Mexico City UFO Video:
Real Or Hoaxed?
by Liz Edwards
UPDATE 11-5-97

One of the key criticisms of my theory on how the video could have been hoaxed revolves around an erroneous concept expressed by Brit Elders in her 11-1-97 "Elders Update On the Mexican UFO Video Analysis" wherein she states:
"If this footage is hoaxed, then sophisticated computers and programs were employed. However, the suggestion that has been posted on this site that the material was first composited then filmed off of a monitor screen is inaccurate. Anyone who has attempted to film a monitor or television knows that the scan lines of the camcorder and the monitor do not sync. This was verified, not only by first hand observance, but by one of our consultants, an engineer with several years experience at NBC."
In response, I received this illuminating email today, 11-5-97, from Joe Murgia <> which corroborates my original contention:
This is correct if you're talking about consumer camcorders. Fortunately or unfortunately, the newer professional models of camcorders (Specifically Sony Betacam) have a feature that lets you, with the flick of a switch, make the scan lines disappear. This is a great feature that videographers have been asking about for years. To verify this, call up Sony and they should be able to confirm this.
Obviously this doesn't help prove the video fake or real but it shows that forgery may have been possible by shooting the video off of a television screen.
I work for the City of Tampa's Government Access Television as a producer/director and have 10 years experience in television. If any of you ever need a videographer/producer/editor for any shoots, email me. I'm very serious about my work and I put out high quality material.
Feel free to contact me for any further information.
Joe Murgia
(Note: I have added A NEW COMPUTER ENHANCEMENT of the Mexico City craft at the bottom of this article. -Liz Edwards)

11-1-97 Statement by Liz Edwards
I wish to thank everyone who has responded to my preliminary analysis and report on the Mexico City UFO video. Your input and thoughts are greatly appreciated. My research is continuing and there will be further postings. I agree with all researchers of good faith: the truth is essential. It is in our best interest to have neither debunking techniques nor UFO fanatacism involved in the formation of our beliefs.
As inhabitants of this beautiful, troubled planet, we need to remain mutually supportive to prevent being seduced by anyone, or any group, who may have the power through finance or high office to try.
At this time, I continue to stand behind my work as posted. Any future discrepancies I find will also be posted, regardless of my own personal findings. What we are told, how we perceive things, and the conclusions we reach are processes which should be surrounded and supported by having ALL possible research information available for everyone to consider. This information should come from as wide a source base as possible.
We are living in fantastic times, fraught with intrigue. Now, more than ever, we need to be aware of not only how we think, but of the effects of our thoughts and statements upon those around us and the public at large. If we are to survive, we must pool every resource in order to continue to grow intellectually, on both a collective and individual basis. Without thorough inquiry and questioning we will be herded mentally into a stuper of ignorance.
My research is not being done for fame or recognition but from a simple desire for the truth to be revealed as expediently and efficiently as possible. We deserve no less than all the relevent and legitimate data in this matter. After that, we are free to think and choose and believe what we want. This is not a case of 'defending' or 'promoting' a piece of video tape; it is a group search for reality.
We must insist on the best and most complete information and analysis available to make our life's decisions, for these decisions not only shape our todays but can lead us into the future with greater understanding, confidence, and inner peace.
Thank you,

Liz Edwards
I Wonder Productions

As an avid investigative researcher and an artist I have a particular interest in the vast realm of the knowledge we are given today and, so, I wonder.
What is real and what isn't? Through the miracle of the computer, limitless visual and sensory horizons have been opened to us. On the other hand, this new genie can also be led to do things that are less than genuine. So effectively, in fact, it is almost to the point now that we are sometimes forced to question what we perceive as 'reality' itself, so seductive to our senses, and analysis-resistant, can some of these computer spawned and enhanced creations be.
Listening to on the radio on Sunday, October 5, with Jeff Rense, I was more than excited when he had longtime UFO researchers Lee & Brit Elders on as guests recently. They have deservedly earned great fame and respect as the key chroniclers of the massive and continuing waves of UFO sightings in Mexico which began during the 1991 solar eclipse as ancient Mayan and Aztec legends had predicted. The Elder's three videos showing but a few hundreds of the thousands of Mexican sightings are landmarks in UFO research.
The big news, of course, was the less than 30 seconds of daylight video of a UFO allegedly taped by an anonymous source in Mexico City on August 6, 1997. The tape made its way into the possession of Mexican researcher-journalist Jaime Maussan who sent a copy to Lee and Brit, with whom he has worked closely for years.
During the show with Jeff, the Elders, and computer analyst Jim Dilettoso, emphasized that nothing from the video would be released until complete computer analysis, from several sources, had been completed. Apparently, Jaime Maussan had other ideas and went on Mexican tv and aired the video to a vast audience South of the border. As you have seen on Jeff's website, at least one person taped the television broadcast and four 'video grabs' from it began appearing on the internet.
Taking one of the freeze frames (ufomex3.jpg) into a program that I use to examine graphics , I was able to enhance the picture. I was able to raise the ufo into be more visible status and with more definition. It was my determination there was nothing corrupt or that had been added to this graphic, and so I happily sent it to Jeff at The picture looked authentic and believable. That enhancement is available for viewing from the linked Headline on the site.
I was so intrigued with these spectacular shots that I didn't stop there, however, and continued to work with the stills of the ufo. I was also spurred on knowing that top scientists were doing their own examinations which further underscored the importance of these pictures.
On October 17, 1997, using my own formula and techniques, it became clear, to me at least, that one of the four pictures appeared to be very different. This particular shot reacted to my experiments in a peculiar way and produced something unusual which set off warning lights. If you look at this enhancement, you see a 'star burst' of pixels. I had no explanation initially but since then have come to a couple of important and compelling conclusions.

A few days after my discovery, the video itself began appearing on the internet offered via a huge download of almost 4 megabytes. Several UFO researchers sent the download to me and were raving about the stunning images in it. And it is an amazing piece of video. As I examined it I wondered who had made it available. When you access the download, there is no identification of the source....the download just starts moving. This also intrigued me as I remembered that Mexican investigator, Jaime Maussan, reported the video had first come to him via "anonymous" sources. As I probed and searched in an effort to identify the source of the internet download, I learned many things.
This is what I now believe has happened. Please realize that this is a preliminary conclusion at this time and my investigation continues. We all want the truth. We deserve the truth...whatever it may be. Moreover, we should NOT be deceived by today's wondrous technology.
1. First of all, we have a film sent anonymously to Jaime Maussan. This alone is highly suspicious. If YOU had taken the greatest daylight video in history, which could result in substantial financial gain, not to mention world notoriety and a place in UFO history...would you turn it over and hide? Would you lurk behind the scenes while others took your work and good fortune and profited and enhanced their reputations? I doubt it.
2. Second, there are the enhanced pictures. You can see some definition in the first one and this has drawn attention to some of the famous Meier photos. The enhanced 'star burst' picture shows detail in pixilation that is questionable, and raises doubt about authenticity.

3. Certainly, the fact that eyewitnesses to the Mexico City daylight video are said to now be available for questioning is a very important factor. However, when one considers that, in a city of over 30 million people, only "10" witnesses have been located so far, more questions are raised. Remember, this is a city which has been the scene of perhaps thousands of UFO sightings since 1991. Further, it is a city in which tens of thousands of Mexicans with camcorders have been taping thousands of these objects both day and night for years. Therefore, one wonders why this huge craft wasn't reported to have been seen by thousands, if not tens of thousands of residents?
4. Fourth. I have been able to discover that the Mexico UFO video download is tagged from an unidentified source site which is owned by a company that is TOPS in the field of 3D COMPUTER GAME PROGRAMMING. This is very strange. I will be talking to this company by phone on Monday morning and will question them about how they got tagged with the video, and why it is being offered from an unidentified source site.
5. Fifth. At this time we are reviewing other UFO photos some of which are similar to some of the famous, or infamous, Billy Meier photos. It has been brought to my attention that they may be the same type craft as the Mexico City image. Extensive comparisons to these other pictures are currently being made and we will be posting them shortly.
Now, here is how I think the Mexico UFO video could have been produced:
1. Take the video footage of Mexico City with the apartment buildings in the foreground. 2. Place that footage into a high-powered state of the art computer game graphics program. 3. Immerse/insert the ufo into the Mexico City scene. 4. Code the graphics program to make the UFO "move". 5. Directly from the computer, copy the now UFO animated scene onto a videotape. 6. Take the tape and play it on a tv. 7. Use a camcorder and record the footage directly off the screen of the tv monitor. And, voila! You have a genuine "UFO video" which would show NO electronic,technical, or graphics discrepancies under subsequent analysis! That is why the Mexico City video has shown no discrepancies!!!!!
I want to repeat, these are only my preliminary findings as of Saturday, evening, 10-25-97. It is up to each of you to consider these issues individually. The main purpose here is that we find the truth. That is what I am trying to do. I would prefer the Mexico City video to be real, but I refuse to be hoaxed by today's technology which is capable of some fantastic feats of deception.
The UFO research community has been scored and ridiculed too many times for its beliefs, and it is dead wrong to assume that all UFO sightings are fakes or erroneous identification of various flying objects and 'natural' phenomena. For the UFO research community to be burdened now with a video that is manufactured but believed to be genuine is something that cannot be accepted or tolerated.
My special thanks to my colleagues Kent Steadman, of Steadman Graphics, for his expertise in so many areas; and to Dave Zidek for his remarkable technical computer support.
Liz Edwards
I Wonder Productions

What is this? This picture almost speaks for itself. During the process of computer enhancement, a very visible double-pixelation on the side of the Mexico City UFO appeared. It is in such a position that it might actually be blocking or covering something underneath it.
If you look closely at my earlier 'Starburst' enhancement of a frame from the video (see above), you can identify this exact same blocking pattern! It is outlined by a perimeter of reddish pixels which 'frame' the area in question which appears blue. In this newest treatment, I have highlighted the 'blocked' area of the UFO in yellow for easier visual indetification.
Important: I'd would also like to note that in none of the 16 Mexico City UFO pictures that I have worked on to date have I used 'embossing' as a technique or enhancement tool at any time during my>analysis. In every single frame - all 16 - the UFO carries this identical, strange dramatic 'block' or covering on it...which just might be there to mask or hide something. But what?
So far, I have not been successful in identifying what might lie underneath this pixel block but its presence raises a great deal of suspicion and speculation. My research continues.

Liz Edwards
I Wonder Productions
From Jim Dilettoso < 12-23-99
Hello Liz Edwards,
I have just come across your analysis of the Mexico City Footage. < HOAX
It is very interesting and commendable that you put the time and effort that you did.
A few things to point out.
1. The footage that you analyzed went through a number of generations of processing.
1. Original footage (1) transfered to make copy(2) for Jaimie Maussan 2. Copy (2) was then edited in the Broadcast master(3) which was aired by Televisa. 3. The Transmission equipment makes a new RF composite signal (4) 4. Transmission signal (4) was then received by some party who recorded it (5)
All of the transfers are done with broadcast equipment which will not only process the time-base of the signal (vertical interval, IRE, color,blanking pulse etc) but process the visual image including contrast, edge definition and luminence.
The resultant image is drastically different from the original image on the videotape that was in the camera.
The recorded image (5) was then digitized, compressed, and placed on the net. Which is apparently the image that you have examined.
As you may know, the process of compression into an AVI, MPEG, or M-JPEG file, deal withs contiunous tone, same color regions in a peculiar way. It creates "blocking".
All methods of DCT (Discrete Cosine Transform) have trouble in quantizing same color areas. Black, blues, grey areas become blocked, particularily in areas near a non-anti-aliased line. Such as the edge of a disk shaped object, against a grey sky.
The point of the story: I believe that you have discovered the nature of the beast of "compressed" video, not a 'smoking gun' proof of a super-imposed image.
I have been involved in image processing and supercomputers since the 1970s. Working on special effects, flight simulators, medical and mining imaging. I have much equipment available as well as expertise 'in-house'.
We examined the vertical interval and time-base of a digital copy of the original video.
There was no evidence that the signal had ever been processed electronically.
If two images were to be 'super-imposed' then the 2 source signals, whether digital or analog, would have been phase aligned and genlocked, the resultant signal would have characteristics of the time-base processing. There is no such evidence of signal processing.
Should you ever be faced with the issue of "testing" images that come to you in compressed form, JPEG included. You should avoid making sweeping conclusions based on the use of PhotoShop or PaintShop effects filters.
No offense intended, I hope none is taken.
Sincerely Yours,
Jim Dilettoso

Email Homepage