From: j smith <zeus001002.nul>
Date: Thu, 6 Jan 2005 12:41:53 -0500 (GMT-05:00)
Fwd Date: Fri, 07 Jan 2005 08:24:22 -0500
Subject: Re: Maccabee's Mexican Airforce Radar/FLIR UFO


>From: Bruce Maccabee <brumac.nul>
>To: <ufoupdates.nul>
>Date: Wed, 5 Jan 2005 09:21:17 -0500
>Subject: Re: Maccabee's Mexican Airforce Radar/FLIR UFO Report

>I know that there are gas flames in the direction the FLIR was
>looking and I know that each platform can have several flares.
>However,I also know that it isn't sufficient to say that there
>were gas flames in the direction they were looking and that
>proves all the light were gas flames. What would be sufficient
>would be to match up exactly more than half of the FLIR lights
>with specific flames.

Yes, but to try to do this requires good locational data on the
gas flares.  Also, while matching >50% of the lights is
good, it is best to match the various qualities of the light
patterns as well.  My showing how the lights "split" between
17:06:36 to 17:07:18 is due to one oil flare "moving" from
behind another (due to aircraft movement) is a significant
correlating test result.  That there are general
matches of flare lights patterns with the FLIR images is
very significant.

Of course, given what I have read about
UFOs exhibiting intelligent interaction, maybe they are
just pretending to be the oil flare lights to spook the airplane
crew and the oil flare lights are really to the left and behind
a cloud (I hope it doesn't get so complicated to analyze
UFO data, good grief!).

>As I pointed out in the appendix there is some agreement... and
>some disagreement. After I spent hours trying to locate a
>"perfect" match I essentially "threw up my hands in despair"
>because I knew I shouldn't have to be doing this.

Yes it is difficult.  But you must start with good oil flare
location data which I took great pains to get, and then using a
3 D model then becomes feasible.

>I knew, also, that the answer would be "simple" to determine if
>the Mexican DOD would do the flight experiment I requested or
>re-fly the 5 March flight. That is why I wrote in the paper that
>it is essentially incomplete until an experiment is done.

>Franz tried to do something like it, but I guess he was not able to.

Although he did not match the exact distance and direction,
he gathered good matching imagery.

>Franz's photos do confirm that there is a reflection in the
>water below a fire which might explain the dim images below the
>"twins".

Significant.

>I, of course, am well aware of your work. What you have done
>makes the oil field hypothesis for many of not all the lights
>plausible. This helps in "horizontal correlation" between the
>fires and the FLIR lights. It would be even better if we had
>fire height information for all the platforms so that we could
>get "vertical correlation" as well. But the best would be a FLIR
>picture of the oil field from a point 100 miles southeast of the
>oil field and from an altitude of 2miles.

Yes, it would be nice to have this data.  But it can be
obtained from other sources if you have credentials.  Contact
Villasenor R. who wrote in 2003. =E2=80=9CAn air quality emission
inventory of offshore operations for the exploration and
production of petroleum by the Mexican oil industry,=E2=80=9D
(Atmospheric Environment, August, vol. 37, no. 26
, pp. 3713-3729(17)) and describes a database he has
of all oil flare locations and heights.  I would think your
credentials should be enough to get this data.

You may contact him at: Av. Platanales 252-5
Col. Nueva Santa Maria, 02800, Mexico, DF,
Mexico. Tel.: +52-5333-6909
email:  rvillase.nul

>If you can identify specific FLIR light images with specific gas
>burnoff flames, then please let me know and I'll test your
>suggestion against the FLIR images.

As I wrote in my web page, the "Twins" were not easy to
match (pick any Twins light image, e.g. 17:03:46).  They
may be two single flare oil platform flares at
92 deg, 3 min, 5.2 sec and 19 deg, 26 min, 36.5 sec
and
92 deg, 1 min, 56. sec and 19 deg, 25 min, 50.6 sec.
OR
they may be some new oil platform that did not show up
on the old Landsat image I had.

For the string of lights best shown at 17:06:53, the best
oil platform flare candidates are
AKAL-J
92 deg, 4 min, 44.06 sec and 19 deg, 25 min, 27.3 sec
92 deg, 4 min, 42.4 sec and 19 deg, 25 min, 44.9 sec
92 deg, 4 min, 44.51 sec and 19 deg, 25 min, 34.2 sec
92 deg, 4 min, 44.2 sec and 19 deg, 25 min, 31.26 sec
AKAL-C
92 deg, 2 min, 34.68 sec and 19 deg, 23 min, 46.29 sec
92 deg, 2 min, 34.41 sec and 19 deg, 23 min, 50.22 sec
92 deg, 2 min, 34.15 sec and 19 deg, 23 min, 53.2 sec
92 deg, 2 min, 30.43 sec and 19 deg, 24 min, 2.95 sec

As I state in my web page, I have 3 separate Landsat
images that confirm these flare locations (all from 2001).