Re: Mexico City UFO Video: Real Or Hoaxed? Date: 97-10-31 03:04:03 EST From: bcornet@monmouth.com (Bruce Cornet) Dear Lisa, You wrote: "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." Bryan Williams (Sargel18@aol.com) also came up with similar pixel results from computer enhancement of the Mexican video, and thinks the image he analyzed is fake. You said: "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." Absolutely! Yes indeed, Many 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. But consider this: If there is a faction out there who wants the best UFO pictures to be dismissed as hoaxes, and I think you will agree that such forces are at work, then why wouldn't they concoct a faked version of an authentic picture with the intention of having it "discovered"? How easy it would be to take an original image off a computer, photograph, or video, modify the target image on a computer by resizing it back and forth to produce alteration of pixel size, and then re-insert it back into the original image with its telltale signs of computer manipulation. The Graham Bethune images, for example, which were first released in 1992-93, I think, could have gone through a similar process, with the "faked" image released years later (1996 or 1997) after the originals had been widely circulated. The faked image shows upon simple kindergarten enhancement a studio background. Were the hoaxers that sloppy? That's like a bank robber accidentally dropping his wallet as he rushes out of the bank. Perhaps someone even went to the trouble of building a look-a-like model and suspending it in a studio to make the fake. Some people think that is what happened to some of Billy Meier's infamous pictures - they were faked later in order to cast doubt on all of Meier's material. Questions, questions, so many questions. There are several key ingredients to an authentic image: 1) the person who took the pictures and/or video identifies him/herself, 2) the images with clear indication of hoaxing come to light well after the originals become known, and 3) the alleged fakes are but a small percentage of the unfaked images (i.e. the ones which show no clear indication of being hoaxed) and can be distinguished from them. If all three key ingredients are met, then the burdon of proof that the originals are all fakes must fall on the hoaxer. Come on photo Doug and Dave, step forward! Faked images can be just as easily considered postfacto faked to throw off investigators as they can be an original that just happened to slip past the quality control inspectors on "project hoax". In the case of the Bethune photographs, the photographer remains anonymous. In the case of the Mexican video, the cameraperson remains anonymous. In both of these cases one of the key ingredients to an authentic sighting is missing. Consequently, so long as the Mexican video has an anonymous source, its authenticity must be questioned. Your research and investigation are commended. We have to be willing to throw out possible authentic material if the person providing it won't step forward, in order to make it more difficult for hoaxers to get away with these stupid low IQ forgeries. Yours truly, Bruce Cornet, Ph.D. bcornet@monmouth.com http://www.OrionWorks.com/bcornet/ http://www.planetarymysteries.com/genisis-geneset.html ---------- > From: Perry"MaN in Space" > To: ufo_alien_research@coollist.com > Subject: FW: Mexico City UFO Video: Real Or Hoaxed? > Date: Wednesday, October 29, 1997 8:38 PM > Mexico City UFO Video: Real Or Hoaxed? by Liz Edwards 10-25-97 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 Sightings.com 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 Sightings.com. 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. [ SEE ATTACHED PICTURE ] 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 ****END FORWARDED MESSAGE**** Regards Perry "MaN in Space" ________________________________ UFO AND ALIEN RESEARCH http://www.Earthcorp.com/AlienResearch "Truth is often stranger then fiction" ________________________________