Re: [OVNI-SCIENCES] incoh érence ou incomp ré hension

[GBourdais]

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Christophe Meessen" <christophe at meessen.net>
To: "Gross Patrick" <patrick.gross at roche.com>
Cc: <Debat at ovni-sciences.net>
Sent: Wednesday, July 06, 2005 11:39 AM
Subject: Re: [OVNI-SCIENCES] incoh érence ou incomp ré hension


> Bonjour,
>
> il ne faut effectivement pas confondre les informations infra rouge et les informations radars qui ne sont pas corrélées.
> Patrick à raison, l'infra rouge est comme de la lumière, au delà d'un certain angle (par rapport à la normal) il y a réflexion 
> totale sur l'eau. En clair, l'eau se comporte comme un miroir. Seulement il faut également que la mer ne soit pas trop houleuse.
>
> La confusion des torchère provient du fait que ce FLIR est d'une sensibilité tout à fait remarquable et l'idée qu'il soit capable 
> de détecter une source de chaleur à plus de 150km paraissait impensable à de nombreuses personnes.
>
> Contrairement à ce qu'affirme Poher cité par Patrick Gross, les données radars n'ont rien de conventionnel puisque l'écho 
> affichait de très importantes variations de vitesses. Cela fait penser aux données radar des F16... sauf qu'ici on a des 
> informations beaucoup moins précises à ce sujet.
>

Bonjour Christophe, patrick et tous,

Je rappelle l'opinion du physicien Bruce Macabee, dans son message du 19 avril dernier sur la liste UFO Updates, concernant le 
premier écho radar :
"l'écho radar initial demeure non-identifié".

Gildas


From: Bruce Maccabee <brumac at compuserve.com>
To: <ufoupdates at virtuallystrange.net>
Date: Tue, 19 Apr 2005 23:37:37 -0400
Subject: Re: Mexican Air Force FLIR Lights Case 'Closed'


>From: Terry Groff <terrygroff at sbcglobal.net>
>To: <ufoupdates at virtuallystrange.net>
>Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2005 12:08:08 -0500
>Subject: Re: Mexican Air Force FLIR Lights Case 'Closed'

>>From: Capt. Alejandro Franz <alfafox at prodigy.net.mx>
>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates at virtuallystrange.net>
>>Date: Sun, 17 Apr 2005 20:57:30 -0700
>>Subject: Mexican Air Force FLIR Lights Case 'Closed'


>>Hello All,

>>I waited many months for the opportunity to provide new evidence
>>on the Mexican Air Force UFO case from march 05, 2004. I tried
>>hard to perform by myself the experiment of flying closer to the
>>Cantarell oil field as to recreate the C26A flight. The full
>>cost for that flight was about US $2,500 and I couldn't spend
>>that much.

>>My theory, at least for me, is finally confirmed and the Mexican
>>Air Force UFO case of march 05, 2004 is closed. In april 14,
>>2005 I was lucky enough to record a video that shows the
>>Cantarell oil flames group that matches the same lights as those
>>in the Mexican Air Force FLIR video regardless that it was
>>recorded in a different route, altitude and angle of view.

<snip>

>I agree with you about the FLIR footage. I saw your videos and indeed see the matches between the oil well flares and the string of 
>11 objects as well as the "Twins" from the FLIR video. To me they are conclusive. I was as taken-aback as everyone else when I saw 
>the original video and I admit it was hard for me to believe that this was anything but a genuine UFO/UAP event. Your video 
>convinced me otherwise. Good job.>

>Wasn't there also a ground radar event that has yet to be>
>explained? This could have been a coincidental event.


Alignment of images with oil flares is nt as good as expected.
However, there might have been other souroces of heat in the
field of view. Required experiments were never carried out by
the AF. Hence the flir images are probable but not conclusively
proven to be ground sources probably including oil fires.

The initial radar UFO remains unidentified.

For the complete story see:

http://brumac.8k.com/MexicanDOD5mar04

(4.4 Meg WORD document)