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 -> Mar -> Mexico City UFO vs. Hasenboel UFO

UFO UpDates Mailing List

From: Jim Deardorff <deardorj@proaxis.com>
Date: Thu, 19 Mar 1998 18:38:45 -0800 (PST)
Fwd Date: Fri, 20 Mar 1998 12:24:10 -0500
Subject: Mexico City UFO vs. Hasenboel UFO

>Date: Tue, 17 Mar 1998 00:36:43 -0500
>From: Bruce Maccabee <brumac@compuserve.com>
>Subject: UFO UpDate: Mexico City UFO program April 8th
>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>

>Below is a preliminary report on the video analysis. This will be
>published in the next issue of the MUFON Journal along with the
>graphs/figures referenced herein.

>           THE MEXICO CITY, AUG. 6, 1997 VIDEO
>            OF AN UNIDENTIFIED OBJECT (UO)
>                        by
>                  Bruce Maccabee

>$#@& !!! (Expletive deleted.) Its just a model hanging on a
>string...a stupid hoax!!

>That was my immediate reaction watched the beginning of the
>Mexico City video for the first time back in early November,
>1997.  Its wobbling and rotating saucer seemed just as big as
>life...but not as real.   What immediately popped into my mind
>was a vision of a 1950s movie portrayal of flying saucers.... the
>movie with rotating saucers that crash into the U. S. Capitol
>building (Invaders from Space?)!  I was disgusted!!!>>

>Five seconds later I was no longer disgusted.  Instead, I was
>surprised.

>During the first seconds of the video I had envisioned a small
>model saucer rotating and wobbling as it was hanging from a
>string.

>Then it abruptly moved to the right.

>Thats no hanging model,  I thought as it accelerated without any
>swinging back and forth characteristic of the pendulum motion of
>a small model at the end of a string.  As the video continued I
>watched carefully for any evidence of swinging.

>There was none.

>I then reversed the video and watched the image of the
>Unidentified Object (UO) as it moved to the left toward its
>starting position.

>Suddenly it stopped moving...as if running into a brick wall
>(crash dummies inside?).

>I ran it back and forth several times.

>Each time I became more convinced that the acceleration was very
>rapid, perhaps even instantaneous.  Suffice it to say that I
>watched the rest of the video with more respect. ...

Hi Bruce,

I'm sure many others also appreciated your research on this.

Here I'd like to refresh your memory about this kind of
maneuvering on film being predated some 21 years by the
Meier-case 8mm film of 29 March, 1976, near Hasenboel-Langenberg,
Switzerland.  No -- I'm not suggesting that the 1997 Mexico City
video must therefore be a hoax!
It's just interesting to look at the similarities.

This Hasenboel scene was on a windy evening shortly after sunset;
a limb of a foreground fir tree can be seen to rustle about
continually in the wind. This is the film where the UFO moves
from off the left side to center-right of the frame, stops (as if
scarcely slowing down before crashing into an invisible brick
wall) and hovers motionless there, then suddenly accelerates back
to the left to a speed of up to 15 UFO widths per second in some
small fraction of a second.  It then repeats this maneuver a few
times, with small rocking oscillations (apparently about a
horizontal axis at right angles to the direction of motion; circa
4 cps) superimposed at various times.

The trajectory is arced somewhat, with its lowest point being
approximately where it stops and hovers before retreating back to
the left.  The fairly small curvature of the arc implies, if it
were a suspended model, an estimated suspension length of some 50
model widths (or a pendulum period of some 10 seconds for a model
of 1-foot width).  However, unlike a simple pendulum motion, it's
missing the right-hand halves of the pendulum oscillations.  Most
impressive therefore is the fact that on its repeated maneuvers
the UFO, when coming to a speedy hovering halt, or when suddenly
accelerating back towards the left, does so without executing any
random oscillations suggestive of the suspension point having
been moved.

Also impressive is the absence of wind-induced motions while it
is hovering perfectly still.  Any model suspended by a long
string could not have been hovering motionless in a breeze in
excess of 10mph, but would instead be bouncing up and down
somewhat as well as rocking about different horizontal axes, and
also twisting about the vertical axis.  However, the lack of high
resolution of the video of the copy of the film permits the lack
of twisting to be deduced only for the two or three occasions
when one or two white light beams flashed out from the UFO.  The
light beams appeared to be columnated and can be viewed for a
short distance away from the UFO; they did not sweep out
oscillatory paths during the brief periods they were turned on as
they would if the object had been twisting about on a string. Of
course, the existence of the lights themselves is quite
impressive in ruling against the possibility of a model.  All in
all, one sees why no anti-Meier fan has attempted to duplicate
such a series of maneuvers while filming a suspended model UFO on
a windy day.

The impression an open-minded skeptic could gain is that the
pilot of the UFO was saying: "We've followed a trajectory that
could look like half of a repeated pendulum motion if a 25-meter
pole suspending a model were being cleverly maneuvered around,
and we've added in a rocking motion to make it seem like it was a
model with a particular moment of inertia.  All this while
staying mostly within the field of view of Meier's movie camera.
That should satisfy the negative skeptics and ensure that our
actions here will not cause the whole UFO coverup to come
unraveled prematurely.  Now, however, let's see if any thinking
ufologist will eventually notice that we accelerated rapidly
without any subsequent jerks and similarly stopped smoothly,
hovered motionless, and turned on a couple of our columnated
lights."

Would you or another on this list be interested in looking into
it more quantitatively than I can do with my old VCR and with no
means of computerizing it?  The film sequence is in the
"Beamship: The Movie Footage" video that Genesis III has
available. I mean, what else have you to do now that you've
looked carefully into the Mexico City video?  :) An additional
qualification you'd need is the ability to withstand the heat
upon investigating a politically-incorrect topic.  The one
advantage the Meier film has over the Mexico City video is that
Meier's movie-film camera was mounted on a fixed tripod.  Another
might be considered to be the knowledge, from swirled-grass
landing traces, that the UFO's diameter was about 7 meters.

  Jim Deardorff

"Truth is sometimes painful, but is necessary and critical if we
are ever to achieve full understanding."