a. The lights appear to be virtually stationary in some of the FLIR footage as these
objects on the left of the plane matched speed with that plane. Ever hear of relative velocity? Is this a 'science' forum or what?
b. Now to rubbish the baloon baloney:
> 1. At 2 km such large balloons would have been visible, especially the 5-storied
> house sized object. I estimate
> that an object 1m in diameter would be visible at 2 km for eagle-eyed (or
> condor-eyed
) Federales.
>
> 2. The 'gondola' of the balloon is an artifact of the saturated FLIR image -
> Macabee already had this info from the FLIR
> manufactures - when there is saturation light reflects round the optics to
> sometimes give sub-images such as
> these 'halos' that look like the lower bits of balloons
>
> 3. Just because the UFOs seemed to moved scarcely at all w.r.t. the distant
> clouds need only imply
> that the parallax was small between them, due to their being at a great
> distance ( > 7 km). Thus to conclude
> by a superficial eye-ball estimate that the objects were simply being blown by
> the wind is indeed superficial .
>
> 4. The balloon analysis conveniently dismisses the 'close-ups' in the video
> where the UFOs go behind clouds,
> at a substantial relative velocity. With several layers of clouds at
> different speeds it's not surprising that the
> velocity of one such layer might nearly coincide with any arbitrarily moving
> object.
>
> 4. Weather balloons do not accelerate from 150 km/h to 540 km/h in a few
> seconds. This data was reliably returned by the radar,
> which is more accurate than eyeball estimates of the IR screens.
>
> 5. Since when did weather balloons travel in groups of 11, that then proceeded
> to approach and surround a plane?
>
> 6. Finally, as a remark on the equally superficial ball lightning hypothesis, if
> the objects were at 7 km distance they
> were not going to be attracted to the plane electrostatically.
>
Further rubbishing of ball lightning hypothesis:
First, ball lightning lasts only seconds and secondly does not line up as 2 groups of almost identical
triads in similar regular triangular formation with outlying escorts
lasting for 30 minutes! Reports of ball lightning that I have heard always speak of one single ball, that flies chaotically around before exploding with a pop.
These balls, however, were flying at jet-plane speed - maybe nearly the speed of sound, in regular formation for half an hour.
They altered their course, first flying quickly away from the pursuers, but then as if noting their presence, slowed down and moved in to fly nearer to them - no, this sort of long term behaviour always in strict geometrical formation has to be artificial.
The 'ball lightning' theory is handy for pseudo-sceptical 'scientists' if they interpret it in a vague way to be 'any weird moving ball'. Also laughable in that Mexican scientist's statement is that because ball lightning was mainly seen at night this is why it only appeared in IR and radar. Talk about inverted logic! They are only seen at night precisely because they are glowing visible balls of light! But these ones were invisible.
Finally, the seemingly intelligent behaviour when they closed in and encircled the plane sounds like a coordinated activity. Just because they are 'unstable balls of gas' does not mean Also, it was implied that they followed the plane due to some sort of electrical attraction to the machine - but the balls were always many km distant - except when they approached near - that nearest being 3 km. Unless the plane had the most powerful directional cyclotron on board I don't see how its field could have extended that far. No this scientist probably took some of the drugs the airmen were hunting.
