UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 1997 > Oct > Oct 14

Analysis of Mexico City Stills and NOTW Photograph

From: Chris Penrose <penrose@sfc.keio.ac.jp>
Date: Tue, 14 Oct 97 19:30:12 +0900
Fwd Date: Tue, 14 Oct 1997 17:28:36 -0400
Subject: Analysis of Mexico City Stills and NOTW Photograph


I have spent way too much time on this.  But I believe strongly
that people on the list who suggest that the buildings in the
Mexico City footage bear a curious resemblence to this News of
the Weird photograph really need to look at the buildings much
much more carefully.  Please don't make such coincidental
judgements without bothering to scrutinize your evidence.  Such
ill-formed judgements only embarass you and the ufology
community.  I have hyperopia (farsightedness), which indicates
that I must strain my eye muscles far more than the average
person to focus on objects nearby. Reading a book for an extended
period is very difficult.  Despite this condition, I see glaring
differences in the buildings and I don't understand how an
average person can't notice them.  My hypothesis is that PEOPLE

I did a side-by-side comparison of one of the Mexico City frames
with the extremely noisy News of the Weird photograph.

I can see how someone might initially confuse these buildings,
particularly after only a casual glance.  However, the initial
similarities between the buildings disappear very quickly. Also,
even with a first impression, I can't see how someone could
perceive the two "ufo" objects as being remotely similar beyond
their classic disc-like proportion.

Being the son of an architect, I am embarassed by some of my
parlance deficiencies in the field.  Please bear with them.

of all").  I will make a statement about each photograph.  The
statement holds ONLY for the specific photograph I am talking
about in each sentence.

First of all, there are two large buildings in the foreground of
the Mexico City picture. And we find two buildings in the Moscow
picture also.  The two buildings in the Mexico City photograph
appear to have the same basic architecture, the building to the
right is in the foreground to the building on the left.  The two
buildings in the Moscow photograph appear to have the same basic
architecture, the building to the right is in the foreground to
the building on the left.  These are the similarities.  They are
probably the similarities that people are identifying.  They end

If the buildings are the same, which is highly unlikely given
other factors (see below), the two pictures do not depict the
same side of the building.  In other words, the photographs would
have to have been taken from entirely different (in both height,
angle, and point) locations.  There are other shorter buildings
in both photographs to the left of the buildings.  However, the
architecture of these buildings are radically different.  In the
Mexico City photo we have a v-roof building and a spectacular (at
least compared to all the other depressing buildings in the
photos) building with a triangle profile, its right edge
perpendicular to the earth.  In the Moscow photo, instead we have
another flat roofed building.  No v-roof, no triangle. The flat
roof neighbor appears closer to the buildings, than the
neighboring buildings do in the Mexico City building.  Thus, if
the pictures depict the same buildings, they are depicted from an
entirely different vantage.

The window details of the buildings in the two photographs are
quite different in geometry.  Please look again.  Several of the
Mexico City window details have a profile consisting of two
adjacent rectangles, the right one being having approximately
30-40% the area of the larger rectangle to the left.  The upper
edge of both rectangles is shared, but the lower edge is
disjunct.  This pattern does not appear in the Moscow buildings.
There are many other differences.  The area of the buildings
spanning the top to the top edge of the last window row is nearly
twice as great on the Mexico City buildings as it is with the
Moscow buildings.  It is possible that the window details of the
buildings shown in the Mexico City picture appear on the the
buildings depicted in the Moscow picture, but on a different side
of the building.  This is unlikely, and irrelevant given the
proof below.

The most obvious difference that I found was that the Mexico City
buildings increase in width from the bottom edge of the
penultimate story (second to last window row) to the top of the
building.  This detail is not present in the Moscow buildings.
Though it is possible, in theory, that this detail may only exist
on the left side of the Mexico City buildings, but in practice,
such subtly asymmetric buildings are incredibly rare.  Given that
it is unlikely that the Mexico City builings have this detail on
only one side of the building, we can safely say that the lack of
this detail in the Moscow buildings is strong evidence that the
buildings are different.  This detail would be apparent in any
photograph that shows the top of the building and any of its
vertical edges.  If this protruding detail is facing us, (unlike
the Mexico City photos) we should see a profiled shadow line
after the penultimate story in the Moscow buildings.  It is not
present in the Moscow buildings.  These buildings are not the

Modern buildings, particularly the modern and unaesthetically
sculpted buildings depicted here, tend to have symmetry.  Let's
say each of these buildings has four exposed rectangular faces
(discounting the roof and the unaccessible foundation).  If a
window detail is found on the left edge of face number 1 of a
building, it is quite probable that the detail will appear on the
left edge of all the faces (2, 3, 4 also).  Furthermore, the
inverse of the detail will probably be present on the right side
of all the faces also.  Buildings do not have to be built this
way, and the buildings in both photographs could possibly, but
improbably, be built differently.  However, I am simply giving
evidence that further supports the DIFFERENCES I have found
between the buildings in the two photographs.  Since I have found
major structural differences in the buildings represented in the
photographs, someone who claims the buildings are identical needs
to convincingly account for these differences.  Given the
tendencies of symmetry in modern buildings you will need much
much more evidence than you have presented to make such
coincidental claims.  I contend that such claims have been made

Also, please realize that there are many homogenous forms in
modern architecture. I have seen literally hundreds of buildings
in Greece, Mexico, Turkey, and even Japan that have the basic
profile of these buildings.  In this way modern architecture is
bland and criminally aesthetic free.  Building design is no
longer an artform.  Buildings are built as cheaply and uniformly
as possible.  But all buildings in some way, are unique.  These
two photographs, upon examination, have revealed the uniqueness
of the buildings.  The Moscow buildings may not be in Moscow and
the Mexico City buildings may not be in Mexico City, though it is
said that the Mexico City buildings have indeed been located, BUT
REGARDLESS, these buildings are, in my opinion quite different.


The NOTW photo appears to be an obvious hoax: despite the noise
in the photo the object lacks lighting cues which are present on
the building.  Though the object appears to be in the foreground
of the building, haze and focus wash are curiously absent on the
object. The object looks like a button, frisbee or even a hubcap
as has been suggested.  The object was not in the initial
picture, I contend that it was later superimposed.  This is a
pathetic hoax.  Regardless of its fakeness, the object is frisbee
shaped: having the appearance of a half oval, it's greatest width
found at its bottom.  The Mexico City object is closer to a
complete oval with its greatest width occuring in its center.
Though the objects' orientation are indeed different, we should
see a profile gradation that reveals the full oval shape in the
Moscow object in order that the objects be the same (or even
remotely similar).  No such profiling exists on the Moscow
object. These objects are not identical.  The color gradation of
the objects are radically different also.

The Mexico City still I have seen is quite remarkable.  The
object given the haze of the city has a subtle haze wash with
respect to the building.  There are lighting cues present which
look amazingly convincing given their imprint on the building.
If a hoax, it is a subtle one.  And if both of these pictures are
a hoax, it is a supreme insult to the hypothetical hoaxer of the
Mexico City photograph to suggest that this same person also
created the Moscow picture. Please apologize at once!  :)

I agree that more information about the locale of the Mexico City
picture should be determined.  However, I am very suspicious of
this comparison that has been made.  Why does one make such a
comparison when the differences between the photographs, after
actually bothering to look carefully are quite vast?  Is Jerry
Andeson responsible for this bogus comparison?  This is very
sloppy.  I have to interpret this comparison as a careless
debunking.  I really think that people should be careful before
they make ill-formed claims, particularly because it is tiresome
for me to have to spend a good two hours or so proving that
someone's gee-whiz comparison is bogus in text.  Does anyone else
have an opinion of Jerry Andeson?  Has he made such completely
unsupportable assertions before?

Christopher Penrose
Digital Signal Processing Researcher
Faculty of Environment Information
Keio University Shonan-Fujisawa

Search for other documents from or mentioning: penrose

[ Next Message | Previous Message | This Day's Messages ]
This Month's Index |

UFO UpDates Main Index

UFO UpDates - Toronto - Operated by Errol Bruce-Knapp

Archive programming by Glenn Campbell at Glenn-Campbell.com