Mexico City UFO footage - 1997...was this officially debunked?, page
Pages:
ATS Members have flagged this thread 1 times


reply posted on 1-1-2011 @ 05:04 PM by Kandinsky
reply to post by HomerinNC
Some members could get all technical on this footage and provide links too. They might ask if anything presented by Jaime Maussan is worth wasting a second of time on?

One question.

Why is it in sepia in 1997?


reply posted on 1-1-2011 @ 05:13 PM by The Shrike
Originally posted by Kandinsky
reply to post by HomerinNC
Some members could get all technical on this footage and provide links too. They might ask if anything presented by Jaime Maussan is worth wasting a second of time on?

One question.

Why is it in sepia in 1997?


A TV documentary exists about the enhancing of the video to determine if it was real or not. While I do not remember the details, it would have been more practical to emboss the footage and measure pixelation at the edge of the building it goes behind versus the pixelation of the object which wobbles too much for my taste and it's really too low and not have been videotaped or filmed by those below which should have looked up, normally.

In sepia or black and white because the videographer may have used an old camcorder/film camera or the color version was transferred to b&w for whatever reason. I think I have that documentary on tape along with my other 30 or so UFO tapes but I ain't lookin' for it until I receive that gizmo advertised on TV, "CONVERT-A-CLASSIC", which ordered back on Nov. 2!



reply posted on 1-1-2011 @ 05:32 PM by Kandinsky
reply to post by gortex
No doubt a Clint Eastwood fan will be along shortly to ask you to *prove* the footage is not genuine.


reply posted on 1-1-2011 @ 06:20 PM by Kandinsky
reply to post by zorgon
A good video would stand by itself and you know there aren't many out there. A good video would gain attention in spite of some one like Maussan presenting it.


reply posted on 1-1-2011 @ 06:30 PM by IsaacKoi
Originally posted by Kandinsky
Some members could get all technical on this footage and provide links too.


This video is Number 13 in my database of infamous UFO videos.

I will not bore everyone with a long list of links or references.

The basics are covered, fairly concisely, in an article by Bruce Maccabee on his website at the link below:

brumac.8k.com...


The Mexico City video of Aug. 6, 1997 has been studied frame by frame. Initial
reports were favorable. However, "fingerprints of a hoax" were discovered when the
motion smear or edge blur or "diffuseness" of the UFO image was compared with the
smear/blur/diffuseness of the images of the buildings.
Jeffrey Sainio published his overall analysis of the differential image smear in the
October 1998 issue of the MUFON Journal. This showed that on the average the
motion smear of the building was greater than any measurable motion smear of the
UFO image. Also discovered were two frames in which the building motion smear was
great enough as to make the horizontal top edge of the building image very diffuse.
At the same time in these frames the images of the wind sock on top of the building
were so blurred as to be difficult to see against the sky background.


See Bruce's website for more information.

If anyone really cares, I can post some more references.

All the best,

Isaac


reply posted on 1-1-2011 @ 06:34 PM by The Shrike
Originally posted by IsaacKoi
Originally posted by Kandinsky
Some members could get all technical on this footage and provide links too.


This video is Number 13 in my database of infamous UFO videos.

I will not bore everyone with a long list of links or references.

The basics are covered, fairly concisely, in an article by Bruce Maccabee on his website at the link below:

brumac.8k.com...


The Mexico City video of Aug. 6, 1997 has been studied frame by frame. Initial
reports were favorable. However, "fingerprints of a hoax" were discovered when the
motion smear or edge blur or "diffuseness" of the UFO image was compared with the
smear/blur/diffuseness of the images of the buildings.
Jeffrey Sainio published his overall analysis of the differential image smear in the
October 1998 issue of the MUFON Journal. This showed that on the average the
motion smear of the building was greater than any measurable motion smear of the
UFO image. Also discovered were two frames in which the building motion smear was
great enough as to make the horizontal top edge of the building image very diffuse.
At the same time in these frames the images of the wind sock on top of the building
were so blurred as to be difficult to see against the sky background.


See Bruce's website for more information.

If anyone really cares, I can post some more references.

All the best,

Isaac


These are the details I mentioned seeing in the TV documentary in my reply, above.
Pages:     ^^TOP^^



Egg found in Martian Meteorite
  Posted 19 days ago with 126 member flags
Ooparts and Ancient aliens
  Posted 2 days ago with 55 member flags
Bad Ufologists-Lets clean the closet of any skeletons
  Posted 10 days ago with 52 member flags
Death by UFO!
  Posted 16 days ago with 49 member flags
UFOs during Satellite launch
  Posted 10 days ago with 49 member flags
Tracey Taylor - "Aliens Gave Me a Special Gift"
  Posted 9 days ago with 31 member flags
DIVINE INTERVENTION: ETs Defeating Old World Order
  Posted 17 days ago with 29 member flags