Video you probably did not see

[tinu]

@tinu:

Who said the Mexican UFO is fake and on what facts?
I don't know if it's fake or not, and I also do not really care. But I'm curious.
And after a search on the net on this, I found both statements for telling it's fake and telling it's not, but neither of them based on  any usable fact.

So if you do have any valuable information, why this is fake I would be grateful to hear it. As I don't want to spend too much time in search engines, just for my curiosity...

Hi Shanti,

I don’t have any hard evidence as we don’t have a police force to investigate faking UFOs, do we?

I’m not interested in UFOs either. But spent some time on it (time that I deeply regret) and as for the Mexico 1997, there were looong debates and if I recall it right, although the movie was withstanding the first summary analysis, considering that it was:
1. submitted anonymously (ha!);
2. showed to be fake-able by using the video capabilities of that time.
3. having some inconsistencies (technical, logical/trajectory-movement and perspective)
4. incredible few ‘witnesses’ (if anyone real, of course) and no other back-up proofs of any kind.
the general view is the movie is a hoax.
Of course, even if general view is 99.99% or more, there are still plenty of believers.

Here are two links, the second more for putting everything into the right perspective.
http://www.iwonderproductions.com/mexvid.htm
http://www.physics.uc.edu/~sitko/PHYS122/23-TheFringe/23-TheFringe_alt.ppt#256,1,23 - The Fringe

Cheers,
Tinu

[Shanti]

First: Thank you very very much!

1. submitted anonymously (ha!);
2. showed to be fake-able by using the video capabilities of that time.
3. having some inconsistencies (technical, logical/trajectory-movement and perspective)
4. incredible few ‘witnesses’ (if anyone real, of course) and no other back-up proofs of any kind.

1. Well doesn't have to say anything. But surely pushes the credability more into the fake region...
2. Surely no surprise. It's so easy to fake such things, even at that time...
3. Well none of the seemingly inconsistencies really are convincing. But surely it also pushes the credability into the fake region.
4. Well you could also interpret this as pro or contra. At least there are some witnesses. On the other hand, one would expect much much more witnesses if a saucer is such easily visible in a big city...
So this also speaks more for a fake.

5. The quality of the tape is really bad. And bad quality definitely helps in hiding a fake...

So generally. If looked at all points one could say, that from these points more arguments speak for a fake. But as said before there are no definite killing arguments. So it could also be real.

[tinu]

You’re welcome.

Yes, in theory it could be real.
But I think we talk on different points: So could be real the green little men that live under my bed. Yet, if I decide to go public about them, the burden of proof is on me only and not at all on the whole humanity to prove me wrong.

As per above childish example, the burden of proof is on the author of the movie. If he/she disappeared (lets say that the ‘conspiracy’/oil business etc got him/her  ), the burden of proof moves further onto the UFO-logists and onto those promoting the story. No facts/supporting evidences/irrefutable proofs/ were reasonably presented to sustain the story and certainly not in an amount of reasonable time (11 years now!!!) thus everything falls into the fake area because it does not belong to this reality.

It’s like with the physics laws, in particular the 2LoT breaker, that is largely debated these days and comes back from time to time. In theory nobody can say the 2LoT will hold true forever, although it may be well so. In (the same) theory many say it can be broken although the accepted (other) theory says it can not be. Which is the applicable theory? The one based on evidences.
Hence, I’d modify the second line of this post by saying that “it could be real in a hypothetical sense only” and that’s much less than “in theory”, because a 'theory of our cosmos' does not necessarily require the presence of UFOs, hence by applying Occam’s razor, they won’t be included until proven real.

Agree?

Cheers,
Tinu

[Shanti]

LOL

As per above childish example, the burden of proof is on the author of the movie.

Well there I definitely don't go together with you. If somebody observes an effect, then it is certainly not only up to this one, to prove or explain this effect. He would just state: I saw this and this, don't know what it was, but maybe someone is interested or can explain it.
Science often worked this way: Many discoveries were made by other people than the people who could then explain the effect. Famous example: The Photo Effect.

As about the 2nd LoT: The 2nd LoT is purely founded on a statistical argument! But as it is with probability calculations: you never have 100%. So in some cases in can happen, that the law doesn't hold true, although this is very improbable.
The interesting thing here is, that the 2nd LoT almost completely falls apart if viewed on a small molecular level.
Example:
We know, the temperature of a molecule is defined by it's velocity. The temperature of the room is the mean velocity of all the air molecules. Let's assume that all molecules have the same speed (the same temperature). Due to the collisions between the molecules very soon, some will get quite higher speeds (higher temperatures) and some lower speeds (lower temperatures). The room temperature (mean) would remain the same, but on a molecular level, now some molecules have become "hotter" and some "colder", which means that in the volume where currently a fast molecules is, the temperature would be higher, and in a volume, where a slow molecule is, it would be colder.This would actually be against the 2nd LoT. So the 2nd LoT only holds true if there are many many molecules to make a mean. With only a few molecules it will even be more likely that it not holds true. This is nothing else than standard statistics!


Another example:
Due to quantum physics it is theoretically possible, that you suddenly disappear and reappear at a 2m distance. But the probability for this event would be so extremely small, that you would say, it is very unlikely to happen...
But still, there's a chance that it will happen!
The probability to win in a lottery is also quite small. Nevertheless there exist quite some people who have won...

Todays science has got the habit to tell, these events are impossible. And this is what I don't like about it.
They are not impossible, they are just not very likely to happen!

It the same with this video. Like you did in the beginning to tell this is fake is not certain. The statement should rather have been e.g.: Many points speak against the credability of this video.

I think one should be tolerant to the view of others. Especially if it is not even in one's own model certain that one tells the truth!

[tinu]

I agree about being tolerant, although I don’t see the point in discussing UFOs (or even worst: politics) in an OU forum. If somebody wants talking about UFOs, why wouldn’t go out there, in an appropriate place?

I don’t fully agree about photovoltaic effect. It may have been discovered more or less by chance but it was documented and made repeatable. It was verified to be real and that’s exactly why it was later included by Einstein as part of a larger theory. I don’t totally agree with you because I haven’t say the ‘effect’ (or observation etc) had to be understood. I said it has to be proved real, which was not the case with our movie.

I certainly and completely disagree about thermodynamics. The roots of this very powerful science do not come from statistics but from more general considerate, i.e Boyle’s law and steam engines. Classical thermodynamics can not be broken because in its entirety is a logical unity based on the existence of absolute temperature scale. Statistical thermodynamics, which came much later (about half a century since the foundations, as we know them today, were set by Sadi Carnot), not only that confirmed what was already known but exactly because the classical part had to hold true it was possible to develop correct statistical models (distributions) and so to contribute to the advancing of the whole sciences (including thermodynamics itself and also its application into other fields) and to the development of new ones. Maxwell’s demon problem has no solution, no matter at what scale you analyze it and I really don’t understand why so many people feel obliged to throw quantum into the whole discussions when it is not necessary. Really, without ever discussing about the level of knowledge we both possess in quantum mechanics, it is known before quantum grew up (since Heisenbeng principle) that no Maxwell demon will work. Do you think Schrodinger et all  forgot about that because of the math or maybe because of other reason?! Think again.
To make the long story short, that tale about statistical fluctuations, when molecules in a gas ‘decide to have a meeting’ altogether in one compartment, is a just a big empty donut served with a lot of sugar on top of it. Yes, it happens all the time but one never knows what molecules do unless, in order to find it out, he/she expends a lot more energy that the molecules can ever provide. It’s otherwise called statistical noise and that’s why noise rectification is utter nonsense: it is either thermodynamically impossible or you’d have to forget thermometers can exist in our universe.  (2LoT can't be broken without the first one too, given the link between them in the virtue of simple facts of nature).

Sorry for not being very tolerant at the end but so are some of them -the ‘contemporary genius’ around.
Besides, it’s really late here and I have to go check my little green men under the bed. 

I regret, but the video remains fake to me as to the majority of the people on this planet. I wonder why you didn’t react about my views in respect to the second video? Dou you buy the message that Scottish inventors are all stupid? Why not? Because all of your arguments still apply! Oh, I see: you understand the second movie is a joke, case in which I fully agree: if the Mexico UFO movie is not fake, then it is surely a joke.  Deal?

Cheers,
Tinu