International Press Conference, Mexican DoD (UFO)

Status
Not open for further replies.
I think that the likeliest cause of the "objects" is methane related. I can't reference the specific source at the moment, but I recall it mentioned in one of the many links and news articles on the Mexican UFOs that the sighting was over oil fields.

Methane and natural gas is a frequent by product of oil fields and can, perhaps, create pockets of gas in the atmosphere. Could these pockets have had the temperature variences necessary to show up on IR/thermal? Could they have been ignited or excited by Electrostatic Discharge by the storm cells?

Admitedly, I'm only playing with an idea that entered my head at the spur of the moment and am by no means formulating a hypothesis I'm willing to support without further research, but it is at least as viable as the ridiculous notion that the "objects" were spacecraft piloted by ETI.

I use the term "ridiculous" in the same manner, and with a measure of irony that I sure will be lost to him, as coolmacguy when he suggests that testable hypotheses such as balloons are ridiculous yet openly embraces the supernatural explanation of ETI as viable.
 
I just knew there was a relation with hot air and you skinny. There isn’t any way that this could be attributed to the thermal dynamics and physical properties of hot gasses.

The mark of all great conspiracies is the corruption of common knowledge.
 
WellCookedFetus said:
aaah when was that? I don't see that in the video.
Click to expand...

You might try familiarizing yourselves with the basic facts of the case before commenting on it.

That is from the interviews of the crew.
 
Persol said:
The only problem here is the size....
Click to expand...

No it's not.

There is the identical speed they all displayed, the equal duration they were all visible for, the unusual behavior they exhibited, the interaction with the plane, the fact that they showed up on radar (something air doesn't do), and a plethora of other things.

Air is perhaps the most implausible conclusion I have heard yet.
 
craterchains (Norval said:
There isn?t any way that this could be attributed to the thermal dynamics and physical properties of hot gasses.
Click to expand...

Perhaps you are correct. But why not? Do the gasses have to be "hot" to produce an image in IR/thermal? Or could they not simply show a disparity between the gas pocket and the surrounding air? Couldn't the movement of the plane with a relatively stationary gas pocket (or one moving with a jet stream) give the illusion of a fast moving "object?"

I don't know the answers to these questions... gas law and chemistry isn't an area that I've studied in great detail.

Perhaps you can enlighten us with the diffusion rates of methane as well as the thermal dynamics and demonstrate why this isn't possible. At least that way we could rule it out. Otherwise it remains as viable a possibility as ball lightning, balloons and ETI craft.

The mark of all pseudoscience is the corruption of common knowledge.
 
SkinWalker said:
I use the term "ridiculous" in the same manner, and with a measure of irony that I sure will be lost to him, as coolmacguy when he suggests that testable hypotheses such as balloons are ridiculous yet openly embraces the supernatural explanation of ETI as viable.
Click to expand...

Show me where in this discussion I stated that I believed ETI was responsible for this sighting. You won't find it. I never even proposed it as a hypothesis. I wouldn't rule it out, but I'm more than willing to examine "normal" explanations first.

I suggested the balloon hypothesis was ridiculous because it was tested and failed the test. It doesn't fit the facts of the case. That is the reason.

Also, please explain why an ETI explanation would be "supernatural?" That word typically refers to the nonphysical realm, i.e. spirits, God, the afterlife, metaphysics, etc. It seems to me that if a civilization was visiting earth from somewhere else in the galaxy that would be a decidedly physical event occurring in the natural realm, not the supernatural. You seem to be making the mistake many skeptics do of lumping UFOs/ETI together with ghosts, spirits, channeling, and all other paranormal phenomena.
 
Last edited:
WellCookedFetus said:
Sorry but testimony is not valid evidence in science.
Click to expand...

LMAO! :D

I could write ten pages on this, but I think I want to go to bed.

Anyone else want to handle it?

If not I'll get back to you tomorrow.
 
coolmacguy said:
Show me where in this discussion I stated I believed ETI was responsible for this sighting. You won't find it.
Click to expand...

So are you saying that ETI is a ridiculous hypothesis as well? If so, then please accept my apologies. I was wrong and feel shamed.

coolmacguy said:
I suggested the balloon hypothesis was ridiculous because it was tested and failed the test. It doesn't fit the facts of the case. That is the reason.
Click to expand...

As I see it, the only way to test the hypothesis would involve using FLIR on a pair of balloons that are "tricked out" to avoid conventional detection and compare the visual analogs. Did you happen to catch the link to that test?

coolmacguy said:
Also, please explain why an ETI explanation would be "supernatural?" That world typically refers to the nonphysical realm, i.e. spirits, God, the afterlife, metaphysics, etc.
Click to expand...

ETI represents a mythical (albeit modern) manifestation of man. All efforts to catch one have to date failed, yet the number of anecdotal accounts of ETI is surpassed only by ghosts and angels. ETI has procurred a vast lore from crop circles to cattle mutilation to midnight abductions, yet not one piece of physical evidence has manifested itself in support of the legends and lore. Not one UFO operator's manual, alien matchbook, etc. ET hasn't even done a duet with Willie Nelson, which is perhaps the most compelling negative evidence.

But in all seriousness, the supernatural is defined (Ember, et al, 2002) as "powers believed to be not human or not subject to the laws of nature. This clearly describes the UFO/ETI hypothesis, since ETI violate the laws of nature in their activities, even though this is usually rationalized by the UFO/ETI proponent who will state "they use laws of nature we have yet to understand." Kevin Randle (2000) writes of a "strange metallic material that wouldn't burn and wouldn't dent" in his description of the debris allegedly recovered from the alleged UFO crash at Roswell, NM in 1947. In Communion (Streiber, 1987), the author writes of being paralyzed and "floated" to an alien ship.


References:
Ember, C., Ember, M., & Peregrine, P. (2002). Anthropology, 10th Edition. New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
Randle, K. D. (2000). The Roswell Encyclopedia. New York: Avon Books.
Streiber, W. (1987). Communion. New York: Harper-Collins.

The mark of all pseudoscience is the corruption of common knowledge.
 
If that was the case WCF then a lot of psychology and psychiatry research done with testimony and word question of subject, would all be wrong. Also that would put psychology and psychiatry not in a science category.
:D
 
coolmacguy,

Name one scientific study that was proven by testimony alone, come on. Now if the video showed those things moving with the plane that evidence, but if all you have is the guy saying it did this and that and you can’t find that on the video, then you got a big problem.

FieryIce,

They would not be wrong, they just would not be proven. By the way show me a case where a scientific theory is proven true by testimony alone.
 
What I percieve from this conversation is this:

The skeptics and believers of ETs are in agreement thus far that this is still a UFO.

Obviously, the Ufologist is hiding his evidence to make some sort of a name for himself, which isn't a bad thing. With this area being ridiculed as it is, it isn't hard for him to hide it and make some money, because science doesn't care anymore. They just want ball lightning or something that proves a theory they have been working on to up themselves on the ladder.

Yawn.
 
I'm not sure if this link was already posted, but click and go down the page to "3-5 March" and you'll note that an airshow was at Toluca, Mexico. I don't know how close that is to the "sighting," but thought I post the link while it was in my clipboard.

http://www.aeroflight.co.uk/shows/showdate-world.htm

The mark of all pseudoscience is the corruption of common knowledge.
 
Yeah, it has already been discussed.

It was just a static display, someone said it is about 7-800 miles away from the ufo incident.
 
I am referring to the balloon theory, that since the MAF surveillance aircraft
had a radar sighting of the phenomena as well as FLIR, the distance to those 'balloons' could be calculated accurately by radar. I was a radar operator during my conscript service and I can say that every modern radar show range information as well as direction of target. It's based on time the
radar pulse travels to the target and back: Since the speed of light is constant you will know the range easily. So this nullifies efficiently the idea of much closer flying balloons... I am not so sure about that ball lightning theory though. Almost complete synchronisation is strange anyway if its natural phenomena.

Tommi S. (Finland)
 
How would radar react when in comes into contact with a gas like Helium or Ammonia?
(Since thats what my theory suggests with balloons due to the altitude being too windy for open ended burners and hot air, I'm suggesting Ammonia NH<SUB>3</SUB> was in a balloon in this instance.).

I've just been trying to work out the azimuth (AZ) direction since it was outputted as between -133 and -139deg's, apparently it's definition means that it could be -133 deg's from a North heading, or -133degs from a south heading (depending on which is being used).

None the less, Although Toluca was approximately 400 miles away from the plane, but something could have been heading that way and been as near the plane as Toluca.

Also with the footage, it's inconclusive since the Infrared Camera ZOOM's in, which means the distance of the objects could be far greater than first pointed out. The only way this could be disproven would be through released RADAR records from the ground. (To exactly position them)

As mentioned previously, if you have a wind behind you in a plane, then you either have to go alot faster or change course to stop you losing height. Which isn't a problem for a balloon.

There are "Radio Controlled Balloons" on the market, They are used to do some of the balloon pictures that you see advertising things but at 1/8th the cost. It would be possible to create a chain of balloons working via a radio controlled becon to fly in formation and might be seen a cheap form of transportation in certain instances (Like 50Kg per Balloon, imagine what the street value of 12 x 50Kg's [600Kgs] of Cocaine would fetch in the States, If you were a smuggler and each balloon rig only cost $10,000-$15,000 [Less than 1Kg Cocaine] you'd be laughing.)

Also a decent definition of "naked to the human eye" should be looked into, afterall I standing on a mountain side 5 miles away from you could be unseen by you, Until I move something reflective like a mirror to signal you, suddenly you see where I am.

In the instance of a balloon, it could have been dark as it floats next to a cloud, but as soon as it gains height the sun is able to shine over the cloud and lightup the balloon. Since the Suns light is intense it would be seen for quite some distance, and would appear as if something has appeared from nowhere.

In regards to the Jet Stream charts, I already pulled them some time back. but you tend not to notice one thing about the charts, They are based on a singular altitude layer rather than multiple layers of wind speed, especially near mountains etc which generate windblocks and channel the air up (and consequently can increase airspeed in pockets).

Lastly, The balloon theory has never been ruled out. The only people that say it has are those that are all too willing to throw themselves at the first "Posed" alien (Which is why some cult groups attempt to take advantage of this superstitious understanding of what people see.) At least with my (and others) balloon hypothesis, it's not causing a bunch of people to commit suicide or think it the end of the world.

With the Alien buffs in mind, With my hypothesis you have greeted much like I anticipated you would, your reception was an intended response because I wanted you to see how the world see's your hypothesis's. However when people ask you to backup your claims, usually you don't bother going to half as much trouble as I have, and in return you generate some erroneous unsubstantiated bullclap about how your theory is tried and tested and post links to someone elses half baked theory with equally no clout.

You've asked me to substantiate and I have, now it's your turn to "Prove" you UFO to be something else other than a balloon.
[I tend to disagree with the ball lightening theory because of the carriages under the "balloon" structure.]
 
It is apparent that some of you are coming from a paradigm of "anything but ETI".
Does any one here beleive fundamntaly,
#1- The possibilty of other life to be existant else where in the universe to be imposible, fundamentaly.
#2- That the possibilty to eventually create the technology for space travel is non- existant and impossible, fundamentally.

These are the very fundamental questions one must come from if one has not experienced an event themselves to prove otherwise.
Myself and a freind have SEEN these mettalic crafts, 25 -30 of them at one time on a clear sunny day. No if's, buts or maybes.
Clear as day.
If you believe in the possibilty of the above two statemnts( 1and 2),
then the possibilty of this or any other event of an unidentified nature carries with it the same possibilty,
and that this is not in the same context of possiblity of ghosts and other such super natural phenomena. At least I hope not. If you do, please let me know now so I can avoid any further discourse with you.
If every one here beleives in the 2 statements, then we all have something in common, even if our personal experiences differ in the level of possibilty.
But that this possibilty exists, should allow all of us to get along on this issue.

Maybe not in specific cases, but in a fundamental way as UFO's as being at least a remote possibilty and not an impossibilty.
Thanks.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top