From: Jim Deardorff <deardorj@ucs.orst.edu>
Date: Sun, 26 Oct 1997 14:42:47 -0800 (PST)
Fwd Date: Mon, 27 Oct 1997 00:59:51 -0500
Subject: Re: Mexican UFO Video Tape

> Date: Fri, 24 Oct 1997 06:39:57 -0400
> From: Graham William Birdsall <106151.1150@compuserve.com>
> Subject: Mexican UFO Video Tape
> To: UFO UPDATES TORONTO <updates@globalserve.net>
> [...]
> The object is in focus throughout - an extraordinary feature when
> combining manual and auto focus.

> The 'spinning' effect on the object demonstrates the same
> sequence over and over again.

> The cameraman appears to anticipate the movement of the object -
> as though he knew when and where it was going in advance.

> When the object disappears behind an apartment block, one would
> expect the cameraman to pan back, go left and right to see where
> it might have gone - it doesn't happen.

> These are basic observations arrived at in less than 30 minutes.

> The object does appear to have been 'brush stroked' in part, and
> our provisional analysis suggests that the skyline and apartment
> blocks have been filmed in advance, and the computer generated
> 'UFO' then laid on top.

> Given one has the right sort of computer software, and a little
> money and energy to spend, all things are possible.

Hello all,

These types of observations by Graham are the reason why the
actual visual witnesses in such a case are so important.
According to Fernando Camacho, Jaime has located and identified
about 15 witnesses; these probably include the two in on the
video-taping.

The witnesses will obviously have to be (or have been) intensely
questioned and investigated to see if one or more have been
bribed to report what wasn't there, or are otherwise in on a
hoax.  We must keep in mind that one or two fake witnesses who
come forward after a UFO event is known, in order to try to
debunk it, do not negate the testimony of honest witnesses.

Jim Deardorff