From: Bruce Maccabee <brumac.nul>
Date: Fri, 17 Sep 2004 23:15:34 -0400
Fwd Date: Sat, 18 Sep 2004 13:22:11 -0400
Subject: Re: Mexican FLIR Video And Story On Sale - Maccabee


>From: David Rudiak <DRudiak.nul>
>To: <ufoupdates.nul>
>Date: Fri, 17 Sep 2004 10:10:27 -0700
>Subject: Re: Mexican FLIR Video And Story On Sale

>>From: Jim Deardorff <deardorj.nul>
>>To: ufoupdates.nul, "- UFO UpDates
>>Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2004 09:42:59 -0700
>>Subject: Re: Mexican FLIR Video And Story On Sale

<snip>

>>During one section of the video, the most notable objects were>
>>in a doubled triplet formation, pacing the airplane off the port
>>side, and are seen to have passed _in_front of_ a nearby cloud
>>top, then pass _behind_* an even closer cloud-top fragment,
>>then emerge.

Actually this is debatable. It could be that the cloud is thin
enough to allow infrared through. The brightnesses of the lights
changes in a manner expected if they were coming through cloud
and then get brighter as the sighting line exits the cloud area.

Note that I said "sighting line"and not objects.

It is likely that the objects were much farther away than the
clouds and the motion past clouds is an illusion.

The key question is: were they abov the horizon?

The flir readout numbers suggest they were, but to be positive
the flir must be calibrated.


>>Thus, it seems silly to press the case for a well-gas-flame
>>explanation, in which flames show up in the visible, not just
>>the infrared, to anyone who has viewed the March 5th video.

>Jim and List,

>This whole question of how gas-flames from 80 miles distance
>could show up so strongly on the FLIR equipment while remaining
>invisible to the naked eye sure has me puzzled

>Infrared is much more strongly absorbed by the atmosphere than
>visible light.

>While probably 99% of the radiation emitted by a gas flame would
>be in the infrared (just like a candle flame), this would be
>compensated for by strong infrared absorption, particularly by
>water vapor.

>This was a very humid environment, looking out over jungle and
>ocean in the direction of the oil wells.

>I would be very surprised if any infrared from the oil well
>flames made it through all that atmosphere, not to mention
>clouds, which should be extremely strong absorbers of infrared.

The particular spectral range 3.5 - 5 microns was chosen to to
avoid as much as possible the absorption. However, this still
does not avoid it all. An experiment is needed.

>Yet not only do the lights show up strongly on the FLIR viewer,
>they appear undiminished in brightness in front of intervening
>clouds.

I have looked carefully for clear evidence of this "undiminished
brightness in front of clouds"... and have found none. What I
have found by triangulation (the plane moves, the azimuth angle
changes is large distances to the lights.

>On the other hand, the plots showing the lights generally to be
>in the same direction as the oil wells does give me pause. There
>are still a whole bunch of loose ends to this case.

Yes. Experiments are needed.