From: James Smith <zeus001002.nul> Date: Sat, 14 May 2005 21:23:32 -0400 (GMT-04:00) Fwd Date: Sun, 15 May 2005 09:38:05 -0400 Subject: Re: How To Crack Weird Space Cases - Smith >From: Bruce Maccabee <brumac.nul> >To: <ufoupdates.nul> >Date: Sat, 14 May 2005 09:29:35 -0400 >Subject: Re: How To Crack Weird Space Cases >>Smith believes that Internet resources have provided a solution >>to yet another famous UFO case: the "Mexican UFO Fleet" >>encounter of March 5, 2004. Smith did a video analysis using >>Landsat and DMSP data, found other images of the apparent source >>of the mystery lights, and concluded that the UFOs were actually >>burn-off flares from oil platforms off the Mexican coast. He >>laid out the evidence last July in Skeptic magazine. >This may be true... or it may not. I have been told that the AF >has flown through the same area during surveillance flights many >times before, and since March 5th 2004, and never saw the oil >fires. I respect your work. You have taken on cases I would not dream of touching and done an excellent job. If and when the Mexican Air Force provides us with FLIR video tapes of a duplication of the flight and the weather is the same (at least clear and hopefully it matches the day of the notorious "UFO" fleet) and the oil rig flares (I don't know how they change from day to day) are operating, _and_ they do not show the oil rig flares in the video, _then_ I will recant. But keeping the videos under wraps and not coming forward and doing everything secretly after they have released the UFO FLIR tapes seems irresponsible or incompetent. >If they ever do the experiment I have proposed, they >will prove it one way or another. It depends on the level of proof you need. Sure, some people will need the duplicate flight. I don't. I don't know about you, but I am in this for myself, not for everyone else. I just do this analysis to show myself that these things really must be somethign special. I gave the analysis to others because they seem interested. People accuse me of not really wanting it to be "real". Baloney. >On the other hand, no one has offered a logical >explanation for the radar target which began the >whole 'UFO surveillance' flight. I examined that one and it was no oil rig light. I did not see it behaving oddly in the FLIR video. It was moving (as the oil rig flares did not) so it could "just" be a UFO. It could just be an airplane. Will we ever know? I doubt it. Will it convince me of alien spaceships? No. The "UFO" fleet would have. But it didn't pan out. By the way, I have though about it and I really only like the "official" sources of UFO videos. So if NASA, the military or other government sources (satellites or telescopes) do not provide the UFO video, then I don;t think there is much use examining it simply because of the small percentage of hoaxsters out there which can always make fools out of us with their "magic".
[ Next Message | Previous Message | This Day's Messages ]
This Month's Index |
UFO UpDates - Toronto - Operated by Errol Bruce-Knapp