It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Mexican Air Force UFO- Quick Resource Thread

page: 3
1
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 2 2010 @ 03:43 PM
link   
If you stop the youtube video at 3 minutes 48.... You will see that the readout says the position is..

North 18 degrees 26 minutes 47 seconds West 98 desgrees 46 minutes 51 seconds...

I might be wrong but as far as i can make out puts the aircraft firmly over dry land in the vicinity of Cuautla Morelos ?




posted on Jul, 3 2010 @ 02:28 AM
link   
Most of the UFO's people see are U.S. Military Reverse Engineered UFO's (ROV's). Lockheed has fleets of them, & there are many sightings near Phoenix.



posted on Jul, 3 2010 @ 08:35 AM
link   
This one has been around quite a while and it has been explained to my satisfaction, and apparently no UFO's were involved. The type of infra red equipment used is not affected by cloud cover as would a visible wavelength device. The operators did not realize that the heat signature of nearby oil drilling platforms were burning off huge amounts of methane gas in the same direction that the IR camera was pointed.

The scenario that night placed the heat sources from the burning methane in a position that caused the operators to wrongly conclude that something was flying next to them, but this since been proven not to be the case. There are several excellent sites that show a correlation between the Mexican Air Forces flight path flown that night and the oil platforms location. Check in the link provided here:

The Mexican Air Force UFO Affair: Aliens, Ball Lightning, or Flares?

Check out Figures 2 & 3. This site gives solid scientifically based information that is quite convincing. It answers most of the questions about the incident in a matter of fact way.

I traded emails with a Mexican Airline pilot ,(Capt. Alejandro Franz), who spent thousands of dollars to charter a similar type of plane along the same flight path and sure enough the Oil Drilling Platforms were aligned in the predicted direction of the IR cameras where they would be to cause the false sighting. This case hasn't gone anywhere because it has been thoroughly debunked, at least to most people who look at the data objectively. The oil platforms were not flying that night, the illusion generated by this type of sighting is understood and it is a common mistake.

Some more links that provide clear concise information on this case:

Mexican Air Force FLIR's video lights are not UFO's.

Capt. Alejandro Franz's site, my favorite.

If you still believe that the lights were caused by something flying along side the Mexican Air forces plane that night after you read these links, you are in the minority.



posted on Jul, 3 2010 @ 08:41 AM
link   
reply to post by RING0
 


Yes Skeptics.com..so they are totally unbiased aren't they? Can someone answer the question i posed? If the telemetry from the cockpit read out is accurate, the drilling rig explanation is quite patently utter tosh isn't it?



posted on Jul, 3 2010 @ 09:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by FireMoon
reply to post by RING0
 


Yes Skeptics.com..so they are totally unbiased aren't they? Can someone answer the question i posed? If the telemetry from the cockpit read out is accurate, the drilling rig explanation is quite patently utter tosh isn't it?


Capt. Alejandro Franz's site can answer that question in full, way better than I can, I am surprised that anyone can have serious doubts after reading the provided information. It's a open and shut case, the crew made an honest mistake that could have happened to anyone, sure it would be great to have such excellent evidence of UFO's, I'm aboard for that to happen, the sooner the better. But this case is not the one to bet the farm on, the evidence is clear that the nearby oil burning towers, called oil flares, located within the oil drilling platforms were responsible for the incident. If you look at the charts and maps in the associated sites, you can see how this happened. Please utilize the provided links for any further questions about the case.



posted on Jul, 3 2010 @ 12:19 PM
link   
reply to post by RING0
 


Let me ask you just one thing, what about the radar readings? You conveniently
ignored to mention this important element of the case, of course you ignored the radar
readings because this single element destroys your debunking theory, very simple.

The radar readings during the incident wich were reported and commented all the time
by the radar operator to the commander pilot described how the 11 lights surrounded
the airplane during certain time and this situation is recorded in the FLIR audio section
as well as the reaction of the commander pilot who said: Then we are surrounded?

This incident remains unexplained, period.

I could give a lot more elements that support this case but the radar readings are
enough evidence of the real event. I suggest you learn everything about this case and
educate your judgement with ALL the elements and evidences if you want to be an
objective observer. The infamous oil flames joke was an old ridicule hoax that nobody
believed just certain skeptics by convenience of course, I'm surprised you came so late
to the scenario with this old fashioned tale aka oil wells debunked a million times but of
course, if you still belive in Santa Claus.

[edit on 3-7-2010 by free_spirit]

[edit on 3-7-2010 by free_spirit]



posted on Jul, 3 2010 @ 05:36 PM
link   
reply to post by free_spirit
 


Thanx for that Free. I took the time to read the *explanations* and none of them actually address the Radar data.



posted on Jul, 3 2010 @ 10:35 PM
link   
Its a shame that 1/2 the country believes in ufo's and they still wont disclose the info they have. When other 1st world countries have disclosed info what make Americans not able to handle the truth when other countries feel there people can.



posted on Jul, 4 2010 @ 04:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by free_spirit
reply to post by RING0
 


Let me ask you just one thing, what about the radar readings? You conveniently
ignored to mention this important element of the case, of course you ignored the radar
readings because this single element destroys your debunking theory, very simple.


It not my theory, but it makes sense from a Scientific standpoint. It is not my job to educate you or anyone else on the topic, if you have an interest in the incident you should have read ALL of the links, all the questions asked by you are answered. I have not ignored the information, quite the opposite, I read extensively on the particulars of the incident. As I said earlier, all of the information about the incident is in the links I provided. Never depend on others to explain to you every aspect of a particular case, doing your own research is always the best way to get at the truth. If that radar data was the only thing that convinced you that the oil flares were UFO's this should clear that up.


from: www.skeptic.com...

The “ten UFO” segment did not have a radar return. During the remaining parts of the video, there are radar returns, some with an associated light, which seem to have the characteristics of aircraft.


This snippet explains that any radar returns were from individual aircraft normally found in the area, at no time were radar returns seen that matched the multiple targets seen with the IR equipment. The radar hits were from various aircraft flying in the vicinity, the evidence does not support the unknown targets being airborne and flying alongside the Mexican Air-force aircraft. This information is available on the links I provided.



posted on Jul, 4 2010 @ 04:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by FireMoon
reply to post by free_spirit
 


Thanx for that Free. I took the time to read the *explanations* and none of them actually address the Radar data.


The data from the radar reading is in fact explained, all of the pertinent information is in the links, do yourself a favor and check them out before you come to such unsupported conclusions.



posted on Jul, 4 2010 @ 08:24 AM
link   
No, it decides to ignore the data and go with its' own conclusions. You try reading it properly.



posted on Jul, 4 2010 @ 02:04 PM
link   
reply to post by RING0
 


You are a liar by saying the lights detected by the radar of the Air Force airplane were
other airplanes in the location, what a blatant lie by you, listen don't come here trying
to be smart by spreading cheap disinformation like this statement of yours just to
dismiss the radar readings relevant evidence of this case, you and your cheap links
have nothing and I repeat NOTHING so don't lie here. THERE WERE NO airplanes or
any other flying craft in the vecinity during the incident, this is A FACT and proved
so why are you inventing such a ridicule thing a cheap explanation just as a way out
to avoid the radar readings that destroys your speculation. Either you are incredible
ignorant or one of those skeptics that invent things in absence of proof to debunk.

This case has been discussed many times here and the conclusion has been always the
same: Unexplained, period. If you are so decided to debunk this case I challenge you
to present here your evidence to support your claim that those lights detected by the
radar were in fact other airplanes in the vecinity, present here in this forum your
evidence if you are honest AND DON'T SEND ME to any of those links, I know all of
them and there is nothing there about this issue do you hear me? Nothing. Don't spam
this thread by crying links, show me your proof here. Keep in mind I'm not interested
in your spamming intentions.

You and those airplanes in the vecinity (?) Yes invisible airplanes that were not seen by
the crew at any time despite the close distance they were, LOL what a ridicule lie.



posted on Jul, 10 2010 @ 04:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by FireMoon
No, it decides to ignore the data and go with its' own conclusions. You try reading it properly.


Hello FireMoon, I think you are not the only one who ignores the data and it is not fair and honest to say that the Radar readings where reliable, credible, trustworthy, if you believe it you have to demonstrate that.

There was NO RADAR VIDEO.... just a lousy and unprofessional conversation between frightened, scared and bad trained crew members who couldn't realize the oil wells are there in the Gulf of Mexico since 1976.

It is sad and embarrassing also a shame to present this publicly but it is the truth.

"The Chief of Staff of Mexico's Department of Defense (Sedena) estimates that the military would only be able to carry out continuous combat, externally or internally for 12 days with the armament presently available."


SOURCE:m3report.wordpress.com... 01/02/mexico-defense-department-equipment-and-armament-outdated/

I did the research about this case and I hope you read it ALL.

THE AN/APS 143B(V) RADAR DOES NOT PROVIDE ALTITUDES
OF MOVING TARGETS SO THEY COULD HAVE BEEN MISTAKEN
AS FLYING OBJECTS WHILE THEY WERE DETECTED AT GROUND LEVEL
www.alcione.org...


You should try this links:

Radar Targets May be Trucks On Yucatan Highway
ufoupdateslist.com...

.
-----------------------------

IF YOU HAVE ANY DOUBT ABOUT HE TRANSLATION YOU ARE FREE
TO CONSULT ANY SPECIALIST SPANISH-ENGLISH TRANSLATOR

THE VOICES ARE FROM THE ORIGINAL FLIR VIDEO AND HAVE NOT BEEN ALTERED:

March 05, 2004 Mexican Air Force C26A FLIR's video
on board communications transcription and translation
www.alcione.org...


17:04:10 V3: Let's see radar, what have we got?
17:04:12 V2: Nothing sir, let me look for it
17:04:16 V1: Commander what's that?
17:04:18 V2: At what distance did you have it Téllez?
17:04:19 V1: Uh?
17:04:23 V3: Hey, watch out, it's like...
17:04:24 V1: There go more of them, there are more behind, they are ten...eleven objects
17:04:30 V2: There are a lot of objects
17:04:33 V2: Let's see
17:04:35 V1: Now it must be at 9 o'clock of our position
17:04:36 V2: At 9 o'clock, let me see
17:04:37 V1: At 9 o'clock, at the same height almost, almost
17:04:39 V2: Ok, let me see
17:04:40 V1: Afirmative, here they come
17:04:44 V1: Those who knows, here they go
17:04:59 V3: What do we have radar?
17:05:00 V2: Nothing sir
17:05:02 V1: But there a lot of them, they are like ten
17:05:03 V2: I'm checking them out, but... no, I have some
little spots but they don't give me any indicatons
or speed or nothing
17:05:12 V2: Uff

See the translation on this page:
www.alcione.org...


17:04:59 V3: What do we have radar?
17:05:00 V2: Nothing sir
17:05:02 V1: But there a lot of them, they are like ten
17:05:03 V2: I'm checking them out, but... no, I have some little
spots but they don't give me any indicatons or speed or
anything


---------------------

By that the RADAR was not working well...readings could be vehicles on Yucatan's penninsula....

THE AN/APS 143B(V) RADAR DOES NOT PROVIDE ALTITUDE INFORMATION

Then the echoes (targets) reported by the Radar Operator could have
been vehicles on the ground.

Check also the target's speed's, it is almost the same 52 Knots average
of a moving vehicle on a highway and top speed limit of 80km/h

Regards,

Capt. Alejandro Franz

SEE MORE THAN 45 MAUSSAN'S HOAXES
www.alcione.org/index2.html

.



posted on Jul, 23 2010 @ 04:04 AM
link   
Free Spirit, POST the radar data, there's a good chap.


Or do you just have a conversation, ie hearsay? From what I can see, that conversation is to put it mildly, COMPLETELY unconvincing, unless of course you are desperate to hang onto this case (like Jaime Maussan is..)

Do you KNOW Jaime at all??????



posted on Jun, 21 2015 @ 08:31 AM
link   
a reply to: free_spirit

Hello Santiago Yturria Garza,

I did a recreation flight following the same coordinates
as the MAF C26A flew on march 05, 2004 and guess what?

I found there are oil rigs and they have flames! Also those
lights where recorded very easy with my personal SONY
HANDYCAM DCR-TRV18 DIGITAL camera. No FLIR needed.

Watch the 10 minutes video here:



I invite you and all members to read my investigation page
about this unbelievable military crew misidentification case.

"Eyewitness misidentification is the greatest contributing factor
to wrongful sightings"

READ ALL in the following link and then THINK and after reading
ALL THE DATA use, if you can, your common sense:

Be honest and read this page:

Mexican Air Force FLIR lights are not UFOs
They are now confirmed to be oil well gas flames.
The AN/APS 143 Radar VIDEO was unavailable and the
targets detected could be vehicles on the Yucatan's
peninsula highways as it is explained inside this page.

March 05, 2004 Mexican Air Force C26A FLIR's video
on board communications TRANSLATION TRANSCRIPTION

Regards to you and your master Jaime Maussán.

Capt. Alejandro Franz

SEE HERE MORE THAN 45 MAUSSAN HOAXES

Edited video link.


edit on 21-6-2015 by alfafox because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 21 2015 @ 08:43 AM
link   
a reply to: onlyinmydreams

You lost me at Mexican Air Force 😉
-Christosterone




top topics



 
1
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join