UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 1998 > Jul > Jul 6

Re: Mexico City Fake

From: Jim Deardorff <deardorj@proaxis.com>
Date: Mon, 6 Jul 1998 14:41:11 -0700 (PDT)
Fwd Date: Mon, 06 Jul 1998 18:40:10 -0400
Subject: Re: Mexico City Fake

>Date: Sun, 5 Jul 1998 23:00:36 -0400
>From: bruce maccabee <brumac@compuserve.com>
>Subject: UFO UpDate: MexicoCityhoax?
>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>

>>Date: Sat, 4 Jul 1998 16:34:15 -0700 (PDT)
>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>,
>>From: Jim Deardorff <deardorj@proaxis.com>
>>Subject: Re: UFO UpDate: Re: Lindemann & Rense Tidy Up

>>Say Bruce,

>>What if you were to allow for the following possibilities; would
>>a possible explanation then come to mind?

>>(a) Some UFO entities are able to cause a person to do something
>i>nvoluntarily. Such as to look up for no apparent reason from
>>what they're doing and spot a UFO in a certain part of the sky.
>>.Some are reportedly able to affect equipment at a distance, such .
>>as remotely clicking a camera's shutter. Causing equipment
>>malfunction could be related, especially when an automobile's
>>engine suddenly comes back on again, etc.

>>(b) UFOs are capable of nearly instantaneous accelerations within
>>our time frame, and at the same time very controlled motions and
>>displacements, such as the UFO that was once reportedly filmed to
>>make a tight circle around a speeding rocket, or UFOs that charge
>>towards autos or airplanes and at the last split second avoid

>>(c) UFO entities like to toy with us at times, often with an
>>apparent goal of leaving crumbs for skeptics to latch onto.>

>>Would these and related considerations cause you to rethink
>>making the assumption that the Mexican City UFO was moving
>>uniformly along a single trajectory? Or do such considerations
>>just bring to mind the attitude of: "If what you imply were the
>>case, what's the use of studying them?"

>I suppose if UFOs could do anything we couldn't rule out a video
>that shows a UFO with a line above it...since the UFO could have
>created the line within the elctronics of the camera to fool us.

>In the Mex. Ciuty video..what really attracted Sainio's attention
>was the remarkable correlation between the motion of the camera
>and the motion of the UFO. That is, if the camera moved up, the
>UFO moved up, etc.  This tracking was not perfect but very good
>implying that either (a) the UFO knew which way the camera was
>about to move and adjusted its position in the sky accordingly


This is the possibility I had in mind, Burce. Do you recall the
one UFO case where there was a flickering black spot on the
window pane which attracted attention to itself with a thumping
noise? This was during appearance of a UFO some 3/4 mile away.
The witness was able to take a photo or two of the UFO and the
nearby black dot. It seems that a minor variation on this theme
would be for the UFO to have attached the "black spot," or
similar device, to the edge of the cam-corder lens atop the
building in Mexico City, and flicker the camera's vertical (or
horizontal) angle of sight up and down at will, while
coordinating the UFO's high-frequency vertical movements
accordingly. Nothing to it! Each instant the camera lens tilts
upwards by 0.2 degrees, say, the flying saucer jumps vertically
some 7 feet in tandem.

A related phenomenon is the relative motion of the implant behind
the ear of Whitley.  It knew just when and how far to move to
escape the scalpel, and its motion had to overcome the opposing
force of friction, just as tiny imposed motions of the video
camera would have had to overcome, or somehow negate, the
camera's inertia.

This solution has the advantage of not ignoring the supportive
witness testimony, and acknowledging the relevance of your study
correlating the UFO's brightness with its distance.

Jim Deardorff