International Press Conference, Mexican DoD (UFO)

Status
Not open for further replies.
moementum7,
1. Of course we believe there must be ETI out there somewhere there are more stars in existence then cells of life one earth.
2. Yes sure interstellar travel is possible.

But there are certain things that need to be believed to consider this ETI, one is that alien would want to come around us. Two, they would be stupid enough to let us see them some times, be it really badly.

And then of course there is occum’s razor.
Were airplanes, balloons, ball-lighting comes first over aliens joy riding.
 
Last edited:
Updated with Navy Physicist: Unidentified, Invisible Aerial Objects Video taped in Infrared by Mexican Air Force Pilots

WHAT YOU ARE SAYING IS THAT THEY COULD SEE THREE OBJECTS AS SOLID MASSES ON RADAR, BUT THEY COULD SEE ELEVEN OBJECTS BY HEAT IN THE INFRARED.

Exactly. But the objects were the same. They were part of the same group, but not all of them were captured by the radar. The radar captured one, then two, then three. In the infrared, they were able to see two at one moment and then eleven more in a different moment."

31-minute event

THE MINI-DVD OF VIDOTAPE THAT WAS USED BY THE FLIR CAMERA OPERATED FOR 31 MINUTES FROM BEGINNING TO END. THIS WAS A LONG TIME EVENT. GIVEN THAT FACT, AND THAT THIS INFRARED VIDEOTAPE CAME FROM SECRETARY OF DEFENSE'S OFFICE IN MEXICO

WHY DO YOU THINK ANY SCIENTIST WOULD BE SAYING ONE EXPLANATION, METEORITES, AND TWO, BALL LIGHTNING?

And three, balloons.

YES, HOW COULD ANY OF THOSE EXPLAIN THESE 31 MINUTES OF THERMAL IMAGING OF THIS INTENSITY?

Having looked at the video and thought about this for awhile and calculating where the plane was going and how fast it was traveling, the problem with the meteorite explanation is that meteorites just don't last that long and they go a lot faster than an aircraft. They wouldn't be pacing an aircraft.

:D
 
Also, radar is used to see in the dark, in heavy fog so radar would not register swamp gas it would pass right through it to register solid mass not gases.
:D
 
Unknown_user said:
the Ufologist is hiding his evidence to make some sort of a name for himself
Click to expand...

He most definitely is not.

He is having the footage examined by other qualified people.
 
Stryderunknown said:
You've asked me to substantiate and I have
Click to expand...

Sorry, no you haven't.

Your balloon theory still does not remotely fit the facts of the case.

You're continued support of it calls into question your agenda.

Scientists that persist in supporting flawed hypotheses are interested in something other than the truth.
 
coolmacguy said:
Sorry, no you haven't.
Your balloon theory still does not remotely fit the facts of the case.
Click to expand...

I don't necessarily buy into the balloon theory as the most likely, but what, specifically, are the facts that the balloon theory do not address. In summary.

The mark of all pseudoscience is the corruption of common knowledge.
 
WellCookedFetus said:
Name one scientific study that was proven by testimony alone, come on.
Click to expand...

Ok, here he go.

Scientific studies ARE testimony.

Think about it. When you read a scientific report that relates the results of a study or experiment, what are you reading? The testimony of that scientists regarding the results of that experiment. If you can't trust his testimony, how do you know he wasn't fabricating the report?

Human testimony is one of the cornerstones of our society. If you can't trust anyone's testimony, you could never believe anyone else when they said anything.

WellCookedFetus said:
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.
Click to expand...

Nonsense. These were officers of the Mexican air force, highly qualified people to judge the behavior of aerial objects. They were thoroughly interviewed and reported what they saw. Unless you can prove they had some motive to lie or fabricate, their testimony is of high value in this investigation.
 
SkinWalker said:
I don't necessarily buy into the balloon theory as the most likely, but what, specifically, are the facts that the balloon theory do not address. In summary.
Click to expand...

I have already mentioned them earlier in the thread.

Look on page two.

Other than the ones I mentioned there, there are additional problems as well, such as why only 3 of the balloons showed up on radar.
 
coolmacguy,

Aside for the video there are very little "facts" for this case. There is no clear rating of speed or distance of these objects, there is no clear image of what they are, there is little to no validation of testimonies with the video evidence. T

That right you can't believe what anyone says! You need raw evidence to believe. Scientific theories are not believed because someone says so they have to be tested and proven! Do you think people simple believe Darwin or Einstein at first, “oh they must be right!”, no they had to look at the evidence present, they had to see that light was bent by gravity, they had to see similarity of ancestors. The testimony presented by the pilots does not match the video, I don’t see the plane surrounded at close range or the objects moving at thousands of miles per hour.
 
Last edited:
Coolmacguy,

My support is because it has not been proven flawed, It's only been contested by people that have no clue as to what they see because they are more likely to have one particular viewset for what they want to see. No doubt I tire of the constant rhetoric from the pro-ETI corner however if I have something to prove it would just be that a balloon could of been used and mistaken in such an event.

Unless you are a fluent speaker of Spanish and have spoken to the pilots personally, I would suggest that you can not weigh their evidence with such high value.

The main facts that the balloon theory is based on is the following picture:
<IMG SRC="http://chatsoba.sprawl-vr.com/images/mexicanufo.jpg">

I even added the spherical balloon shrunk to the size that would tally with what was seen, the balloon in the picture was a Helium balloon, although there are many varying prototypes of different shapes and sizes that can uses different methods of inflation from gas burners generating hot air, to Helium and Ammonia.

This shape matching is far different from making out a rock is a limb.
 
I take it back. I'm convinced that it is probably two balloons after seeing this evidence.

We'll not know for sure unless someone gets caught smuggling or if a couple of balloonists come forward, but this seems by far the more credible hypothesis to date.

My vote is now for the balloon hypothesis. It has the most comparative evidence and the characteristics of the two objects seems consistent with what one would expect from two balloons at the same altitude: they maintained constant distance and apparent velocity with each other.
 
Cool! Balloons vs Ball lightning theories.

I am leaning towards 11 balloons in formation speeding through the clouds than 11 ball lightnings doing the same for 40 minutes, especially when they typically last only 2 seconds.

ROTFLMAO.
 
Another possibility is a malfuntion with the FLIR. In the video, it appears that the two larger "objects" are certainly different, and its these that appear to be balloons... but, as groups, the other "objects" which appear to zoom past AND the two larger objects appear symmetrical.

IR devices that I worked with in the past had several imaging tubes and lenses in which the available light entered. I am certainly not familiar with the FLIR, but I can't imagine that the technology is that far different.

Of course that doesn't explain what the "objects" are, because even if there is a ghosting effect, that means that there are at least half the original objects.

I'm only speculating and not offering a hypothesis.
 
Stryderunknown said:
My support is because it has not been proven flawed, It's only been contested by people that have no clue as to what they see because they are more likely to have one particular viewset for what they want to see.
Click to expand...

It isn't just about what you see in the video. You also have to account for the behavior and characteristics exhibited by these objects, something your balloon theory does not even come close to doing.

Stryderunknown said:
No doubt I tire of the constant rhetoric from the pro-ETI corner however if I have something to prove it would just be that a balloon could of been used and mistaken in such an event.
Click to expand...

Then why don't you prove that? So far you have failed miserably in the effort.

Stryderunknown said:
Unless you are a fluent speaker of Spanish and have spoken to the pilots personally, I would suggest that you can not weigh their evidence with such high value.
Click to expand...

I have heard from the people who interviewed the pilots, who speak English. And I would certainly put more weight on their firsthand experience and extensive flight training than your quick and dirty analysis without access to most of the evidence.

The bottom line is these pilots would have known what they were seeing was a balloon. There would be no mistaking it. The fact that they couldn't see it suggests it was either very small or invisible. A balloon would be neither.

The fact that the mexican military could not identify the objects after an extensive investigation blows your balloon theory out of the water.

So far the only hypotheses that even come close to fitting the facts are some kind of unusual atmospheric phenomenon or some mysterious craft with unusual properties.
 
SkinWalker said:
I take it back. I'm convinced that it is probably two balloons after seeing this evidence.

We'll not know for sure unless someone gets caught smuggling or if a couple of balloonists come forward, but this seems by far the more credible hypothesis to date.

My vote is now for the balloon hypothesis. It has the most comparative evidence and the characteristics of the two objects seems consistent with what one would expect from two balloons at the same altitude: they maintained constant distance and apparent velocity with each other.
Click to expand...

There were 11 objects, not 2. And other pictures do not look like that one. Some have two lights, some have one. I regret that you can not see past Stryder's naivete.
 
My naivete is based on the footage and that picture, it looks like a balloon.

Looking at the footage there is a point when they seem to move differently, but the point there is the camera is mounted on a plane that could quite easily have hit turbulance which would have mimicked a speed change, unfortunately altitude (or a drop in altitude) wasn't registered in the footage.

I just can't understand why you can't see it's a balloon in that picture. I could understand it if you couldn't see it was a balloon and generated your speculations based upon a fuzzy object, but this isn't the case.

As for the people you've heard who interview the pilots, who are they? Are they likely to generate something out of nothing to bloat viewing figures for a particular show or channel? (Some interviewers tend to have hidden agendas).
 
Stryderunknown, for some reason, you remind me very much of fluid1959 and his
pictures that 'look' like something else, even down to drawing lines on one image.
Have you looked at the link provided by FieryIce? That link has the most scientific
investigation of any provided so far. Balloons are not a possibility. I haven't formed
an opinion of what the objects represent, but I do not believe balloons or ball lightning
would even remotely account for the facts. Here is the link again:
http://www.earthfiles.com/news/news.cfm?ID=711
 
Stryderunknown said:
it looks like a balloon.
Click to expand...

You don't seem to understand why this is irrelevant.

You have to account for far more than the look of the objects to provide a reasonable hypothesis as to their origin.

Even if I accepted your argument that the objects looked like balloons (which I do not), the balloon theory is a dismal failure in almost every other aspect.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top