Clear Daylight UFO witnessed by Mexico City, predicted by Maya Calendar

[A51Watcher]

For those of you not aware of this case, until one comes down out of the sky and lands on your front lawn, this is as good as it gets.   

A clear daylight sighting of a silver shiny flying saucer videotaped, photographed and seen by hundreds.

I was glad to see someone recently put this up on youtube, so I don't have the hassle of the analog/digital transfer I was getting ready to do.

The soundtrack is pretty cheesy for my taste, I would have used something like the "Jaws" soundtrack, but oh well. 

This sighting was videotaped by SEVENTEEN different people (that were known at the time) and are presented here in 3 parts:
































(These first 3 parts focus on the solar eclipse sightings, you can find the remaining parts under 'Messengers of Destiny' on YouTube.)

[A51Watcher]

Back when I first posted this on 'that other site' I was of course beset by all manner of spookz, trolls and debunkers, the primary argument being that this was of course Venus everyone saw. 

and so... I took the time (even using their own 'evidence') to demonstrate why this was not the case -

...



Venus???... (looks around for hidden camera) this is like candid camera right?

There is no way somebody is -seriously- trying to float Venus as the culprit here right?

Ummm.... Since when has Venus -ever- looked liked this:



got any examples?


And since when does Venus fly through the daytime sky against the clouds?

   


(Sorry have to watch the video to see that action.)


   

[A51Watcher]

In looking at the linked "Astronomer page" posted as alleged refutation,

http://home.comcast.net/~tprinty/UFO/mexico.htm

among all the text I see only -one- picture:





How odd. Notice how it doesn't look anything like -any- of the stills from these videos.

Even better, could we please get a video of Venus that looks like these do?


Thanks   

(p.s. one that moves against the clouds would be nice too)

[A51Watcher]

... and how do you manage to all be videotaping Venus, when you are all facing different directions while filming?





Just a few questions from the Venus skeptic   


 

[A51Watcher]

Ok this should be an easy one really... everyone has cameras and movie taking capability these days...

so please go outside and take some footage of Venus that looks and behaves like these do, and then post it.


Thanks   

[A51Watcher]

Here you go.
Take a few frames of this video and blow them up massively to the same size as the ones you posted (taking into account the poor video quality of 1991 cameras).   Its the same.
Secondly, look how Venus flies past the tree.   wow!



Edit - even better example of venus in the daytime that looks like the Mexican thing...




Now I've got a question for you.    Since many amateur astronomers saw Venus at that time in the sky, and software also shows it was at that location at that time, why is it that NONE of the people who saw a Venus-like UFO in that part of the sky at that time happened to see Venus?

Oh is that right? Well now, I went to your linked video, and to my surprise... - it looks and appears nothing like the above videos, it just looks like Venus.






I even blew up stills as you suggested:





wow, still nothing like the above videos, just looks like Venus. 

even better example of venus in the daytime that looks like the Mexican thing...

And so this is supposed to be even better?? Again, here is your 2nd linked "better":





"wow" once again, -nothing- like the above videos.   


So now let's examine all these "great" "conclusive" explanations:






So what happened to your supposed 'Here you go'??...

and "Take a few frames of this video and blow them up massively to the same size as the ones you posted... Its the same."

Well obviously it's NOT.


Now we move on to watching the actual videos -in action- and the difference is even MORE obvious.

I appreciate your attempt to provide what I asked for, but it has failed rather miserably.


Everybody wants to just post a link to some page and act like it's case closed. As we can see from the above "comparisons", all these allegedly "solid" refutations are a complete joke!

And as for your "wow" flying video, it is -again- nothing like the above videos.

P.S. It would be nice if you answered my question that you ignored earlier.

It would be nice if you would have not ignored the answer already given, previous to your question even being posted.

"how do you manage to all be videotaping Venus, when you are all facing different directions while filming?"

[A51Watcher]

Easy peasy.
Because they were NOT facing different directions while filming. You're lying.

Some quotes...
Video 1. 14:11 "object hovering below the vanishing sun"
Video 2. 1:31 "17 different people, in different quadrants of the city, videotaped an object hovering below the great eclipse"
Video 2. 3:33 "the UFO had positioned itself below the eclipsing sun"


It didnt fly either. Just like Venus, it stayed in place.
Video 1. 6:46 "a shimmering, stationary object"
Video 1. 8:11 "and the hovering object still remains in place"
Video 1. 8:37 "this indicates that the UFO.. remained stationary.. for at least 20 minutes."
Video 2. 2:05 "the object... was seen in place for a duration of 30 minutes"
Video 2. 6:13 "it seems to be hovering... its just standing there"
Video 3. 1:05 "same configuration... same attitude. Just hovering there."


So, we have a stationary bright object positioned below the eclipse. Just like Venus.



P.S.  Twice now you've avoided answering the question about nobody seeing the actual planet venus that was there at that place in the sky on that day at that time.

As shown by actual pictures (not text) in my previous reply(s), it is -not- "Just like Venus".

In fact it is -not even close-.

But you choose to breeze right by that entire page of proof, along with the entire page of points I made (miss those somehow?) and instead now move on to something else and complain about how some final question was not supposedly answered. You think your points are somehow more important than mine? Sorry, skipping to the bottom and trying to move on to points you think you might have better luck with, doesn't work with me.

Seriously, I would have an easier time buying the weather balloon explanation than this "Venus" nonsense.

If you, and anyone else who watches these videos think they are seeing Venus, then good luck to you, I respectfully disagree.

And speaking of respect:

Because they were NOT facing different directions while filming. You're lying.

That and the 7 citations following it have -no- associated direction information, only height.

Oh and the 'external image' link you included leads to no photo, only a animation still.

Also you conveniently continue to ignore the video of it actually moving at one point.

And finally, the "You're lying" bit, calling me a liar is the last resort of someone desperate with no where else left to turn.

How about "They are lying" instead, since I was not the one filming these videos.


And finally, may I ask, (besides ignoring points you don't like) about that tactic of yours of insulting total strangers by calling them a liar, then demanding answers from them... how is that workin out for ya?      

In my book, such people "don't deserve the time of day".

[A51Watcher]

post by Pimander -

Well, we're going to disagree on this one because I see blobby highly pixelated white blurry unresolved mess with compression and video artifacts in both of them. In neither case is it possible to make out any distinctive features.

What I see is that the distinctive feature is that it doesn't look much like Venus. 

[A51Watcher]

A61watcher, I wouldn't bother wasting your time with these people. They are either going to try to debuk anything outside their marrow and lomited view of the world, or purposefully deny things. They are not yet ready for such things. Give them time and it sinks into them eventually. By trying to reason with them only entrenches them in their silliness.

I understand your feeling on this matter, because obviously we have some rather rude chaps on here who can't keep a civil tongue in their head while trying to make a point.

It's too bad they could not have used a modicum of manners and decorum because discussions from both points of view help bring a wider understanding of any subject for all readers of this forum.

And while I am a big fan and participant of humor and sarcasm, there is no call for rude comments, in fact such behavior is actively discouraged by this site.

And so we will just ignore such ill-bred people with no manners who have not learned the art of civilized public debate and make such comments as:

"That's pathetic." 

and

"You're lying"


and instead continue the discussion without them.


Let's examine the allegation that:

"What you see are camera artifacts that result from freezing the frame of a 1980s era consumer level VHS camcorder and blowing it up far beyond any useful magnification."

Ok fine by me, let's examine the evidence with NO zoom factor at all and compare it to Venus.

Even though the zoom idea was suggested by him, he didn't seem too pleased with the results and instead wanted to move on to something else.

So let's begin by comparing images from Mexico with NO zoom, with visible reference points to show there is no zoom involved.

Here is film # 1 by the family, with pictures that have a visible chain of custody that anyone can follow along with for themselves to see that there is no zoom involved.
















and we will then use this as example # 1 from Mexico.

Next we have film # 2 by the student, with pictures that also have a visible chain of custody that anyone can follow along with for themselves to see that there is no zoom involved:









and we will then use this picture as example # 2 from Mexico.

Now let's examine the linked video's provided as "proof" this has to be Venus:








oh, wait a minute!... The title of this linked video that was provided actually says on the video "(Part 2)" where by now the photographer has already zoomed!

So let's instead - go back and take a look at -Part 1- I found where the video is not zoomed yet:








Oh my... I'm not seeing any Venus -at all- at this point!

I guess we will have to follow along with the photographer as he zooms in:




Hmm... still nothing yet...




Oh dear... -still- no sign of Venus...




Wait!... I think I see a speck of light!!! Wow! -At last- we finally see Venus! Even though this is magnified by unknown factor of several orders at this point, we at least (sort of) have something to use for comparison, even though this was intended to be a comparison with NO zoom involved. We will use this pic as example Exhibit A.









Which sadly has no visible chain of custody, but does appear to be already zoomed, since we can now see Venus at this point.

We will use this as example Exhibit B.

So now lets compare our 2 objects of known size with those 2 of questionable original size:





Oh dear... this is not looking good for Venus so far. Comparisons of NO zoom pictures seem show to quite a considerable size difference now don't they.

Let's give each a 2x zoom and see what observations can be made:




and now 4x:




and 8x:




Oh dear, Venus seems to have flown into near earth orbit for the day!

And finally we add in the other two films taken from Mexico for comparison:




And here is a photo from the camera that couldn't see Venus in the NO zoom mode, but in it's full zoom mode is now reporting zoom at 800x, and here is the result:




Think what the Mexico photos would look like at 800x !!

(Also note their elliptical shape is vertical instead of horizontal like all the Mexico films.)


So with the Mexico photos we must be looking at a much closer object.

Now as to the angle of filming:




If everyone filming were pointing millions of miles away, they of course would all be facing in the same direction.

However if our object was much closer, and say a few thousand feet up, everyone would be filming from different angles:




And this is what was reported by all the photographers who were interviewed, and showed where they took the film and from what angle. The producers then made this graphic to show the locations of filming... AND the location of the object, shown moving from east to west:








So unless all the photographers and the producers were 'lying'... we have a slowly moving object filmed from different angles. It's reported close proximity is confirmed by our previous size comparison data.


Is there any evidence to support this? Let's examine lighting and shadow.

Note the lighting and shadow of the adjustment knob on the telescope, and compare it to the same on the Mexico Pictures:



Also note the shadow is at different angles on the objects, how can that be?

Also I don't recall any of the Venus pictures having light and shadow, instead they are of a SOURCE of light.


So now we have demonstrated a vast size differential, indicative of a nearby object, as testified to by witnesses, and also a filming direction differential, also testified to, and also a 3-D lighting and shadow differential, which Venus does not have.

Obviously, Venus is NOT the culprit here.


As always, I welcome civilized questions and comments.   

Cheers!

[Amaterasu]

Good work A51!  Those silly shills.

[deuem]

And since when does Venus fly through the daytime sky against the clouds?

   

Seeing how you put so much time into this the least I could do is to give you a photo for your scrapbook.
Before I forget, the like your new Avatar.

So from the photo above. Your first Deuem work up. Hope you like it.
I did nickname this photo Venus. It is not Venus.


The UFO

As you can see the Fields still show through regardless of the quality of the photo. The better the quality the better the results. But they are there and very different from the surroundings. It also looks like it is moving from 2 O'clock to 8 O'clock.  Not viewing the video, is that right or wrong?  There seems to be a wake to the right like a boat would leave.  On the print you see I marked it with the balloon process. No I don't think this is a balloon, It is just the name given to that process because the original is now 4 and this one was altered to show different colors and balloons better. ( maybe I should change that name ) The original is called Night. Then I have Mixed and daytime. I ran all 4 on this photo but balloons came out the best.



This is Venus,
The planet, daytime, grabbed off the net for comparison.
So you can compare with Deuem the planet vs your Object if you wish.  It started with the cleanest photo of a daytime Venus shot found on Yahoo. When I do comparison work like this is when the fun starts.

Enjoy,
Deuem

[A51Watcher]

Hey D thanks a lot for doing those! 

Very interesting. You will see why in a moment.


Here are a few items that will of special interest just for you -

In the OP there are 3 video clips.

In the second video take a look at the footage at 00:42. The craft is 'popping' different colors in a strobing manner.


In the third video take a look at the footage starting at 04:35. That gent also has some comments about the images you may find of interest.

It appears both of the above clips are right up your alley.

That is why I chose 'very interesting' as my comment in the beginning of this reply. 


Cheers

[A51Watcher]

Good work A51!  Those silly shills.

Silly wabbits. Bogus explanation trix are for kids! 

[A51Watcher]

In video 2 two at 03:19 we see footage where the craft appears to be disturbing the air around it in an odd manner.

[The Seeker]

Excellent work, my friend; it is so sad that you have to deal with all the pseudo-skepti-poop that always get shoveled attempting to bury any good footage; I gave up trying to have a reasonable, logical explanation or discussion over at spookzville because of this plethora of bovine feces...

I remember your thread, was quite impressed then, and still think it is very good reporting of an excellent example of  "unidentified, flying, object."




seeker