UFO releases intelligent moving spheres!! First ever video footage!

Dunno?, but seems to me Mexico has so much UFO action in their skies (some really bizarre looking stuff), due to not having a a defence system beyond fighter jets and, probably more importantly, not having a known nuclear arsenal which seems to change the nomenclature of UFO interest?

Decoy

reply to post by ArMaP

I think you may be wrong by saying that the Sun was almost over the camera on the second video and it should be almost at sunset.

First of all I would like to make a statement to you and all members in this or another thread reading this post.

I have had a C-IV ET encounter. That same day I made myself a humble commitment since 1974.
Through the years when I discovered many charlatans and hoaxers including Jaime Maussan,
I decided to expose publicly any of those who make a cruel way of living from the most important
and significant step from human kind. The ET contact. The extraterrestrial contact is to ALCIONE.ORG
our true believe and we are against unscrupulous people who deceive the public with lies and are
perpetrating and promoting frauds and robbing a lot of money from their pockets for their conferences
and UFO business, that is unfair, human kind deserves the TRUTH. For that I've been defamed, slandered,
humiliated, exposed as a hoaxer because of the Mexican Air Force 2004 sighting and accused of
perpetrating lies and hoaxes.

And for the record or future questions yes, I've seen 9 UFOS in my life, 6 in form of light,
1 in radar screen and 2 as material objects with unknown flying ship shape. A triangular and
a Cigar type.

Now regarding you kind post:

I accept I can be wrong but I believe in my 39 years experience in aviation and the airplanes position, altitude,
visual angle and the general panorama tells me there is a difference in time about those two videos.

Also in the video bellow the narrator Johanan Díaz in minute 5:46 says that it is almost sunset.
If you speak or understand spanish you can hear it.

I don't know at what time the Sun rises and sets in Mexico City in May, but I find it strange that at 17:15 is almost sunset, for example, according to this page the sun
set time would be 20:08.

I know that page, also you can get the Astronomical, Nautical and Civil twilight's but there is something we need to know beside the time and sun's angle or azimuth and it is the terrain elevation of Pedro and Alfredo location. Bellow is a link to my site where you can download if you wish the StarryNight 3.1 Astronomy software that I use and it is free. it is old but works fine

www.alcione.org...

Also, the way we see the aeroplane, it does not look to be above the camera, and the Sun is not much further above the camera than the aeroplane, I think we do not have any good data to judge the height of the Sun by those videos and neither the direction in which they were both looking, just a general direction.

The airplane doesn't look to you same as it does to me because maybe you don't have experience in watching airplanes at different angles, altitudes, weather conditions, attitudes, speeds, configurations and many other factors that contribute to my knowledge about aeronautics as a Pilot and Air Traffic Controller. I hope in the close future you can trust my instinct and experience as UFO investigator since 1963. Anyway I know that I may be wrong this and other times. I hope not.

Regards, (sorry I couldn't edit paragraphs in my first answer above)

[edit on 26-8-2009 by alfafox]

[edit on 26-8-2009 by alfafox]

[edit on 26-8-2009 by alfafox]

Originally posted by alfafox
I accept I can be wrong but I believe in my 39 years experience in aviation and the airplanes position, altitude, visual angle and the general panorama tells me there is a difference in time about those two videos.

It's possible, the fact that they were taken in different light conditions with different cameras makes it difficult for us to know anything just by looking at the video.

Also in the video bellow the narrator Johanan Díaz in minute 5:46 says that it is almost sunset.
If you speak or understand spanish you can hear it.

I noticed that (I made a translated version of the video, posted on page 74, and although my translation was to "it was getting late" that was just because my English is far from perfect, and translating from one language that is not my own to another language that is not my own either is a little strange) and I thought it was strange, specially because video cameras usually do not have any problems with crepuscular light, so even if was already sunset the camera could still film the objects.

The airplane doesn't look to you same as it does to me because maybe you don't have experience in watching airplanes at different angles, altitudes, weather conditions, attitudes, speeds, configurations and many other factors that contribute to my knowledge about aeronautics as a Pilot and Air Traffic Controller. I hope in the close future you can trust my instinct and experience as UFO investigator since 1963. Anyway I know that I may be wrong this and other times. I hope not.

My experience in watching aeroplanes is just from seeing them in exactly those conditions, going to land in a nearby airport (I have seen at least five aeroplanes landing each day (and night) for the last 32 years), so although that is not the same as your experience since 1963 (when I was born), it also means that I have some experience in interpreting the aeroplane's position in the sky.

Edit: I forgot to say something.

I think that you may be wrong in your interpretation of the Sun's position in the video mostly because of the way the lens may distort the image, to me it looks that's the case, so we cannot use the camera (in this case or in any other case) to judge the Sun's position when we do not have any other means of measuring it.

Edit 2 to explain it better.

In Starry Night you can see that effect by using the zoom tool, if you zoom in and want to look at the Sun you have to look up, while if you zoom out you don't need to do it, it looks like the Sun is not as high in the sky as when zoomed-in.

[edit on 26/8/2009 by ArMaP]

Originally posted by ArMaP
Originally posted by alfafox

It's possible, the fact that they were taken in different light conditions with different cameras makes it difficult for us to know anything just by looking at the video.

I think both videos have a lot of information. It seems you are not familiar with enough investigation techniques. I found some interesting information precisely from the Pedro's interview video where I have found his exact location at the time of his sighting. Also I've found Alfredo Carrillo's location (area).
See the updated page: www.alcione.org...

My experience in watching aeroplanes is just from seeing them in exactly those conditions, going to land in a nearby airport (I have seen at least five aeroplanes landing each day (and night) for the last 32 years), so although that is not the same as your experience since 1963 (when I was born), it also means that I have some experience in interpreting the aeroplane's position in the sky.

I've seen (and controlled) airplanes from 1968 to 1979 (11 years). Counting working days a year: 52 weeks minus 2 rest days a week = 365-104 = 261 - 30 days vacation = 231. Then 231 days for 11 years that gives me a total of 2541 days (6 years at Guadalajara's airport with 115,000 operations a year (take of and landing) divided by 231 the result is 497 divided by two shifts = 248.5 controlled airplanes per day, including every day hourly weather observations (7 hourly observations a day) 7 X 231 = 1,617 observations a year X 11 years = 17787 meteorological observations. My experience flying airplanes is 15,234 logged flight hours at an average of 300 mph = 4,570,200 miles divided by 24,901 miles (circumference of the earth) = 183 times I had circled (in theory) the earth by the equator.
If you have not seen my resume please read: www.alcione.org...

Edit: I forgot to say something.
I think that you may be wrong in your interpretation of the Sun's position in the video mostly because of the way the lens may distort the image, to me it looks that's the case, so we cannot use the camera (in this case or in any other case) to judge the Sun's position when we do not have any other means of measuring it.

Please, see this picture that wil tell you how I would measure the Sun's angle assuming that the airplane in the second video has an altitude of 10,475ft or 950m above the ground.
www.alcione.org...

Edit 2 to explain it better.

In Starry Night you can see that effect by using the zoom tool, if you zoom in and want to look at the Sun you have to look up, while if you zoom out you don't need to do it, it looks like the Sun is not as high in the sky as when zoomed-in.

I used the Starry Night to show the Sun's Angle and Azimuth on the 22nd may 2009 at 17:15 local time. The zoomed Sun's picture inside the image is to simulate the Sun west of the observer.
To show you how my experience helped me as Pilot and Controller to suspect about a famous UFO sighting in Mexico check this Youtube video:



Please take a look at my investigation page:
"Mexican Air Force FLIR's video lights are not UFO's" www.alcione.org...

Regards

Originally posted by alfafox
I think both videos have a lot of information. It seems you are not familiar with enough investigation techniques. I found some interesting information precisely from the Pedro's interview video where I have found his exact location at the time of his sighting. Also I've found Alfredo Carrillo's location (area).

Sure, both videos have lots of information, but it's not enough for what I wanted to do. For what I wanted to do I need the direction in which both cameras were pointing and their exact positions. With that information we could get a precise position on the city over which the UFO was.

And I did the same as you to find the position from which the first video was taken, even the very first version of the video (not the one with the recreation) showed enough landmarks to have a good guess (a GPS reading would be better ).

If you have not seen my resume please read: www.alcione.org...

I was not doubting your experience, but as you were doubting mine I thought it a good idea to tell you exactly what my experience is.

Please, see this picture that wil tell you how I would measure the Sun's angle assuming that the airplane in the second video has an altitude of 10,475ft or 950m above the ground.
www.alcione.org...

I saw two images, but I am a little confused.

If you know the altitude at which the aeroplane was flying and you know the path it was following, as you show on this image, then you can know the aeroplane's elevation (I think it's the right word, I mean the angle between the horizontal and the position of the aeroplane in the sky), right?

But for that you have to use the right values, the values on that image are wrong, 1.6km + 0.6 km is 2.2km, not 3.62. Using more or less the positions you used I got this image.
(click for full size)


Using the 950 metres altitude for the aeroplane and the 1620 metres for the distance between Alfredo Carrillo and the vertical projection of the aeroplane we can know the angle, and if my calculations are correct it would be something like 30º. As the aeroplane was lower than the Sun I think that an angle of a little more than 30º (but less than the 38º that should be the correct angle for that time of day) is a good approximation for the Sun height.

(using the values on your image would give almost a 58º angle)

I used the Starry Night to show the Sun's Angle and Azimuth on the 22nd may 2009 at 17:15 local time. The zoomed Sun's picture inside the image is to simulate the Sun west of the observer.

And there is where I think things get mixed up, you cannot accurately use an image from a program that is simulating a specific field of view and compare it with an image from a video camera with an unknown field of view.

To show you how my experience helped me as Pilot and Controller to suspect about a famous UFO sighting in Mexico check this Youtube video:

I'm not doubting your experience, just your results in this specific case.

PS: all measurements made with Google Earth.

Originally posted by ArMaP
Originally posted by alfafox
-----------------------------

Sure, both videos have lots of information, but it's not enough for what I wanted to do.

I didn't know what you wanted to do. I think we have to focus in solving this case and try to get the missing data. It looks like there are under covered facts like the brand name of the camera Alfredo used. It was a SONY HANDICAM CCD-TRV96 NTSC HI-8 240x digital zoom 20x optical 400 lines resolution. Why this information was not included? The only information we have is he was testing his "new camera".

.... even the very first version of the video (not the one with the recreation) showed enough landmarks to have a good guess

Can you direct me to that video please?

I saw two images, but I am a little confused.

It's my fault, I tried to draw that example but it is not as explicit as it should be. Please accept my apology. I have uploaded a new one that I hope will not confuse you more than before, see: www.alcione.org...

Here is a GoogleEarth map with IFR chart:
www.alcione.org...

Here is the IFR chart for San Mateo Approach to runways 05:
www.alcione.org...

Here is the chart with San Mateo Nav Aid coordinates:
www.alcione.org...]

....you can know the aeroplane's elevation (I think it's the right word, I mean the angle between the horizontal and the position of the aeroplane in the sky), right?

Altitude is the distance between the airplane and the mean sea level (MSL).
Elevation is the distance from the mean sea level to a geographic point.
Height is the vertical distance (in this case) from the airplane and the ground level.
I hope this picture will help you: www.alcione.org...

But for that you have to use the right values, the values on that image are wrong, 1.6km + 0.6 km is 2.2km, not 3.62.

You are right, it was my mistake because when I constructed the page the first time I edited so fast that inserted the wrong image. The image I supposed to upload was this with 1.96 miles = 3.62km:.image. So I am sorry for that.

Using the 950 metres altitude for the aeroplane and the 1620 metres for the distance between Alfredo Carrillo and the vertical projection of the aeroplane we can know the angle, and if my calculations are correct it would be something like 30º. As the aeroplane was lower than the Sun I think that an angle of a little more than 30º (but less than the 38º that should be the correct angle for that time of day) is a good approximation for the Sun height.

Without enough data we are just guessing. We need to know the exact Alfredo's recording location. I hope we can get it soon.

And there is where I think things get mixed up, you cannot accurately use an image from a program that is simulating a specific field of view and compare it with an image from a video camera with an unknown field of view.

I was not trying to show the "field of view".
See again this: image and look the "hand" pointer up in the right corner that shows I was trying to indicate the 281° Sun's Azimuth as it shows the StarryNight Sun information. It was not my purpose to prove the suns position "Altitude" so that's why it was 'zoomed' in to show it bigger.

I'm not doubting your experience, just your results in this specific case.

Those are not results, they are just uncertain measures based on incomplete reliable data. I will change the pictures in my page and hope we can get better results soon.

Regards

Captain James Howard UFO

29th June 1954 - JFK to London. Sighted over Labrador, Newfoundland at 19000ft.

Look at his sketch... large odd shaped object... multiple spheres in a line on both sides

reply to post by zorgon

I can see the resemblance to the Mexico orbs which prompted you to post this: smaller orbs alongside a mothership. That's a pretty cool clip, thanks for sharing it.

First clue it could be a mirage, is the "at times" statement in his explanation. This implies the object did not have a constant shape but may have altered appearance as they watched it. Mirages tend to do that.

Second clue it could be a mirage is that "it appeared to move alongside us", that's typical behavior for a mirage. Always consider that as a possibility when a pilot tells you that an object moved alongside his craft in the same direction and at the same speed which is what this did. Mirages do that, as they are distant objects. Other distant objects do that too, like Buzz Aldrin describes a distant object flying in the same direction and at the same speed as his T33 at a little after 52 minutes in this video That doesn't mean the pilot is a poor observer, they are describing what they see as apparent motion of the object but that doesn't mean the object is moving.

Lastly if he's sure it's not an illusion, then the mirage would also be consistent with that statement, as a mirage is not an illusion, it is a quite real visual phenomenon which occurs far more frequently than many people realize, and can even be photographed.

mintaka.sdsu.edu...

....strong changes of atmospheric density are nearly always present. That means that mirages of some kind are nearly always present in the atmosphere, if you put your eye at the right height. Generally, the strongest optical effects require that the observer be close to the height of the thermal structures. Often, only the air itself is miraged, and the mirage is invisible (unless there are clouds at the right height to appear distorted). So, although mirages are nearly always possible, they aren't always visible; and many are so close to the limit of resolution of the eye that they usually escape notice. But an attentive person — especially, one armed with binoculars — can see these phenomena remarkably often.

Pilots can see them quite often too given they are exposed to more various altitudes than the rest of us.

However I'm quite sure the 2 videos from Mexico are no mirage.

[edit on 31-8-2009 by Arbitrageur]

UPDATE - Meet Alfred Carrillo, UFO witness of the May 22, 2009 UFO releasing spheres
incident over Mexico City.



Alfred Carrillo came forward providing his videocamera and his original tape for analysis.
In this interview Mr. Carrillo describes his UFO sighting and how he videotaped the rare
phenomena in the sky. Comparisons and comments among the two videos.

[edit on 30-8-2009 by free_spirit]

I don't know if this video has been posted before. If so I'm sorry...
I hope all of you'll like this video that was made by a mexican arquitect
named Josué and I think he's one of the best CG video makers...

www.youtube.com...

Best regrads to all.

Capt. Franz

Hello Alejandro,

Thank you very much for the link to the video made by Josué Hernández.
I am absolutely convinced that the Pedro Hernandez clip as well as the 2nd video from Carrillo can be reproduced like that.
It's good to see someone with some insight from Mexico around here who isn't part of the Maussan connection.

Keep up the good work!

reply to post by Arbitrageur

That doesn't mean the pilot is a poor observer, they are describing what they see as apparent motion of the object but that doesn't mean the object is moving.

Lastly if he's sure it's not an illusion, then the mirage would also be consistent with that statement, as a mirage is not an illusion, it is a quite real visual phenomenon which occurs far more frequently than many people realize, and can even be photographed.

Hello Arbitrageur, I think I disagree with you in some descriptions.

This is part of an article from Jeanette Cain www.light-science.com...
about what causes a mirage....

"What is a mirage? A mirage is a misleading appearance. Most mirages occur on
the seas or in the deserts. What will cause a mirage? A reflection. What causes
reflection? Light. We seldom consider light as anything magical or wonderful,
but light allows us the ability to see many good things and, often, many bad things.

Mirages, also called illusions, are caused by a reflection of some distance object
which allows you to think that it is close by. In physics, it is known as an optical
illusion. The more common type of mirage is called inferior mirage. It happens
when a refraction of light passes through the atmosphere layers with varying
qualities. Distance objects may seem to be raised above or below their normal
locality. These objects may be seen as irregular and fantastic shapes."

I used that article as example when in 2004 I did a research about the Mexican
Air Force video FLIR's lights that where mistaken as UFO's because the FLIR
(Forward Looking Infrared) operator and the whole crew on board a C26A
surveillance airplane didn't know those lights where closer to the horizon.

"Objects located over the earth's surface at a great distance
and closer to the horizon are seen from the airplane's cockpit
or windows at the same height or altitude in a leveled flight."

See:Mexican Air Force FLIR's video lights are not UFO's alcione.org...

I think the same happened to Captain James Howard as he draws the horizon
exactly at the left wing level. Also he was not the pilot in command as he has
only three stripes in his jacket's sleeves. The traditional sleeve emblem for
captains is four gold stripes (often called "rings") on the lower sleeve or shoulder
board. On the visor of the captain's cap there's no row of gold oak or laurel leaves
(or "Scrambled Eggs") along the edge. Captain James Howard was the co-pilot
in that sighting. Also I would make the same question as I did in another case
Where is the other pilot? They were supposed to be two pilots, two witnesses,
by that the interview is not complete nor valid as it lacks of testimonials.
See the 'Pilot missing case' that was a hoax and of course supported
by Jaime Maussán.
"AEROMEXICO'S AIRPLANE COLLIDED WITH A UFO BEFORE
LANDING IN 1994! TRUE OR FALSE?":
www.alcione.org...

mintaka.sdsu.edu...

....strong changes of atmospheric density are nearly always present. That means that mirages of some kind are nearly always present in the atmosphere, if you put your eye at the right height.

I agree with that, and in this case of the yellow and black Uf0 recorded by
Pedro and Alfredo who's cameras where pointing upwards, the temperature
was not high enough to create a mirage neither the athmosphere's humidity
(31%) was not saturated for that phenomena.

However I'm quite sure the 2 videos from Mexico are no mirage.

I'm quite sure too the 2 videos from Mexico are no mirage but CGI creation because multiple verified known reasons.

Regards,

reply to post by alfafox


Excellent post Alfafax, perhaps I was mistaken in saying it's not an illusion and I should have said it's not an "optical illusion"? Maybe semantics. But the source I quoted says other websites get it wrong and I think he's probably right:
mintaka.sdsu.edu...

First of all, what's a mirage? Mirages are not optical illusions, as many people (and Web sites!) think. They are real phenomena of atmospheric optics, caused by strong ray-bending in layers with steep thermal gradients. Because mirages are real physical phenomena, they can be photographed.

Optical illusions, on the other hand, are perceptual quirks of human vision, in which the observer sees something that does not exist physically. Of course, the distorted images produced by mirages may elicit optical illusions, when an observer misinterprets the scene — hence, the confusion of these distinctly different classes of phenomena. (For many examples of optical illusions, please see the Web pages of Akiyoshi Kitaoka, a perceptual psychologist in Japan.)

And for some examples of optical illusions you can see this page:

en.wikipedia.org...

I don't think Mirage really qualifies for that but whether it's an "illusion" or not is debatable, if you consider an illusion a false or distorted perception of reality, maybe it's not, as the light in a mirage doesn't just appear to be there, it really is there! At least I think that's his point. However let's say say both arguments have some merit rather than get into a semantic debate that probably wouldn't be productive.

What I'm far more interested in, is your comment that:

Originally posted by alfafox

However I'm quite sure the 2 videos from Mexico are no mirage.

I'm quite sure too the 2 videos from Mexico are no mirage but CGI creation because multiple verified known reasons.

Regards,

That's interesting. Care to elaborate on the multiple verified known reasons? Or did you already do that and i missed in somewhere in the 1600 posts in this thread...and if so maybe you could gve me an idea how far back to look for the answer?

Thanks and regards

reply to post by necati

Hello Alejandro,

Thank you very much for the link to the video made by Josué Hernández.
I am absolutely convinced that the Pedro Hernandez clip as well as the 2nd video from Carrillo can be reproduced like that.
It's good to see someone with some insight from Mexico around here who isn't part of the Maussan connection.

Keep up the good work!

Thank you necati, I can't be part of such a group (connection) of known charlatans and hoaxers. Maussán has support of many "gangsters" and "Trolls" who cowardly work in the anonymity trying to invalidate proven hoax results of many investigators including me. They are afraid to be exposed as real scammers, they slander and defame any detractor they can, their dirty work is to discredit and annihilate anyone who dares to expose them in every way possible. Of course, they have the media on their side, media who also lives of their acting that generates more "rating" which means more MONEY.
Please read this post and see one of many low class attacks: www.abovetopsecret.com...

Maussán and his group of gangsters and "vigilantes" (skywatchers) are not defending the UFO phenomena, their agenda is to defend their HUGE business. How could I be part of that kind of people that scam the audience with lies? Do you remember the Jonathan Reed-Bradley-Rutter hoax? Well, that's part of the more than 43 hoaxes I have as partial record of a long list in my site.

Maybe you don't know but the Mexican Air Force and the National Defense Secretariat decided not to give or disclose any more information regarding UFO's because of this charlatan Maussán and his gang that misused the FLIR video that was given to them to be analyzed and instead of doing that the video was and is used as merchandise in many DVD's, conferences but worst, there are no results nowhere. No facts, just words and words, and promises, that's all. I have official documents proving what I wrote here about the National Defense Secretariat's decision regarding the misuse of the Mexican Air Force FLIR video.

Regards and excuse me for extending my answer, you need to know who is who here in ATS.

Alejandro Franz

reply to post by Arbitrageur

....At least I think that's his point. However let's say say both arguments have some merit rather than get into a semantic debate that probably wouldn't be productive.

Hi, nice post Arbitrageur and good point, yes, you are right, maybe is just worthless semantics, let's focus on the Pedro and Alfredo sighting videos.

And for some examples of optical illusions you can see this page:
en.wikipedia.org......

I don't trust wikipedia as it's content may be inaccurate because data is edited by non well recognized sources.

That's interesting. Care to elaborate on the multiple verified known reasons? Or did you already do that and i missed in somewhere in the 1600 posts in this thread...and if so maybe you could gve me an idea how far back to look for the answer?

It's not on the more than 1600 posts here, the answer is in my last post to necati

Regards,

Maussán is not popular in this thread. I may not have read all 1600 posts but I read most of them, and many made comments to the effect that Maussán doesn't care if it's a hoax or not as long as he gets good ratings, so certainly that hurts his credibility and I think most people realize that. So I don't think anyone will disagree with you that Maussán can be a shady guy.

However I assumed he got a mixture of videos from different people, some of which are hoaxes, and some of which are NOT hoaxes (or CGI or what have you).

So while almost everyone agrees Maussán is a shady character for the reasons mentioned, I don't think it automatically follows that everything he shows is a hoax, though I'm sure SOME of what he shows is hoaxed.

The CGI video you posted was excellent, but it does look less real than the 2 videos we've been looking at in this thread. They could be CGI too, I haven't ruled that out, but I guess it will take more than just saying "Maussán was involved so it must be fake" to convince me it's fake.

My thought it is could be balloons on strings pulled out of a yellow plastic sack aka the "elaborate kite hypothesis" rather than CGI, but as I said, I haven't ruled out CGI.

reply to post by Arbitrageur


Hello Arbitrageur,

Yes you are right; Maussan being involved alone isn’t proof enough but how often do you think someone who has made a false oath in prior cases would be allowed to appear before a court as a witness?! However, there is still a possibility that it is one of the cases mentioned in the UFO Watchdog Hall Of Shame:

Beware of so-called journalists that don't report all of the facts...it is indeed a wonder why anyone would give Maussan a grain of credibility. Let's just hope a real case of import never finds its way to Maussan...God help us if it does...clowns belong in the circus, not doing investigations.

A journalist that doesn’t report all of the facts the quote says. Okay, let’s forget about the fact that the original footage or parts of it were not made available publicly or given to MUFON for example. Let’s say there are good reasons not to do so. Perhaps because guys like James Carrion might again embarrass Maussan and his so-called experts.

Have we seen the videos unedited in full length even in a crappy compressed version? Have all the details been made available concerning time, location, equipment etc? Again, no!

The video posted by Alejandro looks less realistic you say. Yes, you’re right. It indeed looks less realistic but only because the CGI artist Josué has overdone his version and took less care of blurring detail. Josué’s version shows exactly that every aspect of the ‘sphere ejecting’ effect can be yield using CGI. Although, I haven’t got any confirmation yet (for some reason he hasn’t answered my email), I am sure he used the Adobe After Effects plug-in PARTICULAR. All the parameters for animating the spheres (particles) like gravity, air resistance, turbulence field, birth rate, lifespan etc can be found within the above mentioned program. The odds that this is a mere coincidence are astronomical. (You can find an example for analogy here.)

As it has been discussed here before it is very difficult if not impossible to replicate a certain setup of parameters exactly especially if you consider that in the ‘original’ footage different techniques were used to achieve a composite result.

I have already pointed out that the centre object for example in my opinion is footage of a wing flapping bird. It has been said that it doesn’t need to be flapping only because it looks like flapping but it’s the other way around. It doesn’t need to rotate only because it looks as if it does. Watch certain rims of car tires which seem to spin backwards sometimes. It’s quite easy to trick human eyes (tromper l´œil).



Download from Rapidshare

The yellow object shows everything you would expect to see when watching a bird in flight. The flying pattern is typical for a bird that even pauses flapping its wings and glides from time to time. Again, the odds for a mere coincidence are astronomical.

It has been a long winding road from: “There’s no way this could be CGI!” to: “Of course you can almost do everything with CGI, but that’s not proof that this isn’t the real thing!”

Now it’s time to show some evidence to prove that this *is* the real thing.
As you know, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

PS: As for your ‘elaborate kite hypothesis’, which looks plausible for me, I would say that it is less likely since it requires much more effort. I assume that you tend to that hypothesis because you find the behavior of the objects in the videos to look too natural to be CGI. You should consider that the movement of particles (objects) can be simulated in 3d applications. You can even have bouncing effects based on material properties like the stiffness of the ball’s and ground/ wall material. Please keep in mind that CGI technology has made some great progress and in terms of really difficult things like sandstorms forming certain shapes etc the given footage is child’s play.
Besides, the use of composite ‘real’ elements as layers adds to the realism of the given footage. The centre object and the tumbling plastic bag are real elements, I think.

reply to post by necati
Excellent post Necati!

I agree we need extraordinary evidence for extraordinary claims, but as you also point out we don't even have basic evidence in this case like uncompressed versions of the videos.

Without such evidence I don't see how we are going to be able to prove whether it's CG, an elaborate kite, or alien orbs with confused pilots darting around in apparently random directions. I'm not trying to prove it's an elaborate kite, just saying that seems like the most likely explanation to me until I see more or better copies of the videos or other evidence. If I see uncompressed videos, they might convince me it's CG, or they might convince me it's something else.

Also I agree with ArMaP that it is suspicious the way the 2nd video appears to be edited, maybe removing something they don't want us to see? It would be nice to see the videos not only uncompressed but also unedited.

Originally posted by LiveForever8
reply to post by Yummy Freelunch

 

OK. Ill do some snooping around and see what i can find.
What is it about S.America that attracts so many amazing UFO sightings i wonder?
Defo one of the best ive seen.

Maybe lack of censorship??? maybe sighting like that happen around the US as well, but people are less likely to report and news networks do not cover it.... who knows...

By the way, I thought the video was shot in mexico, which is part of North America.

-rrr

reply to post by necati


As I see you are still insisting in your absurd speculation about this incident never
happened despite the evidences presented BUT and this is important for everybody to
notice, you now changed your strategy in a usless effort to survive in your act that
ended when the second witness came forward with evidence. Sure now your new
strategy is clear, you are AVOIDING to talk about the witnesses themselves
conveniently you don't want to mention their names neither their testimonials, to
mention their names would be for you to step into uncharted waters therefore you
are now using the classic demagogy by distracting the attention of those (very few
counted by the fingers of one hand) who you think will follow you.

So why don't you cut to the chase and go to the point without any diversion. There are
two witnesses to this incident and I will mention their names since you are not doing it
by convenience. They are Pedro Hernandez and Alfred Carrillo, they came forward as
witnesses of a rare phenomena in the sky and declared on national television to the
people their testimony is real. They provided their evidences, two original videos along
with the videocameras used for the research and professional analysis, the results
confirmed their testimony and that the incident really happened. The case was released
on television for all the people to know and trascended to the world instantly.

Now you are suggesting both witnesses are lying? That the whole incident never
happened and they are some kind of hoaxers? That they made all this up? Is this
what you are suggesting then SAY IT. Say Pedro Hernandez and Alfred Carrillo are
lying and their story is a lie and their evidences (videos) are false. Say the whole thing
is false and never happened. Say it here before all, accuse the two witnesses if you
dare. Then we will see who you are, BUT don't try to play smart here, present
undeniable undisputable hard evidence of your claims or you will be exposed to
invent a cheap debunk by deceiving people with fancy accusations.

I have a copy of the original raw footages from both witnesses. There's nothing to hide
and both footages are real meaning not tampered or CGI or anything like. Both videos
show exactly what was in the sky wich remains unexplained. I have the evidences in
my hand and you have... nothing - zero. And yet you claim to have a right to get also
a copy of the raw footages? You don't have any right to anything yet mister, in order
to have some rights to request anything you need to be a professional researcher, you
need credentials, to have a reputation, experience, contacts and act seriously not
accusing witnesses that come forward telling their story to the world showing their
commitment to their own experience, do you know what these words mean? I don't
think so.

Finally if you still want to play the game of debunking this major case by building a very
different scenario than the real one you are wasting your time. And I know what you
will say now, that you are expressing your legitimate opinion on this case, yes... BUT
don't try to divert the attention, go to the point and if you want to accuse the two
witnesses Pedro Hernandez and Alfred Carrillo do it directly, mention their names and
let's see your arguments agains them BUT remember, it's your word against them wich
in a court of law by simply basics and without solid evidence you would be dismissed
immediately. This is a fact.

Keep in mind that at this point this huge thread has increased it's numbers. If you
insist this case is false then it's you against those 514 ATS members who flagged and
applauded this case plus many other thousands who applauded the footages in
luckymauro's YouTube channel, do you really think you have a chance?

Both Mr. Pedro Hernandez and Mr. Alfred Carrillo are decent family men, they are
successful bussinesmen, they are well known in their communities,and most important,
they showed their faces in this story. If you dare to question their decency do it by
mention their names and do it officially, do it directly, go to the point, don't divert things
and don't distract the attention with other situations or persons, don't use demagogy
and don't cheat, it's you against the two witnesses. Now go on and make your
accusations. In any case at the end you will deny everybody and everything, it's in
your nature.



[edit on 3-9-2009 by free_spirit]

Originally posted by free_spirit

Keep in mind that at this point this huge thread has increased it's numbers. If you
insist this case is false then it's you against those 514 ATS members who flagged and
applauded this case plus many other thousands who applauded the footages in
luckymauro's YouTube channel, do you really think you have a chance?

You can't be serious. Do you really think that the number of flags this thread has received is some kind of validation that what we see in the footage are real UFOs?

So what if 514 ATS members flagged this thread? ATS has thousands of members, didn't you know that? I am one of those hundreds and hundreds of members who did NOT flag this thread. I still think the videos show balloons.

514 flags are not going to make me change my mind. Try again.


[edit on 3/9/09 by ziggystar60]