- PRELIMINARY DISCUSSION ----***TO BE REVISED
AS NECESSARY***
-
- THIS IS BASED ON ANALYSIS OF A VIDEO
COPY (originating source unknown)
-
- The copy includes the direct video, a
1.6x blowup negative video (sky is dark, UFO appears bright against sky)
and a 7x blowup.
-
- The video begins with a "wide angle"
shot and immediately zooms in. Once zoomed in it stays that way. The wide
angle shot shows numerous nearby buildings. They appear dark against the
sky background. What seem to be distant structures are faint in the haze,
i.e., they have low contrast with the sky, as expected from atmospheric
extinction. The atmospheric extinction coefficient could be estimated
from assumed intrinsic brightness of the buildings if the distances were
known. This coefficient is probably given in meteorological reports for
the time (the "visibility" or "visibility distance").
This could be important in determining the intrinsic brightness of the
UFO, assuming it is a real object at some distance. I do not know the distances
of buildings in the pictures but something like thousands of feet to a
mile or so seems more reasonable than, say, 3 to five miles. There are
enough structures in the background so that using parallax one should be
able to locate ths position of the videographer.
-
- The UFO is generally well centered. The
camera jiggle is obvious and looks as one would expect for a hand held
camera. The jiggle is much more noticeable after zoom. Once the UFO starts
to move to the right the camera pans with it, jiggling as it goes. The
UFO motion seems to be at about a constant rate and so is the pan motion.
After the UFO disappears behind the second building the camera sighting
direction continues to move to the right as if the videographer expects
to see the UFO appear from behind the second building, which would be logical
based on the previous continuous motion.
-
- The UFO is initially stationary but obviously
tilting back and forth or wobbling at a constantrate. A 7x video blowup
shows left-to-right motion of diffuse (edges not sharp) darker areas or
dark spots which seem to be on the rim of the UFO. If these are fixed to
the surface, then they suggest, but do not prove, rotational motion, counter-clockwise
as seen from above. (The dark spots could be "moving" left to
right on a non-rotating UFO, thereby giving the impression of motion just
as changing light patterns in an electronic sign can give the impression
of motion.) I would have to say that the way these appear at the left edge
of the UFO and then move to the right is not exactly what I would expect
if the spots were fixed with respect to the surface of the UFO. However,
the "funny appearance" of the dark spots as they appear and move
may be a result of the atmospheric haze (causing low contrast) plus the
artifacts of electronic 7x zoom (these features would be very small, almost
invisible, in the un-electronic zoomed images). there more be more clarity
in the original video. Aside from the "funny appearance," the
combination of the motion of the dark spots and the wobble certainly gives
a good impression of rotation with wobble or "precession" (see
below). An estimate of the rate of the assumed rotation, as based on
the motion of the black spots, is 6 to 7 seconds per revolution (about
0.16 rev/sec or 1.0 rad/sec). In other words, it is not spinning rapidly.
The wobble requires about 2 sec to complete a cycle (0.5 rev/sec or 3
rad/sec).
-
- After remaining stationary for several
seconds the UFO then "instantaneously" accelerates (see below)
to a constant velocity which takes it to the right on an upward sloping
path. It seems to pass behind the upper left corner of one building and
then, because of its upward trajectory it appears above the building. Frame
by frame analysis of both the disappearance and the reappearance show consistent
"cutting away" of the image, as if it were a real object moving
slowly out of view behind the building and then reappearing from behind
the building. After reappearance it continues its steady right hand upward
motion and wobble. If moves toward a second, higher building. It disappears
for good behind the second building.
-
- After the initial camera zoom the UFO
image on a 14" diag monitor is about 25 mm wide and about 7 mm high.
Since I don't know the effective focal length of the camera lens I can
only hazard a guess that the angular size might be on the order of 1/2
to 1 degree. Just before it disappears the second and final time the
UFO image length is 20 mm. This suggests that it was about 25% farther
from the camera when it went out of sight.
-
- The first nearby building that the UFO
goes "behind" - or appears to go behind - has some square windows
5 mm on a side on the monitor. Hence the UFO initially appears to be about
5 times larger than these windows. If, for example, the window were 5 ft
wide, then the UFO was more than 25 ft in diameter (assumed round, but
there is no proof of this - no "top view" or "bottom view").
assuming it was as it appears, farther away than the building. All further
dimensions are scaled according to this assumption, lacking any further
information. The UFO was apparently farther away than the building, perhaps
as much as twice as far, but not very much farther because it would have
been barely visible in the the smog/haze. The UFO image has areas that
are darker than the sky background, an important factor discussed below.
If the UFO were miles away it would "fade into" the haze and
the dark areas would not be as obvious as they are.
-
- If the UFO were twice as far as the building,
then it would be about 50 ft in diameter, assuming as before that the square
windows are 5 ft wide.
-
- I have studied the UFO acceleration by
plotting the position of the right end of the UFO image relative to the
building it (seems to ) disappear behind. For several seconds the spacing
is constant with fluctuations (83-85 mm on the monitor). Fluctuations in
the spacing are a result of the continual wobble of the UFO combined with
the frame-by-frame fluctuations in the image shape and "edge fuzziness",
a phenomenon caused most likely by electronic noise in the video camera.
Then, suddenly, there is motion to the right (toward the building). The
abrupt change from stationary to moving is noticeable to the naked eye
when running the video forward (in time). The UFO image is seen to suddenly
start moving to the right, what seems to be an "inertia-less"
(instantaneous) onset of motion, with what appears to be a constant velocity.
-
- When viewed in reverse, the UFO is moving
constantly to the left and appears to suddenly stop, as if hitting an invisible
brick wall. (Crash dummies inside?)
-
- The left edge of the building is sufficiently
sharply focused in the 1.6X blowup video negative (sky dark) to allow reasonably
accurate (to within 1 mm on the monitor) measurements of the spacing between
the left end of the UFO image and the image of the edge of the building.
This method allows for measurement of the UFO motion irrespective of the
camera jiggle, i.e., by using the building as a reference the camera jiggle
is essentially removed. (It still has the effect of smearing the edges
of the images slightly.) A graph of spacing vs frame number shows the following
odd result: in one (or less than 1) or at most 2 frames the UFO achieves
its full foward speed. There appears to be no swinging as one would expect
for a model hanging on a string. Also, the rotation and wobble (precession)
do not appear to be affected by the onset of motion. (More precise analysis
using the original video may turn up some slight changes in the rotation
and wobble.) Using the estimate of the UFO being 25 ft in diameter, the
steady speed to the right corresponds to about 16.9 ft/sec or about 11.5
mph. This would be doubled if the UFO were twice as far away (and changed
in proportion to the assumed UFO size and distance scale). If it achieved
this 16.9 ft/sec speed in 1 frame, 1/30 sec, then it achieved an acceleration
of about 16 "g's" (16 times the 32 ft/sec^2 acceleration of gravity).
If in two frames, then 8 g's. This sort of acceleration would be enough
to cause wobble in any model hanging on a string. This acceleration, since
it seems to cause no effect to the "normal" wobble and rotation
of the UFO must be acting through its "center of mass" (else,
there would a torque or twisting motion that would change the wobble in
some way). If the UFO weighed 1 pound and accelerated in 1/30 sec, then
the force applied would be 16 pounds. If it weighed 1 ton (2,000 lbs) the
accelerating force would be the equivalent of the weight of 16 tons.
-
- NOTE: THESE SPECIFIC NUMBERS ARE ONLY
ROUGH ESTIMATES TO GET "IN THE BALLPARK". THE ACTUAL VALUES
DEPEND UPON DIMENSIONS WHICH ARE PRESENTLY ONLY GUESSED AT.
-
- CONSIDERING THE HOAX HYPOTHESIS:
-
- In general there are three possibilities:
a hoax, a misidentification or the "real thing" (a True UFO -
unexplainable as conventional a phenomenon). The possibility of a misidentification
seems unlikely because of the shape. Even if one could prove that there
was a 25 - 50 foot blimp with a gondola on top that was hovering and rocking
so that the front and rear ends alternately went up and down (but not rotating)
and having dark areas moving long the side near toward the camera, this
would not explain the "instantaneous" acceleration. That leaves
only the hoax or the real thing.
-
- Factors to be considered and their relevance
to the hoax hypothesis are: 1. The presumed hoax must either use a model
of some sort or it is an electronic construction
-
- 1a. If a model, then it is not likely
a full sized model at a great distance (thousands of feet, beyond the buildings)
from the camera (rotating, wobbling, accelerating), but more likely a small
model within a room where the video was shot. Therefore reject the full
sized model hypothesis. (However, it is to be noted that this is the only
method that could potentially create witnesses to the "UFO" who
were not associated with the hoax.)
-
- MEXICO CITY VIDEO ANALYSIS PRELIMINARY
DISCUSSION PART TWO
-
- I have discovered new and significant
information from my continued study of the video. Before I present it
I would like to point out that I am working from a video copy made from
a tape that was received over the "airwaves" by a person in Mexico
City. Therefore it is not as clear as the original. In fact, the pictures
in the just-published November issue of the MUFON Journal are clearer.
Hence I many hope for yet further information when I get a "perfect"
copy of the video.
-
- Those of you who subscribe to the MUFON
Journal will see printed therein information that was circulated in the
network over a month ago (Bill Hamilton's initial report of Oct 1 on UFO
Updates and a report from UFO Roundup of Oct. 12).
-
- Further analysis of the video shows that
the zoom factor is about 4. This is low for the typical videocamera. Probably
the camera was partly zoomed before the first video images. I assume it
was zoomed to maximum. This has bearing on the focal length and on the
field of view and on the hoax hypotheses discussed in the first part of
this analysis.
-
- The UFO appears on video for 23 seconds.
The video continues for another 11 seconds after it disappears behind
the second building. At the beginning of the video the UFO is stationary
for about 8 seconds before moving to the right.
-
- Further checks of the wobble rate confirm
that the wobble cycle is approximately 2.2 (+/- 0.2) sec/wobble, or about
(1/2) wobble per second. A further check of the rotation rate confirms
the roughly 0.16 cycles/sec. or about 6 sec per revolution cited previously.
-
- Bill Hamilton wrote that the rotation
rate was once per second, but I don't think this is correct. The moving
dark spots are what give the impression of rotation.
-
- I measured the number of frames it takes
for a spot to move 0.2 times the length (diameter) of the (assumed circular)
disc image.
-
- This motion was measured at the center
of the disc image and so corresponds to an angle (relative to the center
of the disc) of 0.2 radians (almost exactly). This measurement was difficult
to make because the dark spots were so diffuse (could do better with a
better copy of the video blowup). However, I found that it requires 5
to 7 frames for a spot to move 0.2 rad. Picking 6 frames as an average
number, this means 0.2 rad per (6/30 sec) or 0.2 rad / (1/5 sec) = 1.0
rad/sec. But there are 2 pi = 6.28 (approximately) radians in a revolution,
so it requires 6.28 second per revolution. The inverse of this is 0.16
revolutions per second, which is the value given in the first part of this
analysis (but without justification).
-
- The UFO's horizontal motion relative
to the left hand edge of the first building was discussed in the first
part of this analysis. The velocity was found to be constant to a good
degree of accuracy as long as the UFO was visible. After the UFO reappeared
above the first building and traveled in a level trajectory toward the
second it slowed down. Just before it disappeared it was going about 0.6
times as fast as the initial horizontal speed. The measurements suggest
some slight oscillation in the speed, but higher resolution will be necessary
to prove this.
-
- Careful measurements of the image size
using the negative image format (sky dark) and adjusting the brightness
so that the UFO is just "above" visible, I find that the initial
length on this 1.6x blowup is 38 mm. While above the center of the first
building it's length is about 40 mm, suggesting that it got closer. Then,
just before disappearing its length is 33 mm long indicating that it moved
away.
-
- A study of the image brightness has revealed
significant information which is consistent with the above image size measurements.
By setting brightness levels appropriately I determined that the image
brightness is lowest (greatest contrast against the bright sky) when the
UFO is over the first building. The image brightness is slightly higher
(slightly less contrast) before the UFO moves behind the first building.
Then, of particular significance, is the fact that as it moves toward
the second building the contrast decreases (image brightens) continually
until it disappears.
-
- The significance of the image brightness
changing (image contrast changing) is based on the haze effect or atmospheric
"extinction." The farther an object moves away into a bright
sky background with haze, the brighter it appears, eventually at some distance
reaching the brightness of the sky background, at which distance it "disappears"
because there is no longer any contrast between it and the background.
For example, a black sphere that moves away from the observer will grow
smaller but it will also increase in brightness. The increase in brightness
is a result of light scattered by haze particles or dust or air molecules
into the path of the light from the sphere to the observer. In this case
we have an object, the UFO, which is not as bright as the sky background.
When first seen it has some brightness level and contrast to the sky
and a size measurement of about 38 mm. Then a few seconds later it's
brightness is lower (and contrast is greater) and the image size is greater,
both of which are consistent with the UFO moving closer to the camera (about
5% closer). Then as it moves to the right the brightness increases as
the size decreases (by about 18%) indicating the object started moving
away from the camera before it disappeared behind the building. In
fact, it appears to have initiated a curved path away from the camera
just before it disappeared behind the building. One may imagine that,
if this not a VERY clever hoax, the UFO never appeared on the right side
of the second building because it had made a "left turn" (but
not at East Gate) and disappeared in the distance.
-
- THIS IS A PRELIMINARY ANALYSIS. SOME
NUMBERS (maybe all numbers) QUOTED HERE MAY CHANGE AS A RESULT OF INFORMATION
OBTAINED IN THE FUTURE.
-
- The only conclusion possible so far is
that if this is a hoax...... then we should all turn left and disappear
into the haze..... (where is that East Gate when we need it?)
|
Homepage