Re: Mexico City Aug. 6, 1997 Stabilized Video -
From: Bruce Maccabee <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: Wed, 25 Sep 2002 10:31:21 -0400
Fwd Date: Wed, 25 Sep 2002 18:07:26 -0400
Subject: Re: Mexico City Aug. 6, 1997 Stabilized Video -
>From: Tom King <email@example.com>
>Date: Mon, 23 Sep 2002 23:08:05 +0000
>Subject: Mexico City Aug. 6, 1997 Stabilized Video
>I know its been covered before but, I'd like you to look at
>Download the August 6, 1997 video that has the building
>stablized. I did this process a few years back. When watching
>the clip you'll notice that when the saucer rotates next to the
>building it pops up and down quickly. Basically hopping up
>and down rapidly. This is hard to notice with the orginal clip.
>Deconstructing the video I find it hard to believe this is
>merely a screw-up made by the 'video animator' placing the
>object into a composite shot. The up and down jerking could be a
>screw-up, but why only up and down? If the animator didn't
>place the object properly in the video, it should have the
>same jerking effect, left, right and diagonally, but it
>I know Jeff Sanio dismissed the entire event because of a couple
>of out-of-focus stills with the saucer and the building. I saw
>those stills when I hand stabilized the video. I noticed the
>background was also out of focus along with the saucer and it
>didn't seem out of place. However I dismissed Jeff's analysis as
>being mistaken since he didn't explain the eyewitnesses.
>Take a look yourself and make your own conclusions.
Sainio also made a stabilized video, back in 1998.
It wasn't a problem with focus that Sainio discovered, it was a
problem of "differential image smear". Specifically, the UFO
image was never or almost never smeared by random camera motion
while the building edges were almost always smeared, at least a
Sainio looked at the differential smear throughout the whole
video and found that, on the average, the building images were
smeared more than the UFO image. There are a couple of frames
near the beginning where the differential smear is obvious: the
edge of the building and the small wind sock on top of the
building (yes, windsocks on the buildings) are very blurred but
the UFO image is not. This occurs as the UFO moves toward the
right, approaching the left edge of the first building.
The image of the edge of the building suddenly moves (downward?)
from one frame to the next, blurring the image of the top edge
of the building and the image of the wind sock , while the image
of the UFO (the edges of the image) remain unblurred.
If the UFO were a real object "out there" beyond the building,
this differential blur could occur only if the UFO suddenly
moved with the random motion of the camera in such a way as to
remain at the same location in the field of view of the camera
even though the building image changed its position. That is,
the UFO would have to track the motion of the camera. And this
is in the time of one frame, 1/30 sec. Actually, in less than
the time of one frame the UFO would have had to "jump" downwards
many feet (I don't recall the exact number) and then back up
again in the next frame because there is no differential image
smear in the frame following.
As I recall there wre two frames which show this very obvious
differential smear. But Sainio studied all the frames and found
that the building image smear was almost always greater than the
UFO image smear.
I should point out that Sainio and I spent well over a hundred
hours analyzing that video. It was very interesting and 'looking
good' until he discovered the differential smear.
The differential smear (and also the image jump referred to by
King) introduced an artifact that could not be explained unless
one assumed that the UFO tracked the random hand vibration of
the camera and moved in a rapid, jerky motion just enough to
have its image remain unsmeared throughout the video.
This seemed highly unlikely for the apparently smoothly moving
(and rotating) object and so Sainio and I have considered this
differential smear to be the 'fingerprints of a hoax'.
Of course, we cannot explain the witness reports. We just wonder
if there is really any connection.