Real Ufos In Mexico Disclosure By Air Force

Real Ufos In Mexico Disclosure By Air Force
Has this been checked out on ATS previously?

Real airforce video



====
Mod Edit: Changed all-caps case



[edit on 12/23/2008 by Badge01]

It has been shown that these UFOs was actually burn-off from the Cantrella Oil Fields, the largest in Mexico. This site has a detailed analysis of the FLIR video, and shows how ground-based objects on the horizon can appear to be level with the observer when viewed from an airplane at certain heights.


[edit on 23-12-2008 by SaviorComplex]

Originally posted by SaviorComplex
It has been shown that these UFOs was actually burn-off from the Cantrella Oil Fields, the largest in Mexico. This site has a detailed analysis of the FLIR video, and shows how ground-based objects on the horizon can appear to be level with the observer when viewed from an airplane at certain heights.


[edit on 23-12-2008 by SaviorComplex]

Very comprehensive thanks for pointing it out and the link.

yes this is pretty old

This video has been posted several times. But it's always nice to be reminded.

Originally posted by SaviorComplex
It has been shown that these UFOs was actually burn-off from the Cantrella Oil Fields, the largest in Mexico. This site has a detailed analysis of the FLIR video, and shows how ground-based objects on the horizon can appear to be level with the observer when viewed from an airplane at certain heights.


[edit on 23-12-2008 by SaviorComplex]

Absolutely wrong. The alleged Cantarell Oil Fields story is a proved hoax invented by
this eccentric old man named Alejandro Franz Navarrete, formely pilot and despised
by the mexican pilots, exposed everywhere as a hoaxer who claims all the 17 years of
UFO sightings in Mexico are hoaxes including those from airline pilots, military, air
traffic controllers, in one word everyone. A mentally disturbed individual that should
be taken as it is, a clown.

You better tink twice before beliveing any tale by this guy. Here check the evidence
of the oil well flames hoax debunked.

www.youtube.com...

Originally posted by free_spirit
You better tink twice before beliveing any tale by this guy. Here check the evidence of the oil well flames hoax debunked.

Naverrete was not the only person to come to this conclusion. Others have reached the same conclusion, believers and skeptics alike.

Why do you have such hatred for him? You make some pretty nasty comments about him.

I do not think that YouTube video debunks anything at all. At sufficient distance, fires such as the burn-off of the oil-wells would appear static, not flickering.



[edit on 23-12-2008 by SaviorComplex]

In the video, you can see the flames being reflected off the surface of the Oceans surface, the proximity of the reflections to the heat sources indicates that they are very close to the water. This factor alone is ample evidence of something close to the ground, when you look at some of the evidence on other sites, the conclusion can only be that the heat source imaged by the FLIR camera was most likely the Oil well fires. This case is not a good one to prove the reality of UFO's.

Originally posted by SaviorComplex

Originally posted by free_spirit
You better tink twice before beliveing any tale by this guy. Here check the evidence of the oil well flames hoax debunked.

Naverrete was not the only person to come to this conclusion. Others have reached the same conclusion

[edit on 23-12-2008 by SaviorComplex]

I will answer to that. Both Ted Roe and Richard Haines were very upset with the
mexican Air Force, the DOD and the Secretary of Defense because NARCAP was
not invited nor even taken in count when this disclosure was decided. Just before
the disclosure took place Ted Roe was in Mexico City attending some important
reunions with airline pilots, air traffic controllers and some military also. Nobody
told Ted Roe about the Campeche UFO incident and the imminent disclosure by
the DOD and it was because nobody of them knew about this incident, it was
being kept classified and secret by the Air Force and the DOD while doing their
own invesigation.

When Secretary of Defense General Ricardo Vega decided it was time to get advice
from the civil UFO research and later decided to disclose the incident to the world
both Ted Roe and Dr. Haines reacted surprised, dissapointed and upset, how was it
posible that NARCAP was not choosen for the historic release not even taken in
count. They still think NARCAP is the ultimate organization to validate any major
UFO incident in the world involving aircraft. They are wrong obviously.

Despite that both Dr. Richard and Ted Roe were invited to colaborate in the civil
investigation joining forces with the DOD and the Air Force to find out what really
happened on the Campeche air space that day. They were invited by the mexican
research team along with other respected researchers of the world. Richard Haines
and Ted Roe rejected the invitation claiming it was not properly made at the proper
time that is obviously directly by the DOD. As a result of their dissapointment Ted
Roe and Richard Haines decided to align themselves with the skeptic force wich
was a surprisingly historic precedent for NARCAP but it was just a retaliation for
the motives exposed. I define this response by them as simple conflict of interest.

I know Ted Roe and is a good friend of mine. I respect Dr. Richard Haines also and
both of them have made important things in the past. However this response of them
is a classic conflict of interest like so many we see everyday in the ufologic
communities. These are real facts and I can prove it, I have emails with Ted Roe
about the Campeche UFO incident and also testimonials from mexican sources.
Therefore NARCAP did'nt debunk anything at all, did'nt prove anything and just
showed their frustration wich is now a mark in their historial.

Regarding your second link SaviorComplex that is the skeptics, well obviously I
will not bother even to answer to that, skeptics live in denial.

It seems to me you don't know anything at all about this eccentric individual named
Alejandro Franz and his pathetic historial. I invite you to make your own inquiries
with the mexican ufologists and I mean any of them, ask about this guy Franz and
then we talk. Make some research by your own and ask the mexican airline pilots
about this guy Alejandro Franz and then we talk. That is if you are not a skeptic
yourself in wich case forget everything I said and enjoy your denial. Have a nice
day.

[edit on 23-12-2008 by free_spirit]

reply to post by SaviorComplex


Just one question why would pilots make this kind of mistake more importantly I assume they were pilots familiar to the area and would have seen this before. Why would they be confused at all let alone that they thought the lights were moving – that’s a worry wouldn’t you agree.

Originally posted by majestictwo
reply to post by SaviorComplex

 

Just one question why would pilots make this kind of mistake more importantly I assume they were pilots familiar to the area and would have seen this before. Why would they be confused at all let alone that they thought the lights were moving – that’s a worry wouldn’t you agree.

I will add to that a definitive fact. These military planes fly over that area all the
time and have been flying for several years as part of the permanent missions
to detect drug smuggling planes coming from SouthAmerica. In these flights the
military use the FLIR cameras and radar all the time recording every minute
of the flight just as the black boxes do in commercial flights, this is a protocol
and can not be ignored.

That day of the UFO incident was THE ONLY ONE the military encountered this
phenomena and it is written in their report and confirmed by the Air Force and
the DOD therefore it's official. They checked the area the subsequent days during
their surveillance flights looking for an explanation, the phenomena to be repeated
again under the same conditions and circumstances. They found NOTHING. Not the
following days, not to date.That's when the DOD decided to request civil research
advice trying to solve the mystery.

The FLIR cameras recordings were checked over and over and nothing like that
was found, not before or after that day. Do we need more evidence? These lights
were real UFOS, period. By the way, according to the recordings and the crew
testimonials those luminous objects surrounded the airplane at certain time causing
alarm among them. This was detected also by the radar and the audio confirming
this fact is now of public domain.

Surrounded the plane... pretty intelligent for common oil wells 200 kmts. away don't
you think ?

Originally posted by SaviorComplex
It has been shown that these UFOs was actually burn-off from the Cantrella Oil Fields, the largest in Mexico. This site has a detailed analysis of the FLIR video, and shows how ground-based objects on the horizon can appear to be level with the observer when viewed from an airplane at certain heights.


[edit on 23-12-2008 by SaviorComplex]

Sorry, that was just an opinion. However, I attempted to interview the spokesperson for the Mexican Department of Defense about this and got declined. However, on their official, they admit to this event and do not say they were oil fields:

Original response on PDF here: LETTER

*snipped advertising*

[edit on 1/10/2009 by Badge01]

reply to post by free_spirit


My name is Ted *SNIP* NARCAP exec director, and I will happily engage this matter for the benefit of the anonymous poster Free_spirit who seems to think he knows more than he does about our methods and our motives.

With respect to the Campeche Oil Flare case of 2004, Dr. Haines and I were in Mexico at the time and we were invited to attend a press conference called by Jaime Maussan regarding a case that found its source in Mexico's Dept. of Defense, SEDENA.

At this point we had not seen any of the materials at all. We were asked to comment and play a supportive role in a case that we did not have any info on. The press conference would take place before we could review materials so I sought another route to vet the material and justify our presence. I asked if SEDENA would have a representative present and if they would be making a statement regarding their own analysis of the materials. The short answer is that they were not going to attend. Therefore I was left with either appearing at a conference in support of the claims of Jaime Maussan and possibly damaging the credibility of my team or not making the appearance.

The reason we were in Mexico City involved the International Civil Aviation Organization of the UN (UN-ICAO). We have also worked on behalf of the US gov and have participated in a number of situations that we could only have access to because we protected our image, very carefully.....

The fact is that we turn down far more media than we engage. I have walked away from so many TV and radio and internet media opps that iit is a joke to think that we would be bothered by not appearing in a press conference when the case isn't vetted, when there is no second opinion and when we have nothing to do with it.

However, we did look into it. We asked Jaime M to forward all materals that he recieved from SEDENA. That is the first step in a bonafide investigation, secure the evidenciary chain of custody or review all evidence available. This meant all materials from SEDENA. Jaimie M sent us a cd with "cherry picked" data.not raw data.

We did not recieve radar data.... we did receive a segment of FLIR film data that had been digitally converted and we contacted the manufacturer to learn specs. The clip contained azimuth, heading and altitude of the aircraft. That made it rather easy to conclude that the camera was pointing at the oil flares and should have been detecting them along with anything else unusual.... it worked and it only detected the oil flares since all the targets in the video remain fixed...

But, the man you have slandered, Captain Alehandro Franz got a grant from National Geographic and flew the route with a hand held camcorder and did a visual capture of the flares and demonstrated that they were visible from the same altitude, heading and location..... THen, and this is the bit of detective work that you seem to overlook, he took the stills and compared them with satellite photos and proved adequately that the lights seen in the film fit the same pattern as the lights captured from satellite....
go to www.alcione.net

We did not recieve any information that suggested that the pilots and crew of the Merlin C26 visually observed the lights "flying around their aircraft". As far as I know, the ony person observing anything was the FLIR operator. I have seen no evidence to the contrary though I have heard many, many ridiculous claims to the contrary - none supported by evidence.

NARCAP is a national org and we work with US Aviation to resolve and activate around safety issues involving UAP as we call them, unidentified aerial phenomena. We don't do international cases as a rule though occasionally Dr. Haines will do independant studies that we post (The JAL 1521 case is an example). We have a clearly posted disclaimer on our site....


*SNIP*

Mod Note: Personal data removed as inappropriate for an open board.

[edit on 5-1-2009 by NGC2736]

reply to post by Anonymous ATS


As I’ve ask before – How do you explain pilots being mislead thinking it was something other than the flares.

This is why I love this board sometimes. We get a well known fascinating case and NARCAP is willing to pop in and make a post. Refreshing...discussions like this will educate more people.

reply to post by majestictwo


The aircraft involved was a FAM Merlin C26 that was flying smuggler interdiction missions and was outfitted with a FLIR camera system to detect heat signatures. The pilots did not see the flares... the FLIR system detected them and the FLIR operator commented on them. Nobody saw lights flying around the plane because there weren't any. The lights in the video were detected by a sensitive infrared camera that had more than enough range to detect the Cantrell flares 80 miles away..... I hope that clears things up for you....

The case is so mundane I have to ask why it was given to Jaime unless it was an attempt to discredit him... the materials were more than adequate to come to a prosaic conclusion.

I did want to clear this up because there are far better documented examples of real UAP. It doesn't serve anyone to claim that a case involves UAP when it doesn't... This is part of the reason why I don't get involved with media or conferences very often. There is so little attention to the basics of investigation - even the poster free_spirit here on this list was far more interested in social issues than the actual facts of the case. If he actually reviewed the materials and then compared them to the ridiculous commentary that is floating around out there he could make a better judgement.

I think the most interesting aspect of this case was the way scientists jumped into the media with explanations ranging from satellite re-entries to atmospheric plasmas and not one of them produced a single paper on the case. Like the True Believers they were ready to talk without doing a whit of homework....

Our trend towards conservatism and away from UFOlogy has won us many friends and supporters, some at veryhigh levels of gov and both here and abroad. It is entirely possible to build a respectable reputation in this field while sticking to the facts and avoiding speculation whenever the opportunity arises. Rumor mongering, speculating, ego stroking and narcissim have made UFO researchers a laughingstock. It doesn't seem like many people are concerned with image management. Given the raw cases and rumors that are bandied about as proof of... something, and New Age belief systems that have hijacked the discussion there is little reason to participate.

Captain Franz, whom free-spirit defames in his posting is one of the more careful and experienced researchers I have met. He knows what is at stake if we fail to be very careful and critical about what we take away from case investigations. He has looked very carefully at some very famous Mexican cases and has come away unconvinced by many of them. At the same time, he knows UAP exist, he has seen them, and he knows that there are many authentic examples to engage. We both agree that focusing on cases because of notoriety, cases that fail the researchers test - broken evidenciary chain of custody, objective first person analysis, etc - does not serve the effort.

The fact is that there are many, many cases out there that are pushed around as authentic.... Like the WTC UFO/helicopter near miss video which was actually a SciFi channel commercial that still is kicked around as authentic,, and I can list ten more faster than I can type them....Sacred cows to the True Believers and one faces a lot of emotional nonsense when you try to tell them....

We have plenty of examples of the real thing, so attacking us doesn't help but the New Agers, fringe and not-so-fringe folks do... rumors about me include the asertion that I am a US Gov asset, an official agent of disclosure (wtf?), that I work for NASA, etc.... and its all because I won't go where the data doesn't lead and I won't compromise. Nobody has proved that UAP/UFO are et devices - thats not our fault and the only way to get around it is to do the work rather than attack the messenger...

Is this video cam comparison accessible online?

Cause people can talk all they want in here, I will lean towards the "they are NOT oil fields" until I see some concrete evidence of them being flames from an oil field. So far I have never seen any evidence at all. That either prove or disprove these lights to be flames on an oil field.

All I have ever seen so far is how people "know".
They type down and post stuff here where they claim to "know" and have seen materials where it is been proven to be oil fields.

Well, until I've seen these materials myself I have made a choice of belief.
And my choice of belief are based on what I WANT to believe.
So I put my belief in the "They are NOT oil fields" box, for now...

Originally posted by Anonymous ATS
reply to post by free_spirit

 

My name is Ted *SNIP* NARCAP exec director, and I will happily engage this matter for the benefit of the anonymous poster Free_spirit who seems to think he knows more than he does about our methods and our motives.

[edit on 5-1-2009 by NGC2736]

First of all how do we know you are indeed Ted Roe from NARCAP?
You didn’t provide a link for any investigation, image or even your
own website in your statement.

Second. For your information I know more of this case that you can
imagine, from the original sources.

Now let’s proceed to the subject. I contacted Mexican tv journalist
Jaime Maussan and asked him if he could care to make a comment
in response to Ted Roe’s statement on ATS regarding the Mexican
Air Force UFO case. Jaime Maussan agreed and sent me his response
authorizing me to be posted here.

STATEMENT FROM JAIME MAUSSAN IN RESPONSE TO TED ROE

January 6, 2009

Open letter to the community.

Ted Roe from NARCAP is lying regarding the case of the Campeche Ufo´s recorded by the Mexican Air Force, in March 5 2004.

First of all he is saying that he and Richard Haines were invited to attend a Press Conference and asked to support the case, which is not true. They were invited to come to México to review and analyse the case, which they never did.

I repeat I never ask to back this case but to participate in the investigation

They had been in México, they were not here at the moment.

I send them the tape in full, not edited or manipulated, as he claims. All the information is inside the image recorded by the Flir, The information of the radar was just in the airplane from the Sedena, was not provided to me.

It seems that NARCAP doesn´t know that the information provided by this kind of airplanes is restricted.

He claims that he didn’t assist to the Press Conference because we could damage his image, the information came from the Mexican Air Force, not from me.

I don´t know Ted Roe, and I dont know why he is lying about everything in this case, and he does this after 5 years. It seems NARCAP felt affected like many others who weren´t provided first with the most important video tape ever released by a National Air Force of any country.

Mr. Ted Roe considers the investigation done by Alejandro Franz as the answer to the evidence, but he does this without doing any investigation, how he knows Alejandro Franz is right?

National Geographic and Alejandro Franz never flew over the area were the UFOS were recorded, they never did over the same altitude, or use the same kind of camera.

The investigation made was not just poor but also false. It’s is bussines as usual. In the US many consider that mexicans are ignorant poor and unable to make credible investigations around a phenomenum that just belongs to them.

I am sorry about Ted Roe and my friend Richard Haines, I am sorry that they did not get involved in this fascinating case, I am sorry if now 5 years later they still feel affected by not have participated in this. They were invited, they refused for any reason when they had the duty to get involved in an investigation as important as this one.

Jaime Maussan
Maussan Producciones
Mexico

(End of message)

Some facts are clear now. Ted Roe didn’t met Jaime Maussan in May 2004 and
was not at the press conference when the Air Force UFO case was released. In
fact Jaime Maussan has never met Ted Roe and never heard of him till now, only knew Richard Haines from NARCAP. According to a personal email from Ted Roe that I have received from one of my sources he was in Mexico City in March – April 2004 attending some meetings with pilots and air traffic controllers and
nobody told him about this March 5 UFO incident involving a military airplane
over the Campeche aerial space, nobody told him because nobody knew about
this case yet, it was kept secret by the Air Force and the DoD at that time, then
Ted Roe is lying claiming he knew about it before the worldwide release in May.

Let’s see now the alleged “evidence” that Ted Roe claims was presented by
mexican debunker Alejandro Franz on the National Geographic television program Is it Real? UFOS, supposed “evidence” that both Roe and Franz
claim prove the 11 luminous objects filmed by the FLIR camera aboard the
Air Force plane were just oil well flames from the Cantarell oil plataforms.

THE HOAX BY MEXICAN DEBUNKER ALEJANDRO FRANZ EXPOSED

These are three images from the video taken by debunker Alejandro Franz with
his videocamera through a window of the airplane he and National Geographic
rented to supposedly make a recreation of the March 5, 2004 Air Force flight when the UFO incident happened. According to National Geographic the purpose
of this flight was to replicate the same conditions and scenario to confirm if those
lights recorded by the Air Force FLIR camera were indeed oil flames from Cantarell. The attempted recreation or replica resulted a complete fiasco but not
only that, both National Geographic and Alejandro Franz committed a fraud as I
will prove here now.

National Geographic TV Show: Is it Real? UFOS

Alejandro Franz take the tv crew to the actual location over the Campeche aerial
space where the Air Force incident took place in order to prove his theory of the
oil well falmes. FALSE. Alejandro Franz took the tv crew aboard the rented airplane to the ocean more than 100 miles away from the sighting location and
placed the airplane directly above the oil platform, took some video with a
conventional videocamera through the window and claimed this was what the
FLIR camera recorded that day.

Exhibit 1, 2 and 3. The images above the oil platform, in the ocean.









Exhibit 4. Mexican debunker Alejandro Franz filming the oil platform with a
conventional videocamera in order to perpetrate a hoax.



RESUME: National Geographic Television and debunker Alejandro Franz never
made a legitimate recreation flight nor a replica in any way. They didn’t placed
the rented airplane over the exact location of the sighting at any time, they went
to the ocean 100 miles away to get some shots of an oil platform and created a false story to debunk the Mexican Air Force UFO case. Conclusion: Fraud.

National Geographic Television along with debunker Alejandro Franz rented a
small commercial airplane WITH NO FLIR camera to perform the promised
recreation flight. With no FLIR camera the recreation is simply dismissed since
one of the main elements, the infrared camera is not available, how can you
prove a FLIR camera can detect oil well flames at a distance if you are not
doing the test with a FLIR camera? Simply ridiculous. Conclusion: Fraud.

The failed debunk planned by mexican Alejandro Franz proved to be just a
cheap naive attempt with no solid grounds, this guy Alejandro Franz has never
and will never prove his tale, not even with a legitimate aiplane equipped with
a FLIR camera and flying all over Campeche. Franz failed on the National
Geographic program and will fail again in his fantasy.

Debunker Alejandro Franz also ignored many elements of this case because those would destroy his theater, elements like the radar readings reported in
the official inform and testimonials of the operator, readings that revealed their airplane was surrounde by the objects at certain moment and the audio from the
FLIR confirms this fact. This element and many others were conveniently ignored and dismissed by debunker Franz when confronted. But the major failiure of his
scheme was ironically the National Geographic 2006 tv show where he exposed
himself committing a fraud by pretending to deceive with a false recreation of the
March 5, 2004 incident. I’m not making this up, I’m not exaggerating anything, I’m
not slandering like Ted Roe mentioned. The evidences are there for anybody to
see in the National Geographic September 2006 program.

FINAL CONCLUSION: One has to wonder why Ted Roe who works for NARCAP
who supports the pilots and air traffic controllers that make UFO reports all over the world now is sponsoring and vouching this Alejandro Franz who has been attacking all the mexican pilots, commercial and military for reporting their UFO
sightings, ridiculizing them by saying they are dumb, ignorant and fools etc.
Isn’t it ironic Mr. Roe?

One has to wonder why Ted Roe from NARCAP praises National Geographic
Television when is well known that National Geographic Television is a skeptic
network who has never validated a single UFO case, has never given a reasonable doubt to a single UFO case they have presented, in one word they
have debunked UFOS all the time and in some cases by using disinformation
like in this Air Force case from Mexico. Ironic Mr. Roe.

It’s clear to me that Ted Roe’s motives to debunk the mexican Air Force UFO
case and discredit the mexican DoD UFO Disclosure obey strictly to a conflict
of interest for the reasons exposed. Clear as Water.

reply to post by free_spirit


Free_ spirit what can I say fantastic post that should kick start this whole sighting issue again.
I have been puzzled for a long time how these pilots could get it wrong. No matter what anyone thinks about the military in this case you just cannot honestly believe they make a mistake like that.
I really hope posters find their way back to this thread and read your new information – well done a big star for you. - OP