Aliens On Earth.com Resources for those who are stranded here Our Bookstore is OPEN Over 5000 new & used titles, competitively priced! Topics: UFOs - Paranormal - Area 51 - Ghosts - Forteana - Conspiracy - History - Biography - Psychology - Religion - Crime - Health - Geography - Maps - Science - Money - Language - Recreation - Technology - Fiction - Other - New Search... for keyword(s)   in Page Titles in Book Title/Author in Contents of Pages ---other searches--- Metacrawler Yahoo FAST Search Google Altavista Dogpile Inference Find Northern Light IWon.com MSN Search Las Vegas Sun Location: Mothership -> UFO -> Updates -> 1998 -> Aug -> Re: Comments on Maccabee's Analysis; Mexico City

UFO UpDates Mailing List

From: Bruce Maccabe <brumac@compuserve.com>
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1998 21:25:07 -0400
Fwd Date: Sat, 29 Aug 1998 20:49:16 -0400
Subject: Re: Comments on Maccabee's Analysis; Mexico City


>From: Asgeir Waehre Skavhaug <KONAWS@statoil.com>
>To: updates@globalserve.net
>Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1998 13:54:16 +0100
>Subject: Re: Comments on Maccabee's Analysis; Mexico City Disc


>>Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1998 12:22:39 -0400
>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
>>From: David Furlotte <furry@nobelmed.com>
>>Subject: Re: Comments on Maccabee's Analysis; Mexico City  Disc

>>>Date: Tue, 25 Aug 1998 19:26:20 -0400
>>>From: Bruce Maccabee <brumac@compuserve.com>
>>>Subject: Re: Comments on Maccabee's Analysis; Mexico City Disc
>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>

>>>I must comment on this message since evidence has been in the
>>>video which suggests a video hoax. Some of that evidence is
>>>directly illustrated in the attached GIF image of four frames
>>>from the video. In two of the frames, one above the other, on
>>>the right side there are building images which are sharp. In two

><snip>

>Hi List,

>Quick question on the videographic "evidence" and the resultant
>"investigation" of such. Blurring as in Soft focus is being
>maintained as camera shift from being handheld I take it? I
>concede that this is all too possible however, is it also not>

><snip>

>Are the procedures for analysis of photographic evidence more or
>less "standardised"?

>Could they be smilar to the procedures mentioned, e.g., in
>this report:

>-    http://www.jse.com/ufo_reports/Sturrock/toc.html

>(See Appendix 2 here.)


I am not certain what you are asking.

There are "standard" tests applied to UFO photos to demonstrate
self-consistency within the photo/video. Which tests are used
depend upon the nature of th imagery. For a hand held camera
that is supposedly videotaping objects at great distance (more
than a hundred feet) one would expect similar amounts of smear
of real scenery (e.g., buildings) and UFO images.

Any difference in the amount of smear requires a careful;
explanation (e.g., accurate panning with the camera can leave a
building image smeared while a moving UFO image is
unsmeared).The Mexico City video does not pass this test.

(Note; the oft maligned Ed Walters photos from Gulf Breeze _did_
pass the test!)