Mexican Airforce films UFOs

I went back and looked how this thread started to see what I could learn in hindsight, and discovered Mummymonkey and myself were both thinking a very similar way... :)

Have a look at these selected quotes in sequence:

[I start off by saying the video is hard to interpret or to even tell what the background surface is, meaning it was impossible to tell if it was land or sea. I never thought it was sky because of the apparent reflection off something below the "headlights"...]

wipeout - "Could be a bunch of hot things sitting still on the ground, for all I can tell." :D

[I find a map and get an idea of the rough camera direction]

wipeout - "There's a main coastal road in the direction of the infra-red sources (slightly out of alignment with each other) but not a whole lot else, it seems, from looking at the maps."

mummymonkey - "Looks to me that the heat sources are on the ground some distance away to the north. Perhaps at sea."

[I discover the camera is pointing very roughly towards the city of Ciudad del Carmen. I half-joke about the UFOs being a ballooning convention at the airport.]

wipeout - "If there is industry, it could be some sort of flares from a chimneys or similar."

[I was thinking of a refinery of some sort.]

mummymonkey - "As it stands I still think the objects may be on the ground some distance to the north. Perhaps at sea. Are there oil/gas rigs in that area?"

[I get curious about what Ciudad del Carmen might have close to it which is hot. I realize I haven't done an internet search yet on the city, and do so...]

wipeout Hey, see what I've just found... :D

[I'd found quotes confirming the existence of oil-platforms at sea in the Campeche area, right next to Ciudad del Carmen]

I was the first person to suggest flares from chimneys from "some kind of industry" somewhere in or around Ciudad del Carmen but Mummymonkey was the first person to actually suggest "oil/gas rigs" and I confirmed that they existed.

Looking back now, I realize Mummymonkey was on the right track every bit as much as me, and so credit where it's due to him/her. :D
 
Blue Monk said:
I'd like to extends congrats to wipeout and all of the participants of this thread. This could be a case study in critical thinking.

This case was more difficult to explain than most and I'm sure I'm not the only one impressed with the logic displayed here.

Thanks. :)

I think it'd certainly make a good example of how official investigations aren't the final word, how the media can garble things, how even trained personnel can misinterpret events, and other things as well, like not taking all the evidence to be equally reliable and judging each bit on its own merits.

Now if any of you can explain women to me I would greatly appreciate it.

I'm sure there's an argument that men's minds operate on classical principles and women's minds operate on quantum principles. ;)
 
I have been examining the article by James Smith concerning the oil wells AKAL-C, AKAL-J, and NOHOCH-A being visible in the video at time 17:07.

Earlier, Thomas had suggested that something was amiss because of how the "formation" shifted over time. Probably the most noteworthy of these shifts was what he referred to as the "stray". I had previously pointed out that this was probably due to parallax of the "stray" being closer than the other objects. After measuring all the lights with respect to the first "trio" (the one furthest to the right) and examining Smith's article, I can now feel confident that this is the case. If one uses the middle object in the rightmost "trio" (labeled "R" in the image below) one discovers that the second "trio" is slowly drifting away from it (using the rightmost light labeled "T") at about the same rate as the "stray" meaning they are grouped together (NOTE: The first image is at Narrow scale vice NarrowX2 for those trying to measure). The light to the right of the rightmost "trio" stays with the "trio" and therefore is related to that grouping. To the left of the left most trio, there are three other lights. The two lower ones appear to be moving away from the leftmost "trio" at approximately the same rate the leftmost "trio". The third object appears to be moving towards the leftmost trio at a very slow rate. One can see this in the following image:

trios.gif


When I measured the changing distance between "R" and "T", I calculated a value of about 0.3 pixels per second, which equates to about 0.0005 deg/sec. If one trys to calculate the rate of angular change between the oil wells, I found this to be around this value (AKAL-C 0.00025 deg/sec). Consider the difficulties involved with getting completely accurate measurements, this seems to be a pretty good match.

What conclusions one can draw from this is that there are three (and possibly a solitary fourth) group of objects in the video that are separated by about the same distances (with the exception of the solitary fourth). This is entirely consistent with the positions of the oil wells AKAL-C, AKAL-J, and NOHOCH-A visible in Smith's LANDSAT image. The AKAL-C and J platforms have four booms with flares and the NOHOCH-A has two. Therefore, the video image has the following labels associated with them.

AKALNOHOCH.gif


The fourth light (labeled with the ?) is difficult to figure out. It seems independent of AKAL-C but very close (similar angular rates). It could be a boom near AKAL-C that is part of this platform.

http://www.seacomcanada.com/MVC-029.JPG

Note the one boom that is inactive. It could have been active at this point and could have been the solitary light.

As another test, I decided to check the angular sizes of the light arrays. Based on the photograph published by Smith and knowing the approximate distance between the wells (based on lat/long), I computed the approximate angular size of the wells as seen at the time 17:07:16 aircraft position but at a 90 degree angle. I converted the number of degrees to the number of pixels using the image scale of 0.3 degrees=176 pixels (the vertical dimension of the frame grabs).

AKAL-C = 0.162 deg = 95 pixels
AKAL-J = 0.158 deg = 92.7 pixels
NOHOCH-A = 0.060 deg = 35.2 pixels
(this did not include the extra light for AKAL-C)

When I measured the number of pixels for each of the above, I received the following numbers

AKAL-C = 93 pixels
AKAL-J = 85 pixels
NOHOCH-A = 34 pixels

The oil wells were not seen at a 90 degree angle, which would make their angular sizes smaller than calculated. Additionally, all of these measurements are going to have errors since I am trying to measure down to such small angular sizes and ranges of feet in the image posted by Smith. Considering these factors, the numbers seem to agree close enough for a pretty good match.

Considering a lot of what has been stated here and elsewhere, this seems to be another piece of evidence that indicates these images were oil well fires.
 
Interesting analysis, Astrophotographer. I said at the time that we had no idea what the arrangement of the oil-platform might be. I'd never really looked into what was moving where and it's good to know that it's consistent.

After all this time, I'd never actually realized that the picture I'd seen was of one of the platforms, AKAL-C. I just thought it was a picture to act as an example. It actually feels a little strange now to be looking right at it after talking about it and the related platforms speculatively for so long.

When I originally suggested flares from some sort of industry and looked for refinery or land-based chimneys instead of oil platforms at sea, it was because of a belief that no oil-rig could be wide enough at that range to match the footage.

I read that AKAL-C is a kilometer across, so I think I understand that now...
 
Good post, Astrophotographer

I think the following two images can help those not much involved in the case, visualize the whole scenario:

From http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic07-24-04.html

mex%20fig%202.jpg



From http://www.ovniaventura.cl/campeche/ovnis_infrarrojos.htm (site in Spanish)

Image10.jpg


The unknown light (labeled as "?" by Astrophotographer) is speculated to belong to a "Ku" field on the Chilean site, which is farther away than the three platforms in question.

It's also interesting to point out that the oil platform and the UFO photograma images are to the same scale, in video pixels.
 
Patricio Elicer said:
Good post, Astrophotographer

From http://www.ovniaventura.cl/campeche/ovnis_infrarrojos.htm (site in Spanish)
[UNQUOTE]


Interesting. I did not realize that I was duplicating work somebody had already completed. My compliments to the author. Had I been aware of what he had done, I just would have posted a link and not wasted my time!

If you speak french, I found another site with the conclusion being oil well flares as well.

http://www.ufocom.org/pages/v_fr/m_articles/video_mexique2/Mexique_ADV2.html

And there is Claude Poher's work which seems to agree with the oil well fire theory (at least that is the best I can tell).

http://www.premiumwanadoo.com/universons/ovni_gbFr/observation_mexicaine_fr.pdf

UFOlogist Brad Sparks is the only individual that has a difficult time accepting the oil well theory.

http://www.virtuallystrange.net/ufo/updates/2004/aug/m03-032.shtml

So far, he seems to be the only UFOlogist willing to argue against the oil well theory on UFO updates.
 
Astrophotographer said:
Interesting. I did not realize that I was duplicating work somebody had already completed. My compliments to the author. Had I been aware of what he had done, I just would have posted a link and not wasted my time!
I think it's always interesting to be able to cross check conclusions reached independantly. So, thank you for wasting your time! :)

BTW, thanks for the links. I don't speak French though; I can't even read French
 
C'est domage. But I would rather be fluent in Espanol. Especially in the continent of America.
 
speedy gonzalez is the only cool mexican

silly mexican pilots, do not even know their own enviroment. is there an official statement from the mexican air"force" or from nausean(to tired to check spelling)?

@wipeout

congratulation.:wow2: i m sorry i was in doubt and called your theory silly. reason was that i was sure that someone at the air"force" should have known those oil facilitys and recognize them as the ufos, before they go public. probably a case of "wantobelieve" from my side.
 
Thank you, feyd rautha. :) I'm just glad we and other people got the main incident solved before it got out of hand and acted as a foundation for a whole lot of nonsense for a long time, like Roswell or something.

At least, I hope we stopped that... a good thing is that the arrangement of the oil flares do indeed match like a fingerprint to the footage, as Astrophotographer and Patricio show in their posts above with the pictures with the names of the oil-platforms.

As to the Mexican authorities, well they wanted it solved and they got it but I don't know that they like the answer, though, as it's kind of embarrassing. Maybe they should have just quietly sent the video to some skeptics and scientists first instead of having it all over the news... ;)
 
tbh honest this thread had it just about wrapped up around page 6 or so. Glad to see others are catching up now.
I'd still like to see some work done on the apparent elevation of the heat sources before considering it fully solved. It could be something as simple as poor calibration of the IR elevation gimbal.
 
mummymonkey said:
tbh honest this thread had it just about wrapped up around page 6 or so. Glad to see others are catching up now.
I'd still like to see some work done on the apparent elevation of the heat sources before considering it fully solved. It could be something as simple as poor calibration of the IR elevation gimbal.

Actually, the elevation angle has been addressed. The "angle of attack" for the airplane (the upward tilt) seems to have produced the angle errors as one can see in this diagram:

AOA.gif


I think the only "mystery" still appears to be the "twins" lights.

170346.jpg


Thomas had measured them at about 40 miles and my revised measurements came out to be about the same. I haven't found an oil platform that matches this distance but that doesn't mean there wasn't one there (recently installed) or some other heat source.

James Smith earlier proposed a solution of platforms M and G at this site:

http://home.earthlink.net/~bigvideo4/mexican_ufo.html

However, these platforms are too far (100 miles or more). As I said, this appears to be the remaining mystery on this one.
 
Astrophotographer said:
Actually, the elevation angle has been addressed. The "angle of attack" for the airplane (the upward tilt) seems to have produced the angle errors as one can see in this diagram:

I've seen the AoA given as a possible solution but not seen any detailed work done. I'd like to see the maths. (Or more realistically have somebody explain the maths to me.) For instance what is the AoA of this model aircraft in cruise? Is the IR equipment calibrated to allow for this? (some systems are but I doubt if this one is).
Maybe somebody could work out the likely AoA given the angle to the IR sources (wrt to aircraft heading), their distance, the displayed elevation and the aircraft's height? We could then find out if it's within the aircraft's normal flight envelope.
Maybe this has already been done?
 
mummymonkey said:
I've seen the AoA given as a possible solution but not seen any detailed work done. I'd like to see the maths. (Or more realistically have somebody explain the maths to me.) For instance what is the AoA of this model aircraft in cruise? Is the IR equipment calibrated to allow for this? (some systems are but I doubt if this one is).
Maybe somebody could work out the likely AoA given the angle to the IR sources (wrt to aircraft heading), their distance, the displayed elevation and the aircraft's height? We could then find out if it's within the aircraft's normal flight envelope.
Maybe this has already been done?

Thomas did a rather interesting section on his webpage regarding this but he has taken the page down and all you get is the words "updating". Based on values of the moon and sun, the angles in front of the aircraft were reading too low by about 2 degrees. If the aircraft AOA was upward, then it stands to reason that angles towards the rear of the aircraft would be the exact opposite. Of course, the aircraft's AOA changes with time and this angle can go up and down just as one can see the values shift from 1 degree to 3 degrees during the video.
 
Looking at oil-platforms at such a huge distance, calculations need to take the curvature of the Earth into account as well as refraction by the atmosphere. I think they both might screw up the numbers by a couple of degrees.
 
A rough calculation suggests the curvature of the earth has a drop of 1 mile at 100 miles.

The plane was at 10,000 feet, so that's 2 more miles as well, so the camera is pointed at something 3 miles below it at about 100 miles away.

Thats about 1.7 degrees right there.
 
I read this thread with great interest. I'm not convinced that it were oilflares as of yet, but it does seem the best theory (or hypothesis as some prefer calling it) for the moment. But what's for sure, a lot more is known about the incident than at the time Maussan gave his briefing, with the advantage of having been able to study the material and present only portions of it, thus enforcing his own interprtation at the time.

I reread it after reading this thread and other sources, and I thought it might be interesting to go through it again, this time armed with almost the same objective information the writer of the press conference had.

It does seem that some parts of the transcript that Patricio excellently translated are different than his? Maybe, different ones should be compared, as someone suggested before.
taken from http://www.ufoevidence.org/photographs/slideshow/page/2
JAIME MAUSSAN'S PRESS BRIEFING DOCUMENT:
As the Merlin C26A tried to approach the unknown traffic to make a visual identification it suddenly in a surprising maneuver escaped flying away at tremendous speed.
No tremendous speed that conventional aircraft are incapable of, were ever recorded. Furthermore, they speak only of "It's a sudden change" And as wipeout mentioned earlier even after that he stills says that it could be a heli... or something. They don't seem particularly impressed with the readings at all.

By this time Mayor Jasso tried to persecute the target but it was very fast. All this was being recorded by the FLAIR and also the radio conversations with the base describing the unexpected maneuver of the unknown.
"Very fast" seems to imply, faster than a human plane can follow. This is not evident from the recorded speeds and the only thing the crew says about is: "We can't do much else with the fuel we have" Which seems to indicate a fuel-shortage problem and not a power/speed problem.

However the C26A still have not made visual contact with the unknown object.
Which they don't seem to find strange at all: [Just above us] [That's why I didn't see it]

This was detected by the RADAR and the FLIR while the personal aboard were trying to make visual contact of the unidentified traffic now following them.
In seconds the equipment detected now not only one but two traffics following them. The images in both RADAR and the FLIR were clear and unmistakable.
From here on the objects on the FLIR and the RADAR are treated as one, whereas it seems clear now, that only the first (very possibly a plane) object ever had both a FLIR and RADAR registration.We all know now how important the distinction between FLIR and RADAR is. Because if they are not detecting the same objects, almost nothing can be said about speed, altitude and distance of the FLIR objects.

But both pilot and personal still couldn?t have visual contact with these two traffics following them adding a great suspense to this disconcerting situation.
"adding a great suspense"? Is he writing a novel that builds up the tension? The crew sounds perfectly calm, only interested.

FLIR kept recording in infrared every movement made by the two unknown objects that seemed to be keeping their distance from the C26A but still following it.
It is not possible to measure exact movement with the FLIR, nor if they keep distance nor if it is following the plane, in fact they don't seem to follow at all according to the video, they areflying parallel at best. These things can only be guessed by the observer. "Every movement made" is highly suggestive of the infrared objects making all sorts of sudden moves, which is absolutely not the case if you watch the video.

The personal aboard the Merlin C26A were confused and disconcerted seeing the images on the FLIR and the RADAR asking themselves what was going on with this situation.
They sound mostly eager and amused.

THE INCIDENT TURNS MORE DRAMATIC
But the stressing moment that the C26A crew were passing through was just the beginning of something more dramatic that will turn their undesirable experience into a real nightmare.
Dramatic? Nightmare? The transcript ends with them laughing about the moon and feeling generally amused with what they saw.

Some minutes passed while the Mexican Air Force Merlin C26A crew continued making maneuvers to have a visual contact of the unknowns because despite both RADAR and FLIR were showing perfectly clear both unidentified objects for unexplained reasons there was not a visual contact even that the objects by this time were at close range.
Again, it is not known how far or how high the FLIR objects were, since these were never seen by radar. So it is incorrect to speak about them as if they were linked. So it is impossible to say that the FLIR objects were "by this time at close range", suggesting that they were approaching, which isn't visible at all in the footage. Furthermore the radarobjects, whose distance were measured, came 2 miles at its closest, which isn't that close at all, the report (although wisely no distance is mentioned) seems to suggest something much closer.

It was during this round and round maneuvers to identify these two objects that something amazing happened. In a matter of seconds more unknown objects arrived to the scene and the disconcert of the C26A crew was total.
Arrived? As if they were seen flying in? It is clear from the video that they could have been invisible up till then to the FLIR because of all the clouds.

The RADAR and the FLIR detected immediately the presence of nine new objects of the same size and characteristics, unknown objects that arrived to the scene surprisingly like coming from nowhere.
Wisely formulated but still too suggestive that ALL objects were seen by both radar and FLIR, which still isn't true. For the FLIR objects only visible characteristics could be called the "same", since the FLIR still can't take exact measurements. The subjective term "arrived" is used again.

Now the situation has entered into a high level of danger so Mayor Magdaleno Jasso reported by radio to the base this new situation requesting instructions.
"high level of danger" seems exagerated. I don't see him contacting his base at all in the transcript? Only for the first object?

But the most bizarre thing was that even though there were eleven unknown objects close to them, still the crew couldn?t see them,
Again, the FLIR objects were not seen by radar, so it is impossible to know if they were close, only the radar objects, but they are named as one again. Also again: 2 miles isn't that close.

no visual contact with the unknowns was possible for some reason never experienced before by these high trained men.
He's writing a novel again. Apparently mexicans are trained at high places.

However the high tech sophisticated equipment and sensors were not lying, there were eleven targets outside them with unpredictable intentions.
If you don't what something is, it seems a bit premature to talk about "intentions".

At the middle of a complete confusion and disconcert among the C26A crew the unknown objects suddenly made a maneuver surrounding the Mexican Air Force airplane in a circle at close range. The RADAR and FLIR presented an image of an eleven objects near by in a circle formation around the Merlin C26A.
This is again incorrect, the FLIR objects and radar objects are not seen by both. So it is impossible to know if they were suddenly at close range encircling the plane. From the video footage it is clear that the FLIR objects themselves were not encircling the plane at all. Also again the closest the measured radar objects came was 2 miles. In this case it seems inapproriate to speak of "close range". Encircling doesn't seem an approriate term either with a 2 miles radius.

The situation turned out of control. Mayor Magdaleno Jasso reported to the base that the C26A situation was now in red alert, surrounded by eleven mysterious round shaped objects camouflaged with a certain unknown advanced technology that avoid any visual contact of them.
The situation was never out of control, in fact this is the point where they laugh about the moon. I don't see Jasso reporting a red alert at all? The suggestion that he even reported "objects camouflaged with a certain unknown advanced technology" seems totally fantasized, if the transcript is translated completely here. It seems rather unlikely IF he did contact the base that he would already use such a desciption. I wonder if Maussan is basing all this on subjective interviews with the crew rather than an actual objective transcript, the latter of which we seem to have a slightly different version of.

However Mayor Jasso kept the calm as well as the crew who were working fast measuring and recording every detail of this unique incident conscientious of their duty as military and trained men.
This is a bit inconsistent. "Nightmare" and "out of control", don't go together with "calm". Perhaps he realized he couldn't keep portraying the crew as panicking, because that would diminish the credibility of their reports and sightings. So suddenly they are capable calm persons who are in total control of the situation.

Confronting this situation surrounded by unidentified objects in an unpredictable ending Mayor Magdaleno Jasso took the decision of turning out all the airplane lights and wait to see what happened. Moments of high suspense lived by the crew while the FLIR was recording the images of those bright objects even that visual contact was not possible, moments of silence and uncertainty.
Well, I guess we are indeed missing a piece of the transscipt? I don't see it on the 30 minute video either?

This new era of relationship among the Mexican UFO witnesses, skywatchers, ufologists and our military forces will try to establish and give form to a new legislation in our law system focused to be prepared for any incident involving these unidentified flying objects, our people, our commercial and military airplanes etc. for learning and understanding what are we going to do and how are we going to confront this reality.
Irrelevant, sounds like a personal "told you so" speech from a frustrated man. If a government is going to share information, than that is something totally different than acknowledging it is a "reality" (suggesting that some ufo's must be saucers) just that there are cases that are YET unknown. It is -by definition- impossible to prove that something is a UFO. It is a status in which a report is in, not a solid designation.
 
Most of the following things have been said before, but for some reason I feel the need to summarize it:

The oil-flare theory still has some loose ends:

Image10.jpg

- I have a problem with for instance the AKAL-C suggested connection with three of the lights. If the distance is about 50-100 miles, is seems unnatural that the lights are so far apart from the plane's viewpoint, because from that distance that would mean the individual flairs would have to be miles apart too. From 50 miles the three flairs would blend together as one, for (super)human eyes, and it seems especially with the FLIR, because it has been suggested that it would have had to been set extremely sensitive with bleeding pixels already. It seems more likely that the individual FLIR objects are entire oil rigs instead of individual oil-flairs. I'm not sure how to do the math on this one, but it should be possible? If for instance the distance between the closest two lights supposedly linked to AKAL-C, is 1 mile in real life, then the total "screen width" would be about 20 miles at the "horizon point" where the AKAL-C is. Isn't that way too narrow when filming something from 50/100 mile distance? (although it is zoomed in)

- The pilots would have to be idiots, they consistently fail to see that the objects aren't at the same altitude at all but 10.000ft lower. This would mean they don't understand the FLIR at all. Since they know it can't measure altitude, how can they keep claiming they know for sure it's at the same height as the plane?
- The apparant lack of seeing the objects before/after this event, should be explained:
---- Possibly an unique atmospheric event.
---- This crew flew this part for the first AND last time.
---- The FLIR was accidentally set too sensitive, which they should have tested by now.
---- The flames were only turned on that day.
- The oilflares distance doesn't seem to be within the range of the FLIR, according to the FLIR technician.
- If objects at 100 miles can be registered this clearly, although they are very hot flames, you'd still expect some more hot objects much closer to light up on the FLIR as well.
- There's still the coincidence with a funny acting radar, the question is would it have been possible for the three radar signals (when you forget the FLIR objects), changing direction and speed to be just small aircraft under normal circumstances? I haven't heard anything conclusive on that.
- You'd expect a less steady oval if the source is a flickering flame. I don't know enough about a FLIR to be sure.
 
mikemike said:
I reread it after reading this thread and other sources, and I thought it might be interesting to go through it again, this time armed with almost the same objective information the writer of the press conference had.
Hi Mike, and welcome to the forums.

You make good points indeed. Most of the quotes from Maussan you brought up are far from accurate, judging solely by the video. It's possible, however, that he got additional info from interviews with the pilots.

But even so, some accounts are very exaggerated and also introduce inexistant elements to the story. They certainly add a lot of dramatism and appeal to the case, but they are simply not true. For example this one:
The situation turned out of control. Mayor Magdaleno Jasso reported to the base that the C26A situation was now in red alert, surrounded by eleven mysterious round shaped objects camouflaged with a certain unknown advanced technology that avoid any visual contact of them.
As far as we can see in the video, the situation never went out of control, Jasso never reported a "red alert", they were not surrounded by the 11 objects (the oil flames, likely). The pilots couldn't see the objects with the naked eye, but the "camouflage" and the "unknown advanced technology" remarks are just gratituous and unfounded additions.
 
mikemike said:
I have a problem with for instance the AKAL-C suggested connection with three of the lights. If the distance is about 50-100 miles, is seems unnatural that the lights are so far apart from the plane's viewpoint, because from that distance that would mean the individual flairs would have to be miles apart too. From 50 miles the three flairs would blend together as one, for (super)human eyes, and it seems especially with the FLIR, because it has been suggested that it would have had to been set extremely sensitive with bleeding pixels already. It seems more likely that the individual FLIR objects are entire oil rigs instead of individual oil-flairs. I'm not sure how to do the math on this one, but it should be possible? If for instance the distance between the closest two lights supposedly linked to AKAL-C, is 1 mile in real life, then the total "screen width" would be about 20 miles at the "horizon point" where the AKAL-C is. Isn't that way too narrow when filming something from 50/100 mile distance? (although it is zoomed in)
That's a good issue.

It's easy to do the math from the standpoint of someone looking with the naked eye (with super eyes), but the camera zoom adds a problem.

First it's known that the distance from the plane to the platforms is between 110 and 120 miles. Let's take 120 miles. Judging by this picture , the platform dimensions are gigantic (take a look at the ship for comparison). Let's suppose that two adjacent flames are 0.2 miles apart.

This gives an "aparent distance" between flames of about 0.1 degrees, that is, 6 minutes of arc. I don't know for sure, but seems to me that even with super eyes and ideal atmospheric conditions, at such a small apparent size the flames can't be discerned as two separate objects.

Now enters the camera zoom, and things get more confusing to me. It's known that on filming that segment, the camera was very zoomed in (because of the narrow field of view). By how much?, I don't know, but let's suppose it was a "50X" zoom (just wild guessing, I will look for the FLIR specifications later). Does it mean that the apparent size is enlarged 50 times?. If this is the case, then it would increase to 5 degrees, but the question still remains on whether or not 5 degrees are enough to make out the flames as two separate objects.

Anyway, I smell that the whole issue is more complicated than this. Maybe Astrophotographer (or someone else) can help?
 

Back
Top Bottom