A Summary Update On The 'Phoenix UFO' Case

Santiago Yturria Garza

By Santiago Yturria Garza
6-14-05

     I would like to point out that the single issue of my inquiry is to clear confusion with the sighting date reported as I discovered an anomaly with the images published. I'm not questioning the authenticity of the footage itself, as this is another different issue.

     My inquiry regards only the sighting date, my discovery and the subsequent events that I will comment in this summary. If Mr. Bessent feels I'm saying is footage is a fake that's his privilege but certainly not true.

     Unless he has something to hide he must recognize my inquiry is valid and legitimate. This is my update.

     A) On Thursday June 8th, Brian updated his website “Signs from the Sky” removing the mentioned still frames from the UFO video and replacing them with other ones. Brian did this update after he received my message forwarded to him by James Neff.

     Jim Neff confirmed this to me, explaining it was a simple mistake they uploaded those images, something Mr. Diaz confirmed later.

     B) At this moment I was already aware of the update made by Brian because I was expecting him to do that since the night of June 8. I knew Brian would do that in a hurry because those frame stills were indeed compromising his story. Therefore I recorded previously the whole web page as well as the dated web page from Google's cache. I have all these images.

     C) When I got aware of the web page update on Thursday morning June 9th, I checked immediately Google's cache mirror and the frame stills of the UFO video were still there. What does this tell us?

     On one side Google had the actual updated web page in his directory and on the other side Google's cache had the non-updated web page with the original images. Two web pages from the same site but with different images ?

     If Google captures only HTML text as he says, how is it possible Google is showing the same webpage but with different images at the same time?

     The answer is very simple as explained by Google itself. You see they work with " intelligent robots " as they call them but let me explain instead in simple words what I understand. Google makes mirror images of a website's pages. Do you know what this term means? Mirror images that remain in Google's memory for a specific time.

     This mirror image of a web page is available even when the whole website is nonexistent anymore. I ask you this:

     If the website doesn’t exist anymore, where is Google retrieving these images? If a website doesn’t exist anymore where is Google getting this information?

     Very simple, from the mirror images Google recorded from that website when it was active AND ACCORDING TO IT'S LAST UPDATE. Do you understand? Very simple and these are Google statements not mine.

     Therefore Google's cache recorded what was published there specifying the exact date this mirrored images were recorded (retrieved). That's the explanation why on June 9, 2005 morning there were two different sets of images from the “Signs from the Sky” webpage, one the updated images and two: the original images showed by Google's cache.

     D) By this time and checking the Google's cache on June 9, 2005 morning I realized Brian and his people were still not aware of the Google issue and this was another mistake by them or their Webmaster forgetting how Google works.

     They forgot or I think didn’t know at that time that Google makes it's updates in a certain period of time. According to Google every update of a website is made in a period of 4 to 8 weeks depending on each case. This is official.

     So most probably, Brian's Webmaster (if it's not him) thought that once they updated the webpage removing the frames Google and the other search machines would register the update immediately. That was a mistake and the images removed remained there, in Google's mirror webpage in the cache. You see, very simple.

     E) I decided to send another message to Jim Neff Webmaster to Rense.com telling him to check the Google's cache images and at the same time the Google's non- cache images of the same webpage. I asked Jim to explain to me how two different sets of images from the same webpage were on display in Google ?

     I didn’t receive a reply but Jim most probably asked Brian again of this new anomaly compromising the story and Brian again took measures to update Google's cache removing his Phoenix UFO frames from the cache. You see all the work done by Brian in just two days? Now we may be wondering why did Brian remove those images from Google's cache ? According to Google those images were retrieved on May 28th, and this was the subject of my inquiry. You take the guess.

     According to Google a Webmaster may request a removal of cache content by certain procedures, a special request following several protocols. Brian made that request and followed the procedure that is a fact. What was he trying to cover?

     Unfortunately for him all those images including a mirror of the May 28, 2005 Signs from the Sky were recorded by me and I keep all these materials to prove what I'm saying. I still have the doubt about the sighting date reported by Brian and these anomalies that I found in his website and Google's cache.

     I don't think I'm wrong, as I have consulted these issues with other expert webmasters not involved in anyway on this story. The issue of my complaint is the sighting date reported and if this was the real date.
I'm not questioning the footage itself yet. I don't know about it, whether it’s real or not. I have some ideas but am keeping them only to myself.

     I just received last night this information from the KTVK-TV people. It seems that Brian Bessent finally agreed to let his footage be analyzed by Jim Dilettoso, video and digital image expert.

     This will take place tomorrow Wednesday in Phoenix and the TV crew will be recording the whole meeting.

     I think this new attitude from Brian is very positive as he is willing to allow his controversial footage to be analyzed by an expert in a open investigation to all the people. This reaction was what we expected. Let's see what results from this analysis. It will be very interesting to know Jim Dilettoso's conclusions about this footage after his analysis.

     In a previous interview made by KTVK-TV Jim Dilettoso declared that Brian's footage was a fake made by a computer program probably with Flash animation and if he could analyze the original footage maybe he would change his opinion. We'll see the results.

Home