Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Mexico City UFO footage - 1997...was this officially debunked?

page: 1
1

log in

join

posted on Jan, 1 2011 @ 04:27 PM
link   
Not sure if this was discussed, but was the famous daylight footage of a 'mothership' seen over mexico city in 1997 ever debunked? Websites I checked are 50/50 in debunking it..
Here's the video in question:





posted on Jan, 1 2011 @ 05:04 PM
link   
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?



posted on Jan, 1 2011 @ 05:13 PM
link   

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!



posted on Jan, 1 2011 @ 05:25 PM
link   
To answer your question, I have no idea if debunked or not...however....the wobbling really looks quite silly and the ambiance has a certain je ne sais quoi that screams recent video software attempting to look rustic.

1997 shouldn't look that rustic.

Can't provide you with hard evidence to support my opinion that its fake, but that is my opinion.



posted on Jan, 1 2011 @ 05:28 PM
link   
I first saw this video a few years ago and thought it to be one of the most obvious examples of a fake UFO I have seen , the fact that Jaime Maussan stands by it speaks volumes for him and his integrity as a UFO researcher , and his agenda to play up the UFO phenomena in Mexico for his own advantage



posted on Jan, 1 2011 @ 05:32 PM
link   
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.



posted on Jan, 1 2011 @ 06:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kandinsky
They might ask if anything presented by Jaime Maussan is worth wasting a second of time on?


+So... what your saying then is that if there came along a really GOOD UFO video... and Jaime picked up on it and presented it (as he and any other UFO hunter naturally would) you would automatically dismiss it because Jamie preented it?



No wonder we will never see disclosure. All the gubmint has to do to release the truth is send Jamie a video. That would guarantee no one takes it seriously




posted on Jan, 1 2011 @ 06:20 PM
link   
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.



posted on Jan, 1 2011 @ 06:30 PM
link   

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



posted on Jan, 1 2011 @ 06:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by zorgon

Originally posted by Kandinsky
They might ask if anything presented by Jaime Maussan is worth wasting a second of time on?


+So... what your saying then is that if there came along a really GOOD UFO video... and Jaime picked up on it and presented it (as he and any other UFO hunter naturally would) you would automatically dismiss it because Jamie preented it?



No wonder we will never see disclosure. All the gubmint has to do to release the truth is send Jamie a video. That would guarantee no one takes it seriously



Don't you speak the truth!? If I could spend some time with Jaime I would try to find out why he doesn't exercise common sense, logic, and reason when he views the videos submitted to him by the thousands from all over Mexico and possibly the world. He supports questionable material but it doesn't matter what he supports or not because once we've seen the video(s) it's up to us to decide whether it rings true or not. We're just spectators who should watch the videos with the sound turned off so that we don't have to hear his evaluations. He is not alone in supporting what we think are questionable videos, TV news channels do it frequently and there's no bigger violator of common sense than the "History" Channel.

So, keep showing us the videos, Jaime and excuse us while we laugh at a few you deem "real".



posted on Jan, 1 2011 @ 06:34 PM
link   

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.



posted on Jan, 1 2011 @ 07:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kandinsky
A good video would gain attention in spite of some one like Maussan presenting it.


Yep seems you are correct


UFO releases intelligent moving spheres!! First ever video footage!,
www.abovetopsecret.com...




posted on Jan, 1 2011 @ 07:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by IsaacKoi
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.


Since the wind socks are effected by any wind in the area, I don't see what they have to do with anything in the 'study'. The extra blur on those would simply be a function of wind



posted on Jan, 19 2012 @ 06:22 PM
link   
This footage was probably animated by a skilled 3d studio max (or other) home user, 3d max was more or less released with the release of windows nt this very year. Utube is full of examples of this sort of animation nowadays with the growth of torrent file sharing sites making it easy to get hold of high end animation software.



posted on Jan, 19 2012 @ 08:55 PM
link   
As far as the video....who cares? One doesn't need a single bit of video technical knowledge to dismiss this horribly laughable video anyway.

Apply simple common sense and a little bit of reasoning and one can easily not be swayed by such utter nonsense.

For starters, it's a shame this amazing UFO didn't happen to be over a densely populated area where there would be thousands of witnesses and enough corroboration reports to make the video worth watching...oh wait.....

Why do I need to keep saying this over and over? I am missing something? Are people so hung up on the technical aspects of software and video stuff that they turn off the parts of their brain that can tell them if a video is even worth the effort?



posted on Jan, 20 2012 @ 02:32 AM
link   
One look at that induces a gut feeling that the naysayers may well be right that all UFO sightings are misidentifications or hoaxes.





new topics

top topics



 
1

log in

join