Show Notes, Bruce Maccabee, 13.

Listen to podcast here.


Martin Willis: Hi, everyone. I have Dr. Bruce Maccabee on the line. Hi you doing, Bruce?


Bruce Maccabee: I’m doing well, thank you.


Martin: Thanks for joining us, and I’ve seen you in a number of videos, and have looked online, and you have quite a background. Can you tell our listening audience, basically, your background?


Bruce: Well, I graduated from high school, of course, then I went to 10 years of college to get a PhD in physics from American University in Washington, D. C. Then I went to work for The Navy in January of 1972, and stayed there until 2008. 36 years, and –


Martin: Wow! That’s a long run!


Bruce: – Navy experience, yeah, I had no idea that was going to happen. When I started off I though I’d work for The Navy for a few years, and then work for a company, or something, but, anyway, which I did a lot of different research projects for The Navy, but, in the meantime, in the late 60s, while I was getting my PhD, I got interested in the UFO phenomenon, and went on some case investigations with some other people in the late 60s, early 70s, and then, you might say, struck out, on my own in the 70s, and 80, 90s, and even up until today, for example, so I’ve got experience in interviewing people, and creating the history of a sighting, and analysis. I try to do scientific analysis as much as possible. You have to have to have a lot of scientific background of various types in order to handle the UFO subject, anyway. Things like astronomy can be very important, knowing stars and planets and what’s up in the sky, and stuff like that.


Martin: So, you left The Navy in 2008, so you were doing both. Was there ever a conflict, at all?


Bruce: No, the Navy people told me to just leave their name out of it, and they didn’t care what I did on my own time.


Martin: Wow! That’s almost surprising, but that’s great they let you do that. I know analysis is a big part of that. Can you explain? And, just before we go on with that question, I think I heard you say in a video, one time, or maybe at a conference, that photos don’t really matter as much as the witnesses to corroborate the photo. So, can you, kind of, explain what you meant by that, and what’s involved in doing analysis on a typical photo?


Bruce: Well, what I said was a photo a UFO does not make. You got to have a lot of circumstantial evidence. Support the photo. Now, a photo can break a case. There might be some evidence in it that is, clearly, showing it’s a hoax. A little thin line coming out of the top of a UFO, or some sort of support at the bottom, or something like that, but if you find no evidence of faking you could say: well, this is a perfect fake, and then what do you do? I learned this the hard way, you might say, from my study of the Trent Photos, the McMinnville photo. McMinnville, Oregon, May 11th, 1950. Two photographs taken by a farmer. He and his wife saw this thing.


Martin: Oh, yes. That’s right. It’s right by a building, right?


Bruce: Well, you see the garage, their garage, part of the garage in the picture. You see a couple of wires going over the top. You see this: two pictures showing different orientations of this object, and the pictures are clear enough you don’t need magnifying glass to see what the image shape is, and it’s clearly the real thing, or a hoax. There’s no halfway point, so this illustrates the situation. Lots of laboratories have looked at this for the original negatives, and tried to find proof/evidence of a hoax. They haven’t found it, but, you know, they could have been lucky, or they could have been clever. If you consider the problem of string, for example, it has to be a certain thickness. Anything that’s too thin wouldn’t be – would be silhouetted against the background greyish sky. This is a black and white photograph, so the background sky just looks light–colored. If they had been clever and taken a thread that was – that matched the color of the background then you’d never see it, at all, because you’ve got to have contrast in order to see something, and, so I did a lot of study on that particular case in the early – in the middle 70s, because it a – the only one that was, sort of, endorsed by the photographic analyst Dr. William Hartmann, who was working for The Condon Committee as part of what was called the scientific study of unidentified flying objects carried out at The University Of Colorado, ’68, ’69 time frame. Well, Hartmann had said that he concluded, in his summary, that all factors investigated seem to point towards the truth of the claim by the witnesses that they saw an extraordinary flying object pass by. In other words, he was convinced. That was the only case that he thought was – could really be real. As I said, it was either the real thing or a hoax, and he didn’t find any evidence he could point to to prove it was a hoax, but then some people came along and criticized his analysis, and so on. Shaeffer, and Robert Shaeffer, and Philip J. Klass criticized Hartmann’s analysis, partially on photographic grounds, and partially on – Hartmann wasn’t, in a sense, hard enough on the witnesses, I guess you might say. Anyway, I spent many years investigating it from the point–of–view of technical deals of – details of the photography, and the life history of the Trents, and I got testimony from a number of different people who had known the Trents, and so on, and the Trents stayed alive up until 1995. I was interacting with them from 1974, approximately, through 1980, talking to Mrs. Trent many times, and they both died in the middle 90s, and they were maintaining their story right up to the end, they say, and nobody that I know of found any evidence that they would be, whether they’d even think of a hoax of any type at all, saying nothing about a UFO hoax. They were what you might call simple farmers, and had plenty to keep them busy besides making up a model and hanging it on a string, and then, for whatever it was worth, which wasn’t anything, really, they didn’t make any money out of the whole thing.


Martin: Now, there was very similar object was – there’s photos on – in different places in the world. Isn’t that right?


Bruce: Well, there’s only one other case, that I know of, that looks virtually identical. It’s just a slightly different orientation, and that’s the so–called photo taken, supposedly, in Rouen, France by a military – some pilot in a military airplane. That’s the way the story appeared in The Royal Air Force Flying Review and The Flying Saucer Review, two magazines that are published in England. They both mention this photograph. Unfortunately, nobody’s been able to track that photo back to its origin, and nobody did an investigation of it at the time it was published. All we know is that they say it was a photo taken in 1957, and that’s the only one that looks – would be almost identical to the Trent Photos. There have been, of course, lots of other photos of circular-shaped craft, but –


Martin: But this, sort of, had, like, a flat top to it, or looks something like a flat top.


Bruce: Well, that one has a – Trent one has a pole on the top.


Martin: Oh, that’s right. Okay, yes, I remember that, now.


Bruce: It’s up on my website with a long article on it.


Martin: Now, did you ever take a look at the 3 or 4 Polaroid pictures that were taken from the person in the truck? I’m sorry, I don’t have my facts inside the studio.


Bruce: You’re talking about the Heflin Case.


Martin: That’s right, yeah.


Bruce: In ’65, I think that was. I look at it, but it’s most recently been studied by other people, because when I was looking at it, in the 1970s, 80s all I had were copies. In that situation, Rex Heflin said that a few days after he had his photos and they were published in a newspaper some people showed up with military uniforms on, black car, whatever, and requested the – asked if they could borrow the pictures for analysis, and they had already been to the jet propulsion laboratory and to the El Tower Marine Base, I believe, or, at least, to the El Tower Marine Base, and they had been returned, so he gave up these pictures, and then they never returned. His original Polaroids were gone.


Martin: For a long time, but they came back to someone, right?


Bruce: And, they came back in the middle 90s. Some lady called him on the phone and said: why don’t you go out and check your mailbox? And, sure enough, there was an envelope with his pictures in it.


Martin: That is just bizarre, isn’t it?


Bruce: Yeah, I know what you mean.


Martin: Strange circumstances.


Bruce: Make this out to be a, from that point of it, make it out to be a hoax or the real thing, but much more sophisticated analysis has shown that this quite likely that these – this is a real case. Even Fact Or Faked has done some stuff on it, the TV show.


Martin: Oh, really? Yeah?


Bruce: Yeah, and they – their big thing is to make models and try to duplicate the pictures, and so on. One – the biggest criticism against the pictures – the next Heflin took was his last photograph, which doesn’t show an object, but it shows a smoke ring, and it shows the sky, and he had said that the smoke ring picture had been taken with a, I think, within a minute of the disappearance of this object, and he thought the smoke ring had been made by the object, although I’m not sure if he was positive about that, but, at any rate, he took a picture of the smoke ring, and when he took a picture of the smoke ring you could see a lot of structure of clouds in the sky. In his 3 photos of the object, itself, you couldn’t see a structure in the sky, so there was a question: did he really take 4 photos in a short period of time, or was there a period of time when he could be creating a hoax smoke ring, or something, to back up his story about a UFO? And that was a sore point for a long time. Why isn’t there structure in the sky in the first 3 pictures if there’s the structure in the 4th? Turned out the answer was that the camera had an automatic exposure control. When it was in the truck it was not receiving as much light as it was when it was outside the truck to take the thing. He took first 3 pictures when he was inside the truck, and the 4th picture when he was outside truck, so, when he was outside the truck, the exposure meter was giving the correct exposure for the sky, presumably, and then you could see structure, whereas, when he was inside the truck, the exposure meter wasn’t getting enough light, so it was opening up the lens more, or allowing a longer time of exposure exposing the film more, and that tended to lose contrast, and the sky structure was too bright to be accurately photographed. It turned out that, with this more recent analysis, that argument was verified, and so now nobody can claim that Heflin took 3 photos of a model, and then took a – and then minutes or hours later took a photo of a ring. They can argue that he took these four photos within a matter of minutes, at the most.


Martin: Yeah, that’s an interesting one. Now, I know you did a bit of work on The Phoenix Lights. Can you talk about that?


Bruce: Well, a year after The Phoenix Lights Case occured, and you’re talking about March 13th, 1997. I might point out that there have been “Phoenix Lights” for – many times before that in the previous months and years, many times since then, and in April –


Martin: All in the – all in that Phoenix valley, right there.


Bruce: Oh, yeah. A lot of people in the Phoenix area, and the west and the north, and so on, of the City Of Phoenix, but, anyway, in April of 2000 – of 1998 I was asked, by one of the video witnesses, Lynne Kitei, to evaluate her videos and the other videos from March 13th, and, also, from other years, which I had not heard about, at that time. When she contacted me she told me about January of 1998, and some other dates, of which there had been lights, she said, that looked exactly the same as they saw on March 13th, and, so, she sent me a bunch of video tapes, and I started an analysis, and I was fortunate, for very – other reasons, able to get to The Phoenix Area, and, actually, go to the locations, where the videos were taken, take background and scenery videos, you might say, to – in order to carry out what’s known as a triangulation. From each point – from each location on the video camera I would project the sighting line off into the distance, and then see if, from 2 locations, if the sighting lines would meet, somewhere, then that would imply that the object was – the lights were where the sighting lines met, and I did this for the famous Cristin Arc that everybody ever sees on TV, and so on, they show over and over, again. An arc of light taken by Mike Cristin, and Lynne Kitei had a video that showed 3 lights, and Chuck – Charles Reardon, who was about 30 miles east of Lynne Kitei, also saw the same Cristin Arc, but he saw it from a slightly different perspective, and I was able to demonstrate that if you took Cristin’s sighting line and projected it, and Chuck Readon’s sighting line and projected it the lights were 50 or 60 miles, or 70 or 80 miles south– south–southwest of Phoenix. The witnesses had all said the lights were over Phoenix, and that they never moved. Now, I’m talking about lights that were taken – that were videotaped at 10:00 at night. There’s a – sightings at 8:30, so what we say in between 8 and 9 PM, and, in particular, around 8:30 when some object appears to have traveled over Phoenix. That’s an independent – not what I’m talking about. I was asked in – analyze videos that were taken, and the videos on March 13th were taken at around 10:00, and, so anyway, I found, by careful analysis of the images of the – on the videos that these lights were actually dropping downwards and moving a bit to the left. The sighting there was to the south or southwest, and I learned from a meteorologist that the general air mass was moving from right – from west towards the east. If your looking south, and you see something moving from west to east, and it’s moving from right to left in front of – in your field of view, and that’s what these lights do. They drop down as they move to the left a rate that’s not – it’s compatible with the idea that they were flares, very bright LUU, LUU2 military illumination flares, which are dropped and then they deploy a parachute, and heat from the flare keeps the parachute aloft for a long time, or makes it – or drop very slowly, I should say, so anyway, that was my input to the Phoenix Lights situation was to show the videos taken at 10:00 probably were not related to the – whatever it was that flew over Phoenix at 8:30. Unfortunately, there’s nothing except 1 – supposedly 1 video of that, which is not very good. Mostly it was just witnesses seeing that thing go over.


Martin: Yeah, and there were enough of them.


Bruce: Now, there were – when I began my investigation of the so–called Phoenix Lights, the videos, I began by analyzing, not the March 13th 1997, but videos taken by the same witnesses in January 14th, 1998. In January 14th, 1998 they had a line of – the videos show a line of lights all, not exactly equal, but pretty close to equal spacing, and, if you set a ruler on your TV screen while you play this video and look at the line of lights, it’s perfectly straight, which we were was impossible to do, but when you plot the line of lights from different perspectives it turns out that there’s a curvature that you can’t see from just 1 perspective. Anyway, I analyzed lights from January 14th, 1998, and I concluded that they, too, were 70, or some, miles southwest of Phoenix. Now, what’s – what is southwest of Phoenix? The Barry Goldwater Training Range where the military drops flares as part of military exercises, and we were told, in June of 1997, that The Maryland National Guard had been using The Barry Goldwater Training Range to drop flares at high altitude, so this is all stuff that’s on my website for people who are interested on the – knowing what they – what is known about those videos.


Martin: Well, while you just mentioned that, why don’t you give out your website address?


Bruce: Okay, it’s www.brumac, that’s brumac, dot 8k, number 8, letter k, dot com.


Martin: All right, and I’ll put that under this podcast, as well. Can you think of a situation where there was – looked like pretty solid evidence, for a long time, and you figured out that it was a hoax?


Bruce: Well, yeah. There was a August 6th, 1996, I think, video from Mexico City, which looked very good, as a – anybody who’s seen it – that video a number of times would recognize it from the description. You saw – you see a building off in the distance of a big highrise apartment building. At the left –


Martin: And the thing’s, kind of, floating.


Bruce: At the left edge of this building you see this circular thing rotating and wobbling, and then it starts to move towards the building. It disappears, for a period of time, behind the building, supposedly, and reappears up above the building, travels along to the right, it’s always moving to the right, travels to the right, and then shrinks and disappears, if I recall correctly, and I thought that was pretty interesting. I thought there might be some physics related to the propulsion of this object based on the wobbling and rotation, but there was another guy, who was also working on this case, Jeffrey Sainio, MUFON photo analyst, and he had discovered something funny that he did it on a statistical basis by analyzing each frame of the video, and turned out that the – as the camera wobble occur – the camera that was taking the video, supposedly, was looking at this scene from another apartment house, or an office building, and it was being held by hand. It was wobbling around, and he found that on a certain amount of statistical basis the edge of the building would get smeared by the hand vibration, but the edges of the UFO did not, and then I found 2 frames, that I have posted on my website, 2 frames that, clearly, show, what I call, fingerprints of a hoax, where the camera moved enough – we know that the buildings do not move. I mean, that a fundamental assumption, here, and yet the edges of the building are so smeared, in the vertical direction, that the horizontal edge is so smeared – I should say the horizontal edge of the top of the building is so smeared, by vertical motion, that it’s hard to make out where the edge is, and there are little flags, or I was told they were wind socks, on the top of the building. You can see them in the steady frames, but in this couple of really super blurred frames the blurring is so much that you can’t even see the wind sock. It’s just blurred out, you might say, but the edge of the UFO doesn’t change. It’s just as sharp as the ones – as the frames where there’s no blurring. Those two frames, for comparison, here, where the edge – the building edge is extremely blurred, the UFO edge is not, and this sounds, to me, like the UFO image was pasted in.


Martin: That seems like that would be very difficult to do, but, obviously, with all this software and stuff out there people can do anything.


Bruce: Oh, yeah. When that video came out I was interacting with a guy in Hollywood who was making TV shows on this stuff, and he had some people, he told me, had some people say: okay, if you’re going to do this, yourself, what are you going to do? I got several video, from different people, who took on the problem of creating a video that looked like that, and none of them looked exactly the same, but they all had the same characteristics of an object rotating and wobbling and, then, going behind a building and coming up above and, then, going off into the distance, and, apparently, for somebody who was really into cgi, computer generated imagery, it was not a very difficult task, and one big problem that has to go with the circumstantial evidence: unlike the McMinnville case, where you had lay the people, or the witnesses and the photographer available to talk to, for years and years afterwards, in this Mexico City case it was sent – the video was sent to Jaime Maussan, who is a TV commentator, there, who has done a lot of work on UFOs, and it was anonymous. First it said that he was in the country illegally and didn’t want to reveal his name, but it was an anonymous witness. There’s not much you can do, so the video, sort of, hangs out there in free space, you might say, except for those – except for that problem with the smear of the buildings being greater than the smear of the UFO image, itself, and, by the way, both smears should be the same if it’s a real image – if it’s a real thing out there. Except for that, this would have been treated as a monumental UFO video, but, fortunately, Sainio discovered this problem with it before everybody went super public and committed themselves to say: well, it’s real. Tons of videos, of course, on the internet, in the years since, and I don’t know how many million there might be, now, but various levels of detail and quality.


Martin: I know. The one that has the most hits on it, on Youtube, is the one that was proven to be a hoax, and that’s the one in Haiti. That was, totally, a hoax. Very, very well done. I mean, these people are very – the people that really go through all the trouble seem to do a pretty good job, for the most part.


Bruce: That was a video.


Martin: Yes. It was a video, in Haiti, and there was an analysis of it, and, I think, there’s something like 16 million downloads of it. It’s something.


Bruce: Probably saw it, but I’ve seen so many of these they blur together.


Martin: Yeah. Now, have you looked into the one that looked really good, for a while? And I haven’t really heard anything about it, but it was The Dome Of Israel. Have you looked into that one?


Bruce: Yeah, well there are a number of commentaries on that. That’s where this – the video shows a bright light dropping down towards The Dome Of The Rock, and it sits there, and also there’s a very bright flash, and then it goes zooming up, supposedly, so the witnesses saw red lights up in the sky as they looked up after the thing zoomed away, whatever, and there were, I think, 4 videos associated with that, and one of them, the second or third to come out, was absolutely, concretely proven to be a hoax. There’s no doubt about it because it was a photograph of the scene that was used for the camera shade to make it look as if the camera was photographing the scene, but, as time went on, as I recall, the lights in the scene never changed, like the UFO imagery was superimposed on. They had taken a photograph, and used that as the background, and then they put this UFO into the scene, and then they, after getting the composite, then they started causing it to wiggle around in the body photograph, either by using the video camera to videotape a screen that was showing this video, or they actually used a program to cause the whole scene to shift back and forth, up and down in a random manner. That was one of the videos where it’s absolutely proven to be a hoax, and I think I, sort of, lost the direction, and didn’t really track it very closely after that, but I think, basically it’s considered to be a hoax, now.


Martin: I would think that if one was a hoax then it just, kind of, gives them all away.


Bruce: At the very least, it’s not something to spend a lot of time on. There was another problem with that was the lack of reaction of city officials, shall we say? I pointed out that when this – well, others had pointed out that if this thing had actually been a bright light that dropped down in The Dome Of The Rock, which has got to be one of the most secure areas in the world, right? Every other person in the street, probably, is a Mossad person, or Secret Service, or something like that keeping track of what the – even though it was 1:00 in the afternoon, in the evening – 1:00 in the morning, I should say, approximately 1:00 in the morning, I believe, there would have been tourists and other people, there, and this bright light, the big, bright flash that occurred shown lighting up the buildings, and so on, and it – if you’ve ever been in an electrical storm, in the house when lightning and thunder are going off, you’re going to be inside the house as the lightning flash occurs. You see that inside the house. You’re not looking out the window. There was the flash of light. There’s so much light that’s lighting up everything, and light goes through windows, and lights up rooms, and so on. Well, I would have expected that someone would have said: hey, what’s that flash of light that we had, last night?


Martin: Good point, yeah.


Bruce: There was a lack of background. Now, there’s a – there was the so–called Chad Hoax, where some guy by the name of Chad, supposedly, took a picture of a thing that looked like, very – somewhat like a ceiling fan in the air. He had a number of photos, supposedly, of a novel UFO that had wires going upwards in a curvy manner, like a vase, so, but it was –


Martin: I think I’ve seen that, somewhere. That sounds very familiar.


Bruce: It was 4 or 5 years ago. First it was 1 set of photos from one location in California, I think, then at another location, and then another location, and these shape of the objects – the structure of the object got more complicated, as this went on. Then there was a document, supposedly, of a top secret project to reverse engineer a UFO that came out, and, then, this was also related to this. I think the whole thing ended up being a publicity ploy for somebody trying to demonstrate how well he could make computer generated imagery, but I’m not sure on that, but, again, that’s another thing where we never got to talk to the witnesses.


Martin: Right. Can you think of a situation where you think it’s very solid – must be hard to commit and say this does not appear to be a hoax. You can’t really go much further than that, can you?


Bruce: Well, you can say if it’s got obvious characteristics, but you might be able to say: well, it doesn’t look like anything that was made here. Like, you take the Trent photograph. It’s, obviously, not a bird, or a plane, or Superman, and, so then what is it? If it’s not a hoax it’s a real thing, whatever the real thing is. Another case that I worked on many years ago was a New Zealand sighting from an airplane that occurred in December 31st, 1978, and that investigation lasted days, months, and years, but, ultimately, ended up proving that whatever that was video – that was photographed, I should say, movie film, and that case was one of my best documented cases, ever, with multiple witnesses, including an airplane crew captain and co–pilot, and a news crew that was onboard the – on the airplane, a reporter, a cameraman, and the sound recorders. The cameraman got color movie film. There was a ground radar and airplane radar involved, so you had images captured on film, and you had The Wellington Air Traffic Control Center audio tape, which provided a timeline for everything that happened, and the reporter, himself, on the airplane had his own tape of things, and these could be reasonably well correlated, so there were total of 8 witnesses involved in that case, as I recall –


Martin: Yeah, that sounds pretty solid.


Bruce: – and it required a lot of technical analysis, a lot of interviewing and putting together a history of the whole thing, and so on, and I would say that that was a – whatever was there was a real UFO, whatever that means.


Martin: Yeah. Now, did you ever look into the Mexico – The Air Force in Mexico when they filmed, with infrared cameras, those


Bruce: It’s strange that you bring that up.


Martin: Okay, why’s that?


Bruce: You often see, in TV shows that are talking about UFOs, and they’re showing one UFO image after another after another, and so on, and they’ll show this video taken by The Mexican Air Force. This is March 2004. It shows clouds going by, from right to left, and these very bright lights off in the distance appearing to go behind the clouds, and come out, top, from behind the clouds, and so on, and it’s clear, if you could speak Spanish, you’d know that the guy was talking about seeing these lights out there, and thinking they were traveling right along with them, and that they had 12, I think it was, UFOs traveling along with the airplane. Well, I did a study on that, and it’s probably the largest study ever published on it. I’ve never seen anything written up by the Mexican authorities. I know that NARCAP did some work on it, but I don’t know if they’ve ever published a report. That was a strange case, because what alerted them to pay any attention, at all, to what was going on was not the infrared, but was radar. Now, if you can imagine The Yucatan Peninsula jutting out to the right – jutting out to the east, Mexico City’s off to your left, to the west of The Yucatan, and this airplane is flying along in the southwest – in the northwest direction, and something on their radar, and this is an airplane which can do about 300 miles an hour, 250, or something like that. It’s on daily, I suppose, periodic surveillance for drug runners and contraband aircraft, and stuff like that, and they have a camera that – in the belly of the airplane that they can use to pick up, either infrared, or visible – infrared or visible imagery, and, also, they have the radar. Now, the radar tends to point in the downwards direction, because they are looking for airplanes taking off or landing in forbidden airfields. As they’re heading south – northwest, over the Yucatan, they start picking up this radar target. The first thought was: oh, some airplane has just taken off from a landing zone down there, and we should follow it, I guess. Their assumption was it might be a drug runner. So, anyway, they turned their aircraft, a little bit, to go trail behind this thing, and then they start catching up with it, and they get to within 2 miles of it. They can’t seem to get any closer than that, and it speeds up, and, then, it maintains a 2–mile distance, so, naturally, once they detected on radar, initially, I think, about 5 miles, and then they get closer to it, they’re looking out the windows thinking: we ought to be able to see this thing. You can see an airplane at 5 miles. You can see an airplane at 4 miles. You can see it at 3. You could even see it at 2 miles, even better at 2 miles, obviously, so why they – can’t they see it? So they’re looking and looking with their visible camera. Now, they’re not using the infrared, yet. They’re using the visible, and they track it for a while, and then they switch to infrared, and this is a special type of infrared known as NID infrared burning 3 to 5 micron wavelengths. At visible light is 7/10ths of a micron, or less, and heat that you feel for radiating bodies, typically, is around 10 microns. These are the wavelengths I’m talking about. Thing about the mid-infrared is if you take a photograph with a mid–infrared imager you can see structure such as what you would see with the naked eye, but you can also see hot places that you could only see with a heat-sensitive camera, so if you’re looking with your naked eye you could see the outline of the aircraft. If you’re looking with this mid–infrared you can see the outline of the aircraft, but you can also see the heat trail. You can see the hot air coming out the back. You can see the hot engines, right? So they started looking with the infrared and they can’t find it there, either. They’re traveling along for 10 minutes behind this object, and then they start running out of fuel, so they – and, unfortunately, there was no ground radar operating, at the time, so they’re – they were picking it up, on their radar, and picking it up on their infrared. No, wait a minute. I take that back. They did not pick it up on their infrared. They should have, you would think, but they were scanning with the infrared. They’re picking it up on radar. They’re not seeing it visually. They’re not seeing it on infrared. They didn’t know what it was. Could have been a radar anomaly, a radar – problem with the radar, well, and they never gave any – had any problems with it, before, and they didn’t have any problems with it, afterwards, I guess. They made a turn to the right, to head east, after traveling for a distance over The Yucatan Peninsula, and, heading northwest, they turn – made a right turn, to the east, and they were still tracking this thing on radar. Oddly enough, it sped up. It increased its speed. It was continuing – continued its track toward the northwest, whereas the plane was now heading east. It continued on its track, northwest, at a higher speed, and, finally, disappeared about 40 miles from the airplane, which was the range of their – maximum range of their radar. It was going faster when they – after they turned away. Now, that sounded a little strange for a typical airplane. If it was trying to run away from them, and it had the capability of doing three hundred and some miles an hour, which is what it was doing after the plane – after the surveillance plane turned east, when they were traveling northwest they were doing 220 or 30 miles – knots, I think, and then the plane turned east as the object sped up and headed off into the distance. Whatever it was, that was the real UFO, right there, that nobody pays any attention to. Nobody knows what that was –


Martin: It’s funny, you know –


Bruce: – but then, as they headed to the east, they’re still looking for this object with their infrared, and they, suddenly, start picking up bright spots off in the distance, and they, initially, get 1 or 2 bright lights off in the distance, and then they get a group of them, and these things appear to be a considerable distance away from the airplane, and going behind clouds, but the perspective – the view of these things are making it look like they’re traveling right along with the airplane. They can’t see anything with the naked eye, but they can pick up these bright lights with the infrared camera. As they travel along, to the east, these things, as I said, seem to be traveling along with them, and, finally, after 10 or 15 minutes, I forget, these things drop back behind, or disappear, and they’re not seen, anymore, and that’s, basically, the end of the sighting. They picked up, on radar, a few things on the ground, perhaps, and picked up, on the infrared, maybe, some things on the ground that were hot, but the – when the man operating the FLIR says it looks like he’s got 12 UFOs traveling along with him he’s looking at something that makes heat, but the question is: what? Well, it turned out that a guy in Mexico had realized, right off the bat, that this airplane – the people in the airplane were looking toward a oil field, about a hundred miles away, and The Pemaco Oil Corporation, and they have these Texas tower–type things out in the bay of water that’s above the Yucatan Peninsula, The Gulf Of Mexico. They’re, obviously, close to the – within 10 or 20 miles of the land, but they’re off in the water, Texas towers, and they’re pumping oil and gas out, and they burn the gas out in flames. There’s a bunch of these flames going, many of them 24 hours a day, and, so, suggestion was made that what these people picked up on their forward looking infrared, FLIR, was, in fact, these fires, that is, is 110 miles, approximately, and I was contacted by Jaime Maussan and told – asked to do the study of this, sort of, on the behalf of The Mexican Air Force. They were giving me digital tape, which had everything on it, a digital tape copy of the original tape, taped information that was on the airplane, and they gave all of the trouble of having everything translated, for me, and provided me with maps. I got help from other people, as well, and analyzed the whole situation, and concluded that the radar target was probably a UFO. I mean, it certainly was not identifiable, and it did strange things. It was invisible, but it was picked up, continuously, on radar. Not the first time radar’s picked up things that are not seen, but, very often, radar targets so–called radar angels. They’re artifacts of the radar, itself, or the weather problems, but here we have a situation where weather could not – was not playing a prank – playing a role detecting a target at 2 miles away from the airplane, was maintaining speed, and then sped up, on it’s own, when it was going away from the aircraft. The aircraft turned away from it, so that was the UFO. Then there’s a – and my analysis of the lights showed that, in fact, the people were looking, and these lights drifting backwards, as you’re looking out, to the side, and you’re traveling along you’ll point towards an object that’s a long distance away, and if you’re traveling in a straight line in some direction, and you’re looking at something at almost 90 degrees to your straight line direction, as you travel along you’re pointing direction will drop back towards the rear, and so the pointing direction of these objects actually did drop back a ways consistent with how they move – how the planes move along, bottom line being they were looking in the – they definitely were looking in the direction of these things – the gas flames, and so that was – it seemed to be a reasonable explanation, although I wasn’t able to absolutely prove by identifying each flame with each bright light, which is something you should be able to do, but there may not have been enough data to do that. In any case, The Air Force response was: well, we’ve flown over the area many times and never seen those flares, before, the fires, so I don’t know, but that’s probably explained. The infrared lights are probably not UFOs.


Martin: But there was one there, earlier, which is, kind of, interesting.


Bruce: The radar target, I’d say, was a – was an unidentified radar target –


Martin: Oh, really.


Bruce: – or there was none. You see, the point is it wasn’t a balloon. It was traveling a couple hundred miles an hour. It wasn’t an ordinary aircraft, ’cause you would have seen an ordinary aircraft. They can’t paint it invisible, and even if, somehow, they managed to camouflage an airplane so that you couldn’t see it by looking down on it because it was – looks like the background any engine – any engined aircraft we have creates heat, even the much ballyhooed stealth aircraft would create a heat trail, and, certainly, not as great as a jet aircraft, or something, but you should be able to have seen the engines of any typical aircraft that would be over The Yucatan Peninsula, and yet there was nothing there on the FLIR, and nothing visible. So, what was it?


Martin: That’s right. That sounds like a – it was a good one, after all, even though the thing that everyone looks at is those lights traveling along.


Bruce: Well, you know, press in, garbage out. The press goes for the throat. It’s the same sort of thing with The Phoenix Lights. What do they show for Phoenix Lights videos? They show these videos that are probably the flares, at 10:00, when they’re talking about – they’ll be interviewing somebody about what he saw at 8:30. Oh, I saw this big triangular object that went over, had a couple of lights on it, as big as a city block, and while the man is describing that they’ll be showing The Cristin Arc, which has nothing to do with whatever actually went over Phoenix at 8:30.


Martin: It’s – it makes you wonder if the flares weren’t put out there because of the sighting.


Bruce: Well, that would have to be a quick react situation, of course, because the – my guess is it’s much more likely that The Maryland National Guard was telling the truth when they said they had access to The Barry Goldwater Training Range for half an hour, or an hour, or something like that, up until 10:00 at night and were dropping flares as part of their normal exercises, and, if you think about it, there – on one of those A–10 aircraft there was 8 flares, and they had some number of aircraft and a certain number of flares, and all the aircraft that were involved, and the penalty – they were told that they couldn’t land with flares. They had to use them up. At least, that’s what the story was. Well, now, if you look at the Cristin Arc, there is a single light that appears, and then 8 more. The Arc is, actually, 8 lights that go off in a row, but there’s a single light that had been there for half a minute or a minute before the Arc begins, so think about it. If there were 2 airplanes coming back, and one of them throws out a flare that could be a single light, and then one of them dumps a whole load of 8. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, one after another, like that. Then you would get this arc of lights.


Martin: So, we’re just about out of time, here, and just one question comes to mind is: what do you think the future is going to be of analysis? I know they can create more and more sophisticated films to fool us, but do you think the analysis will be more sophisticated, as well?


Bruce: Well, the analysis will probably be more sophisticated, but I think it’s still going to come down to a lot of the background stuff, the circumstantial evidence, how the – why the film was taken, who took it, how it was taken, and you always have to put together a history of the sighting. They always – the problem, here, in UFOs is UFOs don’t exist, therefore, anything you videotape or photograph is not real. That’s from the point of view of conventional science, so you’ve got a tough row to hoe to prove that whatever it is is unidentifiable, and you prove that – the proof would take place by demonstrating that whatever is recorded in video or film or whatever is clearly not something that would normally be there, whatever it is, and then you’ve got to prove that whatever the film or video is isn’t a hoax by somebody. One of the key things you’ll have to have is access to the witnesses. Anonymous videos and photos, and so on, don’t hack it. I will say that a single photo or a couple of photos is a lot easier to fake than a movie film or a video, so the fake probability goes down as the complexity goes up, but that doesn’t mean that the fake probability goes to 0, unless you’ve got a lot of circumstantial evidence behind it to demonstrate why it should be considered to be the truth, as opposed to a hoax.


Martin: Well, this has been really interesting, and I really appreciate your time, so this is Martin Willis with Dr. Bruce Maccabee, and that’s it for today.


The End