UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 2003 > Dec > Dec 10

Re: Maussan Makes Prediction For 12-12-03 - Myers

From: Royce J. Myers III <ufowatchdog@msn.com>
Date: Tue, 09 Dec 2003 22:05:52 -0800
Fwd Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2003 09:37:59 -0500
Subject: Re: Maussan Makes Prediction For 12-12-03 - Myers


>From: John Velez <johnvelez.aic@verizon.net>
>Date: Tue, 9 Dec 2003 16:05:18 -0500
>To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
>Subject: Re: Maussan Makes Prediction For 12-12-03

>>From: Royce J. Myers III <ufowatchdog@msn.com>
>>To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
>>Date: Sun, 07 Dec 2003 23:54:23 -0800
>>Subject: Re: Maussan Makes Prediction For 12-12-03

>>>It has been some time since I have posted to UpDates, but I just
>>couldn't pass this one up. I don't intend to make a habit of
>>posting, but here are a few things that you might want to see:

>>http://www.rense.com/general45/stan.htm

>>http://www.rense.com/general45/warn.htm
>>The Stan Romanek case is another topic all together...

>Hi Royce, All,

>You wrote:

>>As for Maussan having credibility as a jouranlist/investigator,
>>it is my opinion he is just one more in a lump of UFO clowns
>>that rehash other people's material and make sensationalist and
>>unverifiable claims.

Hi John,

Hope all is well and, as always, appreciate your two-cents.

>Nobody, and I mean nobody, is 100% spot-on all the time Royce.
>You have to be very careful about completely dismissing Maussan
>because more than most of those categorized as 'bad-guys,' it is
>a genuine instance of throwing out the baby with the bath-water
>in his case.

Absolutely - no one is ever 100% all of the time, no argument to
make there. Everyone makes mistakes. But what about when someone
is consistently not 'spot-on'? Let's see...

1) Bunk daylight UFO footage promoted.

2) Promoted Hale-Bopp and was making public claims that giant
UFO motherships were going to evactuate the planet.

3) Promoted bunk Sci-Fi Channel footage as real.

4) Championed the Reed UFO Fraud and continued to promote it
after the roof caved in on it and failed to investigate the
_most basic_ aspects and so did everyone else directly involved.
Maussan went as far as to claim there had been a scientific
examination of the bogus alien artifact 'Dr. Reed' claimed he
found - there was _no_ laboratory analysis done, even though
Maussan went on saying that it utilized nano-technology. Someone
that was with Maussan in Mexico described the so-called
scientific analysis that took place with Maussan in the room -
it was nothing more than one of Maussan's associates picking up
the piece and looking at it while it sat in its case! Not much
of a scientific examination and quite a leap to proclaiming
something is of extraterrestrial technological origin, eh?

Really, I think it is a very basic thing to check on these sort
of claims and their veracity before making them public. Can you
say 'lab report' or 'accredited scientist'? Two people who were
inside the "Dr.Reed" circle have told me what really happened
during that "investigation" and to hear that these so-called
seasoned investigators made these many mistakes, errors,
omissions, and were engaged in some wild antics is unbelievable.

5) Promoted bunk 'alien' pictures with former 'Dr. Reed'
supporter without a thorough investigation and made claims the
footage was authentic and coulnd not be replicated - well, it
was replicated.

6) Promoted massive UFO sightings in Mexico...oh, wait, some of
those were actually interesting...

>You said so yourself, Maussan has some _legitimate_ footage and
>has gathered information on some _legitimate_ UFO cases. An
>example of which is the one I am currently working with him on,
>an commercial aircraft and a 'UFO' collision case that happened
>back in '94 at Mexico City International. The reporting
>witnesses in that case are the commercial pilot of the plane and
>the ATC (air traffic controller) who had to quickly arrange for
>an emergency landing of that passenger laden jet.

Is this the one the Elders' 'docu-drama' videos? Is it the same
case he claimed to have radar tapes for? And yes, Maussan
appears to possess some legitimate UFO footage, but that really
isn't a card to Pass Go And Collect $200.

We all don't want to throw out the baby with the bath water, but
sometimes you actually have to have a baby in the tub first.
Again, it comes down to a factor of credibility and how many
times someone has cried wolf.

>Maussan is not by any stretch of the imagination a scientist or
>a trained/skilled researcher

Huh?!

Based on what I've seen of Maussan's UFO cases, I completely
agree with you. But, isn't he an 'investigative' journalist with
a degree? Hasn't he been doing journalism for 33 years? Being a
researcher and an investigator are essential and _basic_ core
elements to being a journalist. I'm not trying to be insulting,
but this just seems very rudimentary to me.

If he isn't a trained or skilled researcher, then what is he
doing investigating any of these cases and making presentations
to the public based on his 'investigation' ? I'm not buying that
argument for a second, and am frankly surprised that you would
attempt to justify Maussan's past deeds by trying to tell me
he's not any sort of researcher and/or investigator. This is
comparable to having a person claim they're an auto mechanic yet
they have not clue one as to what a radiator, spark-plug, or oil
filter is and you're recommending I take my car to his shop for
a tune-up.

>It's unfair to hold him to those strict standards.

No it isn't, and in Maussan's position he should absolutely be
held to a higher standard, just as should any UFO 'investigator'
examining cases and making public claims. Of the topics most
covered on this List are credibility, accountability, and
ethics. If someone is going to be presenting their
'investigation', then it damn well better be a real
investigation. This is a subject that has the potential to have
an impact on the world like no other, and you don't think it
fair to hold someone to a set of high standards? I think not.
Especially when a field such as this one is lumped together and,
it seems to me, when one person speaks publicly on this subject
that person is speaking for all of us - whether we like it or
not.

This field is so scrutinized by nay-sayers, skeptics, and
debunkers that the last thing I want is someone trampling a case
that may have the answers to all of our questions - earthly or
otherwise. Is that what you would have? I didn't think so.

<snip>

>Jaime needs to be taken on a case by case basis. Otherwise we
>run the risk of blowing right past some of the most amazing UFO
>cases ever to hit the blotter.

I have taken him on a case by case basis, his batting average is
terrible and it seems he's mostly involved in sensationalistic
and bunk UFO cases.

>Try not to be so down on the man.
>You know me Royce. Believe me, I have spent some time speaking
>with this guy. He's not the evil phony or clown that you paint
>him to be. I consider myself a decent judge of character and
>Jaime is -honest- if not 'right' all the time.

I'm not being "down on the man", far from it. He seems to be a
nice guy, fairly charming and likeable. He just doesn't have my
vote of confidence when it comes down to credible and skilled
investigation.

Right all the time...? Again, I think not.

>>While Maussan may have some legitimate UFO footage, it has been
>>drowned out by his past antics, claims, and sensationalistic
>>promotion of bunk UFO cases.

>Get past the noise. In Maussan's case it is worth it. It is in
>fact one of the few times that I have found this to be the case.
>Dismiss Maussan and you risk blowing off some of the most
>_credible- material to come down the pike in years!

This isn't "noise", just the facts that Maussan has a track
record for promoting and sensationalizing bunk UFO cases. As for
"some of the most _credible_ material to come down the pike in
years" coming from Maussan, I'll believe when I see it and
there's some proof to back it. And if this is the case, again
this isn't an attempt to be insulting. Maussan should give it to
someone else for the sake of credibility and investigation.

John, there's simply no way we're going to agree on Maussan. My
past experience with him and his track record speaks for itself.
Thanks for your view.


Regards,

Royce J. Myers III
UFOWATCHDOG.COM