UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 2005 > May > May 10

Re: More UFO Fleets Over Mexico - Velez

From: John Velez <johnvelez.aic.nul>
Date: Tue, 10 May 2005 16:19:59 -0400
Fwd Date: Tue, 10 May 2005 17:05:26 -0400
Subject: Re: More UFO Fleets Over Mexico - Velez


>From: Jim Deardorff <deardorj.nul>
>To: ufoupdates.nul
>Date: Mon, 09 May 2005 18:20:25 -0700
>Subject: Re: More UFO Fleets Over Mexico

>>From: James Smith <zeus001002.nul>
>>To: ufoupdates.nul
>>Date: Sun, 8 May 2005 12:30:13 -0400 (GMT-04:00)
>>Subject: Re: More UFO Fleets Over Mexico

>>>From: Jim Deardorff <deardorj.nul>
>>>To: ufoupdates.nul
>>>Date: Wed, 04 May 2005 10:24:41 -0700
>>>Subject: Re: More UFO Fleets Over Mexico

>>>>From: James Smith <zeus001002.nul>
>>>>To: ufoupdates.nul
>>>>Date: Tue, 3 May 2005 14:04:30 -0400 (GMT-04:00)
>>>>Subject: Re: More UFO Fleets Over Mexico

>>>(b) The hypothesized balloons continue to rise, but do so all at
>>>the same rate so that their rising motion is not noticeable in a
>>>video that tracks them. This is now your key problem. Their
>>>rates of rise would all vary a few percent from each other at
>>>least, due to their slightly different volumes of inflation. If
>>>rising on the average at 8 ft/sec., some would be rising at a
>>>speed nearer 7.5 ft/sec., e.g., others at 8.5 ft/sec. Over a
>>>minute's time, their vertical displacements would have randomly
>>>changed relative positions by some 30 feet or more -- by many
>>>balloon diameters. Nothing like that shows up on the video.
>>>Hence the witnesses could remark that the objects didn't behave
>>>like balloons.

>>You are correct. There would be a slight difference, but I have
>>not calculated the difference. I will check your calcs when I
>>have time. Do you think temperature effects play a big role here
>>or not?

>>>So as a believer in the balloon hypothesis, your task is now
>>>simpler. Without having to resort to a multitude of strings
>>>between balloons, and without worrying how to get no-lift
>>>balloons up several hundred feet, all you need do now is inflate
>>>and release several hundred buoyant balloons, video-tape them,
>>>and show the results of a one-minute video of them. No photo-
>>>shop artistry allowed! Or, perhaps you should assume further
>>>that the video camera was aimed directly overhead.

>>I can try to use 3DMax to simulate this kind of thing,
>>at least initially.

>Nope. There's nothing like the real thing. And balloons are
>cheap. You need to go through all the motions that a would-be
>hoaxer would, tying off all 400 or so balloons, etc.

>>My question is what is the field of view, camera elevation. Of
>>course its hard to confirm these things without a nice Campeche
>>like FLIR on screen printout. Also, does any detailed wind layer
>>data exist for that area? Odd things can happen when you are
>>using a high zoom, such that you don't really need to be looking

>>Also, can you please tell me exactly which video you are writing
>>about so we can coordinate.

>One of the videos Jaime Maussan has shown, for the 8:30 AM 11
>April 2005 event in Mexico City. Video #2, say, in:
>http://www.ufo.com.br/exclusivo/mexico/

>Right now you need work just on the hoaxer's problem of getting
>all balloons up there and in close, but random positions, and
>then having them maintain those positions relative to each other
>for about a minute.

Jim, Jim, Jim,

Oh how you waste your time my friend. James Smith for all his
feigned pretension of honest skepticism, is quite the opposite.
If Smith is able to accept the sloppy 'proof' that Mr. Franz
presented recently while demanding precision and strict
adherence to empirical procedure from the Mexican research
community, contrary to what his mouth says, what he actually
does is to prematurely arrive at conclusions and apply a double
standard to everyone else.

The only thing Mr. Franz duplicated in his 'experiment to prove
his oil-well burn off theory' was that he was 'in' an airplane.
Other than that, he's the first one to tell you that in his
alleged recreation of the flight he did not follow the same
course, (in fact, he was nowhere near to where the original
recording was made) nor did he fly at the same heading, altitude
or speed as the original flight. (Reread the preceding sentence
until it sinks in.)

Yet he insists that the photos he took of Oil-well fires
corresponds -exactly- to the ones recorded by the military FLIR
equipment. And... that abortive effort by Franz which proves
absolutely nothing, is good enough for Smith to champion the
theory in public while looking down his nose at anyone who may
disagree.

It's ordinary pre-judging, plain and simple.

Bruce Maccabee met with Jaime Maussan at the Conference that was
held recently in Washington. They discussed (yet again) the
possibility of getting the Mexican AF to recreate the original
flight, using the same plane, equipment, speed, course and
altitude.

Pay close attention here Mr. Smith: You can't seem to squeeze
this one into your melon for some reason.....

Then, and only then, after the recreation/test flight, is
performed, (if) there is any _direct_ correlation between oil
well burn-off fires and the original FLIR recording, will you or
anybody else be able to dismiss the FLIR recording as mere heat
signatures recorded from oil well burn-off.

Not before.

Whether you like it or not.

Period.

I don't know how many times this point needs to be made before
skepti-bunkers in sheep's clothing (with itchy trigger-fingers)
finally chill out and wait for the Mexican military to do the
right thing.

Until then, people who egotistically declare cases closed/solved
without being able to actually prove or document it, really are
better off lurking.

The only thing I'm surprised at is; why this test flight has not
been performed to date. It's _the_ real sticking point. They can
calibrate the FLIR and a fresh recording  can settle once and
for all the question of oil well fires.

Then maybe these alleged "honest" skeptics, cough, cough,
ahem... can put their heads together and try to explain the
radar target UFO that did all kinds of tricks in the air, ie;
dramatically speeding up and slowing down, as it wended its way
toward the city of Carmen.

Case closed? I don't think so.

Let em all talk, Jim. Until the military makes the test flight,
the  jury will still be out in on this one. In spite of all the
bleating coming from certain quarters. Let em squirm, protest,
demand and prejudge all they want. In the end, the truth will
out.

My warmest regards to you Mr. Deardorff, stay well. Keep in
there swinging!  ;)


John Velez



[ Next Message | Previous Message | This Day's Messages ]
This Month's Index |

UFO UpDates Main Index

UFO UpDates - Toronto - Operated by Errol Bruce-Knapp


Archive programming by Glenn Campbell at Glenn-Campbell.com