UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 1998 > Jul > Jul 4

Re: Lindemann & Rense Tidy Up

From: bruce maccabee <brumac@compuserve.com>
Date: Sat, 4 Jul 1998 10:47:24 -0400
Fwd Date: Sat, 04 Jul 1998 13:41:15 -0400
Subject: Re: Lindemann & Rense Tidy Up


>From: Joe Murgia <Ufojoe1@aol.com>
>Date: Fri, 3 Jul 1998 00:39:52 EDT
>To: updates@globalserve.net
>Subject: Re: UFO UpDate: Lindemann & Rense Tidy Up

>>Date: Thu, 02 Jul 1998 23:54:17 -0400
>>To: updates@globalserve.net
>>From: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
>>Subject: UFO UpDate: Lindemann & Rense Tidy Up

>ebk wrote:

>>It seems that he ran into Jeff Sainio at the MUFON Symposium in
>>Colorado this past weekend. The reclusive Mr Sainio called up the
>>Mexico City footage of the 'Craft' going behind a large building,
>>on his computer and told Michael that he was absolutely in no
>>doubt that the footage was a hoax.

>Lindemann also said that Jaime (sp?) Maussan is willing to
>consider this but Maussan can't get by the credibility of the
>teenage girl Cassandra who claims she saw the craft and her
>Father didn't believe her and called her a liar. He allegedly
>believed her when J.M. came calling. The Father tells same
>story. Supposedly Cassandra didn't watch the show where Maussan
>debuted the video. Of course, this is impossible to prove.>

>There were also other witnesses including a young boy. Are they
>all lieing? What a sad world if they are. And what a terrific
>bunch of liars because I saw the interviews and these people
>seemed credible. Some were professional people from the area of
>where the sighting or hoax took place if that's what
>it is.

>How reliable is Sainio? Who is he?

>Joe in Tampa


Sainio is one of the best photo/video analysts in the
"business." He began studying the video at my request and the
results of our initial joint work on it were published in the
MUFON Journal several months ago. He as spent MANY hours on this
video, as I can attest, as have I.

Initially it looked very intriguing. But scientists always asks
questions of the data (in a manner of speaking) and try to check
consistency in all ways.

One of the things to check in in video movie or even a still
photo is the comparison between the smearing of images due to
camera motion. The UFO image smear should be the same as the
background image smear. Careful edge analysis shows that the UFO
image is smeared very little or not at all at the same time (in
the same frames) where the building image smear is sizeable. In
neither case is the smear very great because the camera was
evidently operating with a rather fast shutter time (1/250 sec
or so). This is why the differential smearing was not noticed in
the initial analyses.

Any acceptance of the video as real would have to include a
logical explanation for this differential smear (I can't think
of one!). Since the cameraman is still, so far as I know,
unknown, the camera, etc. cannot be checked.

The story is that the cameraman would not come forward because he
was working illegally in Mexico City and would be sent back to
Venezuela (or perhaps arrested and put in jail) if discovered.
You should note that sizeable amounts of good old American $$$
were thrown around in order to UPN to buy the rights to use that
video in "Danger in Our Skies." The cameraman could have
demanded a pretty penny for convincing proof that his video was
real.... I expect he could have made a lot of money and gone
back to Venezuela as rich man, had he played his cards right. In
other words, if this were a real video it would have been more
lucrative for the person to admit to having taken it (thereby
getting paid tens of thousands of $$$) than to maintain
anonymity and continue working for whatever company in Mexico
City. (Unless, of course, he works for "Juan Valdez" and the
people who have all those "funny" farms in Columbia.)

Without a "first person account" of the video, the video will
always be "wounded." Inasmuch as internal evidence seems
to show signs of fake, at the very least it cannot be accepted
as proof of the visual sightings.

How, then, does it related to the visual sightings?

Perhaps the videographer heard about the sighting or was a
witness and then took well over a month to construct his
depiction of it. And perhaps the witnesses were not all
recalling events on the specific date, Aug. 6, which shows on
the video.

The bottom line is that we don' know how to relate the video to
the sightings, and we may never know if the videographer doesn't
come forward.