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.
[ Next Message | Previous Message | This Day's Messages ]
This Month's Index |
UFO UpDates - Toronto - Operated by Errol Bruce-Knapp