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.

 

Infared Detects UFO's (with official Military backing!!!)

page: 2
5
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 4 2010 @ 02:13 AM
link   
reply to post by Heliocentric
 


Heliocentric.....

I'm just pulling together some of the reports regarding that Mexican Air Force case.

I'll post them all together for everyone's robust review & critique.....particularly that of your good self!


Cheers
Maybe...maybe not




posted on Sep, 4 2010 @ 02:40 AM
link   
I heard a while ago that the oil rig theory was pretty much de-bunked a while ago. I will try and find the links.



posted on Sep, 4 2010 @ 03:17 AM
link   
reply to post by heffo7
 


This kinda creeps me out to think they might be hovering just outside without my knowing. Maybe theres a cloaked ET behind you right now!



posted on Sep, 4 2010 @ 07:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by rajaten
reply to post by heffo7
 


This kinda creeps me out to think they might be hovering just outside without my knowing. Maybe theres a cloaked ET behind you right now!


I just checked...only my three year old son. I asked him if he was a cloaked UFO, to which he responded yes. FINALLY proof!



posted on Sep, 4 2010 @ 07:50 AM
link   
ATS Team:

Here are some reviews of the Mexican Air Force UFO case as per the opening article posted by DevilJonah.

When reviewing the ATS threads, it is important to note there is a significant conflict of interest afoot with the major “supporter” of the “UFO explanation”.

paracrypt.blogspot.com...

Alcione Franz Report Part 1

Acione Franz Report Part 2

NARCAP Statement on Mexican FLIR case of March 2004

ATS Thread: Mexican Airforce to release UFO footage

ATS Thread: Real UFOs In Mexico Disclosure By Air Force Including Extensive Posting By The Principal Investigator, Captain Franz & the Director of NARCAP

Here is a link to Maccabee’s 90 page report

To my mind.....

Given this information, there appears to be extremely little room left for any claims the objects filmed were any sort of flying craft.

It appears the objects are oil wells.

Kind regards
Maybe...maybe not



posted on Sep, 4 2010 @ 09:33 AM
link   
reply to post by Toxicsurf
 


Actually, what nailed it as the oil derricks was the position and flight path of the Mexican jet plus the distribution of the oil derricks.



posted on Sep, 4 2010 @ 09:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by Heliocentric
....assumes that the Mexican Air Force and all the personnel involved to be incompetent and wrong.


Near the end of the video they are surprised by another object appearing on the FLIR, which turns out to be the moon...

But of course, we know pilots and airmen are beyond the mere foibles of mere human beings and are infallible, right?


Originally posted by Heliocentric
The 11 objects captured by the Mexican Air Force infra red surveillance equipment were moving (!) at an approximate level of 11,500 feet and were also picked up by radar.


It seems you yourself are ignoring facts and basic dating as well as conflating different parts of the report.

There was one object spotted on radar, however, it was at an earlier time, in a different direction than the flares...


nfortunately, no radar data from the aircraft was recorded, so we must rely on the crews’ recollection of what it showed. The military radar operator in the city of Carmen was contacted, and it was not showing any unknown objects. UFO researcher Brad Sparks, plotting the direction and distance of the aircraft’s radar returns on a map, found that some of them appear to match the position of the Yucatan Highway 186. He suggests that the measured velocity of the radar objects (fifty-two knots, or sixty miles per hour) is quite consistent with the velocity of trucks, and so concludes that some, although not all, of the moving objects spotted on radar are due to trucks on the highway.
Source

As to why the objects appear to be moving...


There are many clouds at various distances between the distant oil flares and the aircraft. This fact, and the very narrow field of view, gives the illusion of motion as the aircraft moves past the clouds. Camera angles confirm that there is little or no movement in what it is pointing at.
Source


Originally posted by Heliocentric
What are the debunker's take on this? Vehicles moving on a Yucatan highway...


Can you tell us why that is absurd?


Originally posted by Heliocentric
So should we therefore mock the entire world press and media, and believe nothing that they say?


No, despite your straw-man argument, that is not what anyone is suggesting. Distrust of Maussan is not due to him being taken by hoaxes, it is that the man does not seem to possess the least iota of critical thinking and will unabashedly promote a case even after it has been shown to be a hoax.



posted on Sep, 4 2010 @ 09:54 AM
link   
The OP's source "World News Daily" cites Reuters. Naturally, I checked Reuters:
Reuters
Hoax.



posted on Sep, 4 2010 @ 11:13 AM
link   
There was an ATS member a few years back who got his camera converted to IR in the hope of catching some UFOs.
Could have been D4rk Kn1ght I think.
Not sure if he found any,and hes not around these parts nowadays.

The problem I have with the idea is that IR photography has been going for years,and is quite popular-It takes especially nice landscape photographs,giving the environment an ethereal beauty that is usually hidden from us.

So my point is that UFOs should have been popping up in loads of IR pics if that way really the sure way to spot them.
Sadly they don't pop up any more often that with regular film I think.
So I doubt they are the definite way to capture UFOs consistently.

Forgot,a link with some nice IR images-no UFOS sadly though:

desktopro.com...

[edit on 4/9/2010 by Silcone Synapse]

[edit on 4/9/2010 by Silcone Synapse]



posted on Sep, 4 2010 @ 07:55 PM
link   
Yes, I never really believed that story about how they were filming some oil drilling rigs down below them. I preferred to believe my own eyes that they were filming something moving around in the air.



posted on Sep, 4 2010 @ 08:16 PM
link   
reply to post by witness63
 


I think you have a misunderstanding of the filming. The cameras were pointed forward, not down. The rigs were far away, not close.



posted on Sep, 5 2010 @ 10:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by Maybe...maybe not
ATS Team:

Here are some reviews of the Mexican Air Force UFO case as per the opening article posted by DevilJonah.

When reviewing the ATS threads, it is important to note there is a significant conflict of interest afoot with the major “supporter” of the “UFO explanation”.

paracrypt.blogspot.com...

Alcione Franz Report Part 1

Acione Franz Report Part 2

NARCAP Statement on Mexican FLIR case of March 2004

ATS Thread: Mexican Airforce to release UFO footage

ATS Thread: Real UFOs In Mexico Disclosure By Air Force Including Extensive Posting By The Principal Investigator, Captain Franz & the Director of NARCAP

Here is a link to Maccabee’s 90 page report

To my mind.....

Given this information, there appears to be extremely little room left for any claims the objects filmed were any sort of flying craft.

It appears the objects are oil wells.

Kind regards
Maybe...maybe not


Thanks for the links MMN,


I have come across most of them before. I've read an even more extensive analysis by James Smith than the one you posted, although much of the stuff posted right after the 2004 event is offline now (check Tom Printy's analysis if you're seduced by Smith's angle), like for instance Brad Sparks' investigation. Bruce Maccabee's extensive analysis is impressive. He arrives at the conclusion that some lights are in the possible range and location of the oil wells. Although some of the lights seem to match, not all do... which makes it a no-match. He notes that the so called 'twin lights' are positioned above the optical horizon, therefore they cannot be oil wells (according to Maccabee).

It is true that Franz's elaborate theory comes off as well researched, neately cut and pasted together to fit the supposition. He seems to have some difficulties getting all the luminous points aligned in order to correspond with the FLIR footage, but with a little bit of tweaking the perspectives he finally manages. I suppose you know that he has retracted some of his own calculations, although he holds on to his basic argument that the lights are oil wells.

So while the Cantarell Oil wells are in the area, and the FLIR equipment apparently had the capacity to pick them up, at a distance of 140 NM, the theory is still hypothetical (Franz seems to be more aware of this than most ATS debunkers). You can compare it to a house of cards built on the following assumptions :

Mexican Air Force personnel couldn't handle their equipment, misreading both the FLIR and the radar data, couldn't estimate distance, altitude and mistake eleven static objects at sea level for unidentified flying objects, and that for several minutes, while knowing very well where they were, and where the oil wells where. More so, they observed that one of the objects/oil wells were following them, so apparently they're paranoid as well as totally incompetent. Add to that an investigation made by the Mexican Department of Defense, supervised by the Minister of Defense, which came to the conclusion that the incident went down the way the aircraft crew described it.

To me it's a mystery. It makes me think of the Flight 19 incident, when 5 US Navy bombers got off course and disappeared over the ocean, apparently incapable of finding their way back for some obscure reason. What made experienced pilots collectively make several major mistakes in a not so complicated situation? A mystery.

So, do I think that the FLIR footage shows oil wells? No I don't, but that's because I have respect for witness testimonies, which has little or no importance to debunkers (when it does not fit their agenda). As a debunker, all you need to do is to plant the possibility that the lights were oil wells, and then the 'When in doubt throw it out' principle kicks in. If any conventional explanation is possible, then that becomes the most probable explanation, which then becomes the only explanation. Case closed.

Nevertheless, I retract my comment calling the oil well hypothesis "pahtetic". After all, it is well researched and possible, if not probable IMO. See it as a reaction to over-confident people trumpeting the oil well hypothesis as established and true.



posted on Sep, 5 2010 @ 04:35 PM
link   
reply to post by Heliocentric
 


Heliocentric…..


Thanks for the links MMN,


You are very welcome!


Thank you for your own informative reply.

I hate to see that which I perceive to be a preponderance of info & analysis indicating the objects filmed were the oil wells.

To my mind…..

On the one hand…..

The reports do leave a tiny, tiny amount of “wriggle room”.

On the other hand…..

It’s just not enough for me to keep “hanging on to the UFO position by my fingernails” for this one.

Unfortunately, I had to let go…..


Kind regards
Maybe…maybe not



posted on Sep, 8 2010 @ 05:49 PM
link   
Heliocentric, I appreciate the way you have looked at the evidence, and changed your initial view somewhat.

But I am interested in your doubts about Alejandro's work, can you be a little more specific about which sections you dispute by quoting text, or referring to figures in that analysis?

Frankly, I found Alejandro's work very compelling, and while I didn't put it through the wringer of a further independent investigation, I didn't see any obvious flaws anywhere.

In fact, given the evidence he supplied, most of which is verifiable, you have to ask where on earth were the oilwells, if those bright flares were ufo's? After all, the cameras were pointed right at them...

I'm happy to look at any flaws in his analysis, and I'm pretty sure he would be interested as well. He has posted at ATS, and seems a very reasonable, competent (and eager!) investigator.



posted on Sep, 8 2010 @ 06:23 PM
link   
Ahh yes,.. the ever elusive UFO,.
It is always amazing how in our modern era
with technological know how, that something
which is always visible by so many, is never
actually filmed with clarity or close enough to
be undeniable.
It may as well be god we are trying to see.



posted on Sep, 8 2010 @ 08:09 PM
link   
i found this old video on youtube but since i cant embed it i will have to post the link.

analysis



new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 1   >>

log in

join