[extropy-chat] FWD (UFO UpDate) Re: Mexican UFO Sighting "No Big Deal"

[Terry W. Colvin]

From: Bruce Maccabee <brumac at compuserve.com>
To: <ufoupdates at virtuallystrange.net>
Date: Sat, 15 May 2004 17:50:24 -0400
Subject: Re: Mexican UFO Sighting "No Big Deal"


>From: Amy Hebert <ahebert at iqmail.net>
>To: <ufoupdates at virtuallystrange.net>
>Date: Thu, 13 May 2004 13:35:32 -0500
>Subject: Re: Mexican UFO Sighting "No Big Deal"

>>From: Bruce Maccabee <brumac at compuserve.com>
>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates at virtuallystrange.net>
>>Date: Wed, 12 May 2004 09:26:06 -0400
>>Subject: Re: Mexican UFO Sighting "No Big Deal"

>>>Source: CTV Canada

<snip>

>>"That is where the skepticism kicks in: No way to know how are
>>>away these things are or in fact how fast they were moving."
 
<snip>

>>He says there is "no way" to know how far away these things
>>are." Well, about the radar report? According to the most
>>recent news story (rense.com) at one time they were 2 miles
>>away.

<snip>

>>These objects/lights were picked up by an infrared sensitive
>>system operating in the 3-5 micron range

According to FLIR systems engineer, 3.6 to 5 microns

>> whereas the video
>>imagery Semeniuk refers to is based on visible light. The
>>comparison he makes here is superficial and ignores one of the
>>key questions raised by this sighting: what can radiate
>>substantial power (hundreds of watts?) in the 3-5 micron
>>wavelength band while NOT radiating enough in the visible band
>>(0.4 - 0.7 microns) for the crew of the plane to see anything?

>>A heated body like a meteor (or the hot air plasma around it)
>>that radiates power in the infrared will also radiate in the
>>visible (which is why people can see it.) The main point is
>>_nothing_ should be "out there" causing any images on the IR
>>camera, to say nothing of very bright (saturated?) images of
>>things that are also detected (some of them at least) on radar
>>and also clearly travel with the airplane but were _not_ seen
>>by the crew _despite_ optimum daylight conditions.

>I'm curious, without visual confirmation can you accurately 
>determine the size of an object based only on its infrared 
>signature?

No... and yes... depends upon how big the object s and how 
bright it is and how big and bright the image is. In this case 
when the two very bright lights are side by side (with :"ghost" 
images below each).

I estimate that _if_ they were 2 miles away at that time they 
were 15-20 ft apart (horzontal measurement). 

The diameter of each bright image corresponds to a size of about 
7 ft. That does not mean that each bright object was 7 ft in 
diameter. More likely it was smaller but radiating so much power 
that the image "bloomed out" on the IR viewing screen.

The FLIR Systems engineers agreed that the images were 
saturated... overexposed... which means the images are larger 
than the "geomtric image."

For an imaging system (camera, video, FLIR) the "geometric size
of an image" is calculated from the actual size (measured 
transverse to the line of sight) as follows:

W = object width
R = object range
F = focal length
I = image width
I = W(F/R).

This pertains for objects large enough and/or close enough to be 
resolved by the imaging system. Resolution is another factor 
that must be taken into account. Typically the resolution is 
about 1 pixel or pixel element. Something that makes an image 
that is only 1pixel in size on the focal plane will not be 
resolved. In fact, resolution requires an image several pixels 
in size (width). In this particular case the imager operated 
with about 0.8 deg = 14 milliradians across the field of view 
and this corresponds to the width of the "focal plane array" of 
Indium Antimonide detector elements (similar to a CCD in a home 
video camera). 

The width is spanned by 320 detector elements of pixels, so one 
pixel is about 4.4 E -5 radians in angular size which projects 
to about 1/2 ft at 2 miles (assuming I calculate correctly!). 
Hence if the object had been 1/2 ft or smaller it would have 
made just a dt on the screen if it were radiating only a small 
amount of power. But it did not make just a dot: it made an very 
bright, large image. Therefore we can reasonably say that the 
source of each light was between 1/2 and 7 ft in diameter with 
the smaller number being more likely than the larger.

A question might arise: is there a structure between the 
lights... something physcial/solid, holding them apart (or 
together )?

The IR imager created an image of the sky background which 
appears on all sides of each image. Had there been a "solid" 
opaque structure (body of a craft) between the lights then it 
should have blocked the background skylight and perhaps also 
reflected sunlight. Conclude: no typically opaqe structure.

Speaking of reflecting sunlight, it must be considered that the 
bright lights are seen at least in part as a result of scattered 
sunlight. After all, the clouds are seen because of a 
combination of heat (cloud temperature radiating)and scattered 
sunlight.

One goal of a research project would be to determine how much of 
the IR radiation was due to the temperature of the objects and 
how much due to reflection of solar radiation.

Nothing like a long answer to a short question,ech?

>If these objects never came closer than two miles to the 
>observers, how big would a UFO have to be to be visible at that 
>distance? 

Depends upon their contrast against the sky background. If they 
were perfectly black objects or if they were shiny and reflected 
the sun they could be quite small. A solid black of several feet 
size might be visible. A solar glint from a few foot object 
would probably be visible. Something ten feet in size at 2 miles 
would be barely resolved by good human eyes. Apparently 8 people 
saw nothing. That means that (a) the objects were tiny (but 
power radiators of heat) (b) they were sizeable but had the same 
background color and brightness in the visible band (0.4-0.7 
micron) as the background sky. 

Regarding (b), they passed through nominally clear sky, behind 
bright clouds, and it seems to me also in front of clouds that 
were shaded by other clouds. Because they were not seen in 
visible light as blocking the sky background or blocking the 
background of clouds I would guess they were small, but at this 
stage... almost "anything goes." 

>Of course the first thing a trained pilot and crew 
>would look for in flying aircraft pacing them would be another 
>plane or something of that size. If these objects were small, 
>they might not be visible even at two miles distance but still 
>show up on radar and IR.

Yes, if they were large enough for the radar and hot enough for 
the IR sensor.

>http://www.aerovironment.com/area-aircraft/unmanned.html

>See: "MicorAir Vehicles".

>Is this possible?

>And since three of the objects did show up on radar, if we lowly 
>humans know how to avoid radar detection, how come ET hasn't 
>figured this out yet?

There are plenty of cases where UFOs have been picked up on 
radar.... and also plenty of cases where they haven't, Is this 
"optional stealth?"

>Sounds like these objects *wanted* to be observed yet not 
>clearly photographed or visual confirmation. I wonder why.

IF ET I wonder if they suspected they were seen with an IR 
passive sensor. They could detect the radar, presumably, which 
sends out a signal and looks for a reflection. But the passive 
IR sensor simply stares into space.

For the expert: if ET was looking at the plane with an 
equivalent type of IR sensor, ET might have noticed a "black 
hole" under the aircraft. Said black hole being the entrance 
aperture of the FLIR viewer. Why black? Because the IR viewer 
uses a "cooled focal plane array" operating many degrees below 
zero C. To a thermal imager looking directly into the FLIR 
system in its much hotter surroundings would actually "see" the 
cooled focal plane and it would appear as a blackspot surrounded 
by bright. 

Something like this once happened to a NAVY IR system in the 
straits near Istanbul back in the 70's. The detection of a 
"black hole" in the scenery along the strait (houses, 
buildings) raised the question of whether or not someone on land 
was looking with an IR viewer at the ship at the same time the 
ship was looking at the land. If so, the viewer on land saw a 
"black hole" on the deck of the ship!!


>This is for everyone:

>I'm not one for looking a gift horse in the mouth but... doesn't 
>it strike anyone as odd that the Mexican Air Force made a 
>deliberate effort to seek out Jaime Maussan to tell him this 
>information and make the footage available to broadcast all over 
>the world?

They said they didn't know a scientist to give the information 
to. But, on the other hand, someoneevidently did show it to a 
physicist for comment since his report and theory is attached to 
the Maussan report.

>Before we run around promoting this footage as proof of UFO's, 
>we need to examine this case and the surrounding sociopolitical 
>variables carefully and objectively.

Yup.

This islike the New Zealand case of December 1978 which also got 
immediate worldwide notoriety and which was "explained" many 
times over by ultimately incorrect suggestions.... but by time 
the case had been fully investigated th press was onto other 
things and "no one cared." You can read about it at 
< http://brumac.8k.com >.


-- 
"Only a zit on the wart on the heinie of progress." Copyright 1992, Frank Rice


Terry W. Colvin, Sierra Vista, Arizona (USA) < fortean1 at mindspring.com >
     Alternate: < fortean1 at msn.com >
Home Page: < http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Stargate/8958/index.html >
Sites: * Fortean Times * Mystic's Haven * TLCB *
      U.S. Message Text Formatting (USMTF) Program
------------
Member: Thailand-Laos-Cambodia Brotherhood (TLCB) Mailing List
   TLCB Web Site: < http://www.tlc-brotherhood.org > [Southeast Asia
veterans, Allies, CIA/NSA, and "steenkeen" contractors are welcome.]