Click to expand...
True, but we're talking quite an amount of diffrent coincidences almost happening at the same time here. These guys are trained to seperate ground objects from airborne objects, and do it on a daily basis. That's the core of their job. If they failed so dramatically as to believe three diffrent grounded heat sources, in three diffrent directions, to be airborne, they should apply for a job at the local McDonalds instead. The same goes for the SEDENA researchers.

The aircraft tilt in several diffrent directions is quite an amusing scenario, because they actually stayed on course in a straight line from point A to point B. So they must have tilted left and right and up and down several times. I bet the Major had a bottle of tequilla stacked under the seat.
 
Thomas said:

True, but we're talking quite an amount of diffrent coincidences almost happening at the same time here. These guys are trained to seperate ground objects from airborne objects, and do it on a daily basis. That's the core of their job. If they failed so dramatically as to believe three diffrent grounded heat sources, in three diffrent directions, to be airborne, they should apply for a job at the local McDonalds instead.

The aircraft tilt in several diffrent directions is quite an amusing scenario, because they actually stayed on course in a straight line from point A to point B. So they must have tilted back and forth and up and down several times. I bet the Major had a bottle of tequilla stacked under the seat.
Click to expand...
The aircraft doesn't really have to tilt, depending on what altitude it was the horizon is just there, out the side.

BAH! This is pointless until we get more data, which seems harder than it should be. I'm impatient,:j2: I want to know NOW.
 
SquishyDave said:
The aircraft doesn't really have to tilt, depending on what altitude it was the horizon is just there, out the side.
Click to expand...
The altitude was approximately 3.5 km, that means the distance to the horizon is approx. 230 km. If the operator are looking straight ahead with the FLIR, he'll look above horizon level. So no, that's why the Major is asking the FLIR operator if the camera is looking straight ahead if you read the transcript. Also, the camera is looking above its own elevation 0 level while having the objects centrered, so that indeed means the aircraft would have to be tilted for these objects to be grounded.

BAH! This is pointless until we get more data, which seems harder than it should be. I'm impatient,:j2: I want to know NOW.
Click to expand...
Exactly, that's why I wanna collect more evidence, I cant even imagine how many times I have said that word in this thread already.

Infact, I think impatience is the basis for most of the theories I've seen so far. People are spaying out theories in all directions to 'be-the-one-who-solved-the-mystery' no matter how many facts they have to modify.

So many theories based on a very small amount of data.
 
Thomas said:
Infact, I think impatience is the basis for most of the theories I've seen so far. People are spaying out theories in all directions to 'be-the-one-who-solved-the-mystery' no matter how many facts they have to modify.
Click to expand...
I admit to be a bit impatient to see the puzzle solved soon. I'm not in favor of any theory in particular, just to find the truth and a reasonable explanation to the case

I agree with you that impatience can betray our sense of judgement. We often criticize believers for their propensity to jump to conclusions without sufficient scrutiny and evidence. Don't let this happen to us.

On a side note, I just reviewed the video once more a while ago, and I noticed an element that adds to the mystery. In the two groups of three lights with almost identical configurations, the last light of the first group (from right to left) clearly split in two at the end of the segment. Odd :confused:
 
The aircraft only has to tilt a couple of degrees. That's a tiny amount. It would hardly be noticeable to the aircrew and may be the result of coping with a crosswind. We also don't know how accurate the elevation reading of the infrared camera is anyway. It may only be precise to a couple of degrees.

There is also the possible refraction-effect of the atmosphere to consider as well. The position of the sun in the sky at sunrise and sunset is not where you would see the sun if you could suddenly remove the atmosphere. Long-range optical effects could be important in this case too.

Anyway, whatever. For me, the camera elevation is very, very close to pointing at the horizon, so that's good enough.
 
Hey I'll admit it, I'm leaning in favour of the oil flare at this stage, but I will of course drop it the instance some nice hard facts dispute it.

Now listen, this is important. Just coz I'm skeptic doesn't mean I don't get an opinion based on little to no facts, it just means I have to drop that opinion when more facts come along.
 
wipeout said:
The aircraft only has to tilt a couple of degrees. That's a tiny amount. It would hardly be noticeable to the aircrew and may be the result of coping with a crosswind. We also don't know how accurate the elevation reading of the infrared camera is anyway. It may only be precise to a couple of degrees.
Click to expand...
There's also the "angle of attack" (or whatever it is called in English :D) in every airplane, which means that the longitudinal axis is permanently tilted in flight. I don't know by how much, but it may have a bit a an influence in the camera to be tilted as well.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom