Mexican Airforce films UFOs

[Thomas]

This is my summary of the letter I received from Julio Herrera.
I know that you can’t be satisfied with a summary; at least I know that I wouldn’t. However, in the end of the letter, one of the things he writes is this:

by Dr. Julio Herrera - June the 4th, 2004
My present position is that with fragmentary information it's impossible to reach reasonable conclusions, and it can lead to others which are outright wrong, so I will make no more comments if we are denied the necessary information.

I’m not sure if he wants to have his entire letter published on a public forum; his statement in the quote doesn’t suggest that he thinks that’s a good idea.
I will ask him about permission to publish the full letter on the net, in the next mail I write him. This summary will therefore be a very short list of the relevant hard facts from the letter:

• He has requested the video from SEDENA more than a week ago, and still hasn’t received an answer.
  
• One of his colleagues, Narravo, was received by SEDENA and they explained to him why they didn’t believe the hypothesis concerning ball lightning.
  
• He writes a long list of the indications to support that this was ball lightning, and another list with the indications which support that it wasn’t ball lightning. I won’t make a summary out of this; it has to be read in full context, but I will publish it if he gives me permission of course.
  
• Furthermore he mentions another hypothesis he finds interesting concerning certain special operations airplanes. He also list the indications for and against this hypothesis. Nor will I go into details about this hypothesis at this stage. I will look into it myself when I find the time though, and post any relevant links here.

I’m sorry that this summary got delayed.

 

[Thomas]

That the aircrew, the official investigation and ufologists apparently include what is very obviously simply another aircraft as if it was a UFO means I'm holding some beliefs about these people too right now....

Remember that you don't have any evidence to support that claim.

More than anything, I am mystified why anyone kept looking for alternative causes for the infrared objects once they knew the area was covered in oil-flares.

It's because we're part of the conspiracy, or else it's because:

a) You have no evidence to conclude that the objects were grounded.

b) You have no evidence to conclude that the objects were stationary.

c) You have no evidence for all the other claims you have made.


I have asked a researcher who holds the original video, if he can find any indications to support that the objects were grounded. I await his answer as I write this post.

 

[wipeout]

Remember that you don't have any evidence to support that claim.

No, we have evidence of importance in the aircrew transcript that I keep pointing out but which so far you seem to avoid.

Which part of the aircrew transcript of the first object -- which has radar and infrared and is going at aircraft speeds after appearing at one place with a runway and travelling in straight line to another place runway and disappearing -- do you think there is a problem with?

Which part says "aliens" or "ball-lightning" or anything other than the airplane I believe the first object to be? What alternative explanations for this object do you offer?

No, it's simply an airplane. No more, no less.

It's because we're part of the conspiracy, or else it's because:

a) You have no evidence to conclude that the objects were grounded.

b) You have no evidence to conclude that the objects were stationary.

c) You have no evidence for all the other claims you have made.

You already said, essentially, that if I found the arrangement of oil-flares in the exact direction the camera is pointing is an exact match to the arrangement of the 11 infrared sources in the footage, then you still not believe that it was oil-flares.

Your point-blank refusal to accept even this would prove the case, makes answering a), b) and c) a waste of time.

Should you take that step forward and ever suggest any theory of your own, you will meet your own quotes coming back the other way.

 

[Thomas]

No, we have evidence of importance in the aircrew transcript that I keep pointing out but which so far you seem to avoid.

Which part of the aircrew transcript of the first object -- which has radar and infrared and is going at aircraft speeds after appearing at one place with a runway and travelling in straight line to another place runway and disappearing -- do you think there is a problem with?

Which part says "aliens" or "ball-lightning" or anything other than the airplane I believe the first object to be? What alternative explanations for this object do you offer?

No, it's simply an airplane. No more, no less.



You already said, essentially, that if I found the arrangement of oil-flares in the exact direction the camera is pointing is an exact match to the arrangement of the 11 infrared sources in the footage, then you still not believe that it was oil-flares.

Your point-blank refusal to accept even this would prove the case, makes answering a), b) and c) a waste of time.

Bunk. You can very well find a pattern to match the arrangement in point C within an area of approx. 900 square kilometers, remember that the heat sources don't even need to stand beside eachother. You can also most likely find a similar pattern in any other direction as well. That finding would be 100% anecdotal, and not at all prove A, B and C.

I'm avoiding the transcript? Listen, the transcript states altitudes, speeds, distances and directions of the objects which rips your oilflare hypothesis apart, and you're dodging it all with your various assumptions.

Should you take that step forward and ever suggest any theory of your own, you will meet your own quotes coming back the other way.

The diffrence is quite simply; that I would never fill out a forum thread with a pile of assumptions-verifying-assumptions.
In three weeks, you have found no evidence of any of your most basic assertions, and yet you keep on posting additional assertions everytime new data comes at hand which contradicts your hypothesis.
Provide the evidence for your assumptions, then we'll look at it. I don't have time for rethorical games and wild assertions.

 

[Astrophotographer]

I'm avoiding the transcript? Listen, the transcript states altitudes, speeds, distances and directions of the objects which rips your oilflare hypothesis apart, and you're dodging it all with your various assumptions.

I am curious how a FLIR can determine Speed, distance, and altitude? It can not do either as far as I can tell. From what I have read of the transcripts, the FLIR targets (for the most part - especially those showing multiple targets) were not recorded on the radar. So how can you state the transcript rips the oil flare theory apart?

 

[wipeout]

Astrophotographer,

Thomas doesn't like me dismissing evidence as unreliable because that's what my instincts tell me.

Well, he's welcome to follow all the evidence and see where it leads him....

You see, the evidence is contradictory for the radar detection of the main 11 infrared objects.

Question: The eleven targets appeared on the normal (non-infrared) RADAR ?

Answer. No. The eleven targets were not detected on the RADAR screen. Initially, only one target was detected by the RADAR. Then another target appeared at one 'o clock, that's how we describe the position that is in the front but slightly to our right. And then a third one in back of the plane. Those were the only three targets that appeared in the RADAR screen during the incident. The other ones that were at nine 'o clock, on our left side never appeared on the RADAR.

So the radar operator states repeatedly halfway through the aircrew's interview transcript that the 11 infrared sources are never detected on radar.

However, in the flight transcript itself, someone says just over halfway through the transcript that he was seeing the objects but they disappeared, and then starts talking about a radar "blind angle" of 20 degrees.

17:07:25
VOICE B: At what position do you have it, Tellez?
VOICE C: At 8.
VOICE F: At 8 or 9.

17:07:30
VOICE B: At 9. I don't think the Radar may read it, we have a
blind angle there, Sir.
VOICE F: At 8 or 9?
VOICE B: Yes.

17:07:37
VOICE B. We have 20 degrees of blind angle there.
VOICE F: But you were seeing them?

17:07:42
VOICE B: Yes, but it's strange, now I have nothing.

Considering the radar is underneath the rear of the aircraft in a tub-like housing, it surely must sweep 360 degrees, and there is no fuselage obviously in the way in that direction. So what the hell is this person talking about "blind angles" for?

Perhaps Mummymonkey could help us here...

Anyhow, the radar operator tells us that the objects "never appeared" on radar in the first transcript but the second transcript has someone saying that they were there but disappeared.

So which is it? Your guess is a good as mine.

 

[Thomas]

Astrophotographer,

No one ever mentioned the FLIR, actually I have discounted the FLIR altitude measures because of AoA and calibration issues. Because AoA can give a false reading of up to 10 degrees in point A, B and C, and up to 20 degrees false reading in point E. The FLIR altitude readings depends on two things: The amount of AoA and how the FLIR was calibrated. We don't have the value of any of these two variables, so I wouldn't put to much trust to those readings.
The FLIR has a laser rangefinder that can detect the distance to an object within 20 km, and it has a failure margin of +/- 5 meters. It's my understanding that this rangefinder is merely used to autofocus and is not readable.

I'm talking about the RADAR detections. There are several RADAR readings in the transcript naming speeds, altitudes, headings and distances, it sounds to me like you either haven't read the transcript, or you're just trying to be sarcastic because you don't like that the RADAR readings contradicts the status quo hypothesis, hence have discounted them.

Wipeout,

I know that you have a problem with me trying to falsify the assumptions that builds up your hypothesis. But my objective is to find the truth, not to satisfy peoples instincts.

So which is it? Your guess is a good as mine.

The person behind Voice B has access to both the FLIR monitor and the RADAR screen. He's talking about the FLIR signal in this case, because the lights disappears from the FLIR monitor behind a cloud at exactly 17:07:30 never to be seen again. The camera is then searching until 17:07:42 when he makes that statement. As he says, that's rather strange.
Anyway, yet another assumption goes down. We're making progress here.

Also, I should mention, that the object in this group which splits in two, then assembles again, and then splits again.
This makes it even more obscure, because I already had a hypothesis to solve that issue within a ground object solution, but that wont work now.

As I already have said many times, I don't discount the hypothesis of mixed events, I think it's the best explanation at hand with the data we got, I'm just trying to make sure that it doesn't gets filled up with too many wrong assumptions.

 

[Astrophotographer]

I'm talking about the RADAR detections. There are several RADAR readings in the transcript naming speeds, altitudes, headings and distances, it sounds to me like you either haven't read the transcript, or you're just trying to be sarcastic because you don't like that the RADAR readings contradicts the status quo hypothesis, hence have discounted them.

I am not being sarcastic, I am just trying understand your statements/conclusions and how you drew them. You stated that the oil well flare theory was wrong:

"Listen, the transcript states altitudes, speeds, distances and directions of the objects which rips your oilflare hypothesis apart, and you're dodging it all with your various assumptions."

As best I can tell, nobody has EVER stated that the radar contacts had anything to do with oilflares. You have since twisted what has been proposed (that only the FLIR videos show oil well fires) to state the radar readings invalidate the oilflares. Can you show how the FLIR videos match the radar contacts exactly? I don't see it when I look at the transcripts.

As far as I am concerned, there is just too big a coincidence between the FLIR images in the direction of the oilfields to ignore that they don't possibly show them from a distance. What the radar contacts actually are, I can't say without more information. However, since the radar contacts don't match the FLIR videos you can't equate the two as being the same event.

 

[Thomas]

Oh and just one thing, if the FLIR elevation scale isn't calibrated, which we have absolute no evidence to suggest that it should be, chances are that the person behind Voice C doesn't take account of AoA, because he makes these statements:

VOICE C: The FLIR angle is pointing straight ahead.
VOICE C: Exactly.
VOICE A: It's above us
VOICE C: That's right.

At exactly 16:55:35 he makes the first statement, and on this timestamp the FLIR azimuth is -132. So, if we add a maximum AoA of 20 to that equation, then the camera is actually pointing approximately 10 degrees down, hence pointing at the ground!

So either the camera have to be calibrated dynamically, or else Voice C is a clown. I must admit I'm leaning towards the clown solution at this point, because otherwise they would have to have some sort of dynamic calibration of the camera that would equalize the airplanes azimuth with the cameras azimuth and thus adjust the elevation scale accordingly, and we have absolutely no evidence that this is the case. I will ask Griffin if that is an available option, until then, Voice C is most likely a clown.

 

[Thomas]

As far as I am concerned, there is just too big a coincidence between the FLIR images in the direction of the oilfields to ignore that they don't possibly show them from a distance. What the radar contacts actually are, I can't say without more information. However, since the radar contacts don't match the FLIR videos you can't equate the two as being the same event.

True, nor do I. But the last statement from Wipeout concerning the radar signals, is that it must be a malfunction, or 'radar-psychosis'.
SEDENA tested the radar and found no malfunctions, so at this point, I'm not gonna buy that it's a malfunction. That's why I said Wipeout was dodging the RADAR signals with assumptions.
It seems that SEDENA has released the radar data tapes to a certain researcher, so let's see what he makes of it.

I'm not discounting the oilflare part of the mixed events hypothesis, I'm just trying to falsify the assumptions included to see if they fit.
However, I find the radar signals most interesting, and I also find the 'splitting object' very interesting.
My primary focus is on the events that are hardest to explain, because if we explain them, we may be able to get a more complete picture of this series of events.

At this stage, I'm not gonna buy that all the events that calls for the toughest explanations, should just be discounted as malfunctions.

I wonder how many times I have to state that I don't discount oilflares, maybe I should just write it twenty times right now to fill up my account, because it seems to be the default defense everytime I see if any of the assumptions included can be falsified. Real scientists try to falisify their own theories before they publish them, not just verify.

I still wanna see evidence no matter what, and I still wanna search for more data until this cased is solved to everybodies satisfaction. Period.

 

[Astrophotographer]

I'm not discounting the oilflare part of the mixed events hypothesis, I'm just trying to falsify the assumptions included to see if they fit.

Then you should not state that the data "rips apart" the oil well fire hypothesis by using the radar information. This is my point of contention. Until you can provide evidence (in the form of good data and not guess/estimates) that does "rip apart" the oil well hypothesis for the FLIR videos, then it is still a working hypothesis.

 

[feyd rautha]

ahugahagauga

@thomas

so you have a report from your secret ufo-investigator friend and a letter from that herrera-balllightningnonsence-guy. so why do you play it like the goverment and keep it for yourself? dont wet your pants and give it to the public!!! we deserve to see. nice flash btw. and get ya website online pronto danish johnny.

@wipeout

you bore me to death, repeating the same bulls**t over and over again. dont know what version of the video you have seen, i have seen 5 different versions and read the transcripts and anything else published on the great great internet. i dont need to be a scientist to say that this ufos are no freakin oilflares. dismissed. you are exactly the same attentionseeker type of guy as is "stryderunknown" at the sciforums.com site who since 14 days posts his weak theories on ballons over and over again. cant you guys just see that you are wrong? do it like me, if you dont have to say something new(facts or good new ideas not repetitive blablabla) just be quiet.

 

[Thomas]

Then you should not state that the data "rips apart" the oil well fire hypothesis by using the radar information. This is my point of contention. Until you can provide evidence (in the form of good data and not guess/estimates) that does "rip apart" the oil well hypothesis for the FLIR videos, then it is still a working hypothesis.

No one ever stated that the radar signals 'ripped apart' the FLIR data, that's just putting words in my mouth and you know it, actually I have had an analysis at hand for a couple of days now which suggests there is no relation between the FLIR and radar readings. I haven't had time to verify it yet, so that's why I haven't published those findings in here.

Originally posted by Thomas
SEDENA tested the radar and found no malfunctions, so at this point, I'm not gonna buy that it's a malfunction. That's why I said Wipeout was dodging the RADAR signals with assumptions.

You have to consider what Wipeout's version of the oilflare hypothesis includes, and one of the assumptions is that the radar had a psychosis. I was talking about the oilflare hypothesis in a holistic perspective.

I'm not discounting that oilflares is included in the series of mixed events, but the shape of the objects, and the object that splits and assembles, doesn't exactly support that hypothesis.

 

[Thomas]

Re: ahugahagauga

@thomas

so you have a report from your secret ufo-investigator friend and a letter from that herrera-balllightningnonsence-guy. so why do you play it like the goverment and keep it for yourself? dont wet your pants and give it to the public!!!

Heh, you have a way with words. I've already explained why many times: I have asked the UFO researcher for permission to publish it, and he declined that request. Should I just backstab him and make sure he would never speak to me again, just to publish an incomplete report?

Secondly, I will ask Dr. Herrera in my next letter, and then we'll see what he says.

 

[wipeout]

As far as I am concerned, there is just too big a coincidence between the FLIR images in the direction of the oilfields to ignore that they don't possibly show them from a distance. What the radar contacts actually are, I can't say without more information. However, since the radar contacts don't match the FLIR videos you can't equate the two as being the same event.

I have no idea why Thomas refering to FLIR, calibration, angle of attack, and altitude, as they have never been mentioned together like that in this thread before. I can see also that he now has access to more information than has been shared in this thread and perhaps in public on the internet.

As far as I know, only the very first object has both infrared recorded and radar signals and using all the information I am aware of, my aircraft/oil-flare theory goes something like this:

1) 1 object radar and infrared = aircraft
2) 11 infrared only objects = oil-flares to the NW
3) additional infrared only objects = oil-flares to the W and N
4) additional radar only objects to the east = unknown and possible false readings from the erratic behaviour of at least one of the objects

Originally posted by Thomas
At exactly 16:55:35 he makes the first statement, and on this timestamp the FLIR azimuth is -132. So, if we add a maximum AoA of 20 to that equation, then the camera is actually pointing approximately 10 degrees down, hence pointing at the ground!

It appears that both the infrared camera and radar are tracking the same object -- object 1, what I believe is another aircraft -- approximately 30 miles away and close to Ciudad del Carmen.

The camera will be roughly level with the horizon if this is the case.

 

[wipeout]

No one ever stated that the radar signals 'ripped apart' the FLIR data, that's just putting words in my mouth and you know it, actually I have had an analysis at hand for a couple of days now which suggests there is no relation between the FLIR and radar readings. I haven't had time to verify it yet, so that's why I haven't published those findings in here.

Here's me on the 21st of May at 11:58 AM, restatement of a conclusion from an analysis of mine on the 19th of May at 9:54 PM:

Originally posted by Wipeout -- I think both groups of objects are completely unrelated.... I think the aircrew made a connection between the radar readings and the infrared sources which there isn't any evidence of.

Seems I have priority.

Of course, now my conclusion now excludes the very first and only radar and infrared object, the one which flies between runways...

You have to consider what Wipeout's version of the oilflare hypothesis includes, and one of the assumptions is that the radar had a psychosis. I was talking about the oilflare hypothesis in a holistic perspective.

The interview transcript says that "their speed changes were sudden, 60 -120- 300 knots" and that the flight direction "showed first 90 degrees and suddenly 130 degrees" which is why I'm suggesting an error or false signal of some kind for the final 2 radar objects.

I'm not discounting that oilflares is included in the series of mixed events, but the shape of the objects, and the object that splits and assembles, doesn't exactly support that hypothesis.

Like I say, I don't know what the oil-industry have and what it can do. That may or may not fit something they have.

 

[Astrophotographer]

No one ever stated that the radar signals 'ripped apart' the FLIR data, that's just putting words in my mouth and you know it,

This whole exchange started because you stated:

"Listen, the transcript states altitudes, speeds, distances and directions of the objects which rips your oilflare hypothesis apart, and you're dodging it all with your various assumptions."

I then posted:

"I am curious how a FLIR can determine Speed, distance, and altitude?"

You then responded:

"I'm talking about the RADAR detections. There are several RADAR readings in the transcript naming speeds, altitudes, headings and distances,"

As you can see, I am NOT putting words in your mouth. Feel free to satisfactorily explain what you meant by the original statement that the values obtained by radar in the transcript "rips your oilflare hypothesis apart".

 

[wipeout]

Re: ahugahagauga

@wipeout

you bore me to death, repeating the same bulls**t over and over again. dont know what version of the video you have seen, i have seen 5 different versions and read the transcripts and anything else published on the great great internet. i dont need to be a scientist to say that this ufos are no freakin oilflares. dismissed. you are exactly the same attentionseeker type of guy as is "stryderunknown" at the sciforums.com site who since 14 days posts his weak theories on ballons over and over again. cant you guys just see that you are wrong? do it like me, if you dont have to say something new(facts or good new ideas not repetitive blablabla) just be quiet.

I've been bored of this myself since a couple of weeks ago, but Thomas keeps trying to dismiss my theory so I keep responding.

And I'm hardly attention-seeking because this is the only thread I've started in six months of being here.

From my perspective, it was mystery solved and game over as soon as I knew of the many oil-facilities of Campeche.

 

[Thomas]

I can see also that he now has access to more information than has been shared in this thread and perhaps in public on the internet.

Guilty as charged.

It appears that both the infrared camera and radar are tracking the same object -- object 1, what I believe is another aircraft -- approximately 30 miles away and close to Ciudad del Carmen.

The camera will be roughly level with the horizon if this is the case.

Remember the AoA business. For the FLIR reading and the RADAR reading to be picking up the same object, the one over Carmen to be exact, then AoA can't have any influence on the elevation scale of the FLIR. Because, in the timezone 16:55 - 16:57 they are picking up an object with both the RADAR and the FLIR, and the FLIR would be looking 6-12 degrees down towards the ground if AoA have any impact on the angle of the camera. Voice C clearly states that the FLIR is at elevation 0.

(In the beginning of the official video one can see how elevation -10 looks like at 16:43:00)

This gives us two solutions:

1) AoA dont have any impact on the camera reading. Hence, point A, B and C are objects picked up by the FLIR above and/or near horizon level.

2) The objects picked up by the RADAR and the FLIR, are in fact two diffrent objects.

I'll come back with more details tomorrow, because there's also a problem with the angle of the RADAR reading, and the angle of the FLIR reading. They're not identical as from what I can crash for now.

 

[Thomas]

Re: Re: ahugahagauga

I've been bored of this myself since a couple of weeks ago, but Thomas keeps trying to dismiss my theory so I keep responding.

So now it's my fault that you don't have the evidence to back up your hypothesis. Sweet. And I'm not trying to dismiss your theory, I can't, because you simply don't have a theory, all you have is a hypothesis. I'm actually trying to convert it to a theory, and then you complain, sheesh.
When you publish a hypothesis on a skeptics forum, you have to expect that the assumptions included is gonna be examined.