UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 2003 > Dec > Dec 11

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

From: John Velez <johnvelez.aic@verizon.net>
Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2003 13:05:08 -0500
Fwd Date: Thu, 11 Dec 2003 12:21:20 -0500
Subject: Re: Maussan Makes Prediction For 12-12-03 - Velez

>From: Royce J. Myers III <ufowatchdog@msn.com>
>To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
>Date: Tue, 09 Dec 2003 22:05:52 -0800
>Subject: Re: Maussan Makes Prediction For 12-12-03

>>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:


>>>The Stan Romanek case is another topic all together...

>>>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.

>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.

Hiya Royce,

You responded.

>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...

It's a difficult situation I find myself in. I have asked for
advice from one of my mentors about how best to handle this.
There is solid material here that should not go by-the-boards.
By completely dismissing Maussan the good material gets tossed
into the trash heap along with the rest mislabelled as
'unreliable' solely because of the source. Not based on its own
merits. There's the rub.

>>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.

No, of course not. But as I mentioned above, dismissing Maussan
dooms the good material to dismissal as well. It is, in fact,
what _has_ happened with all of it. I'm not going to nominate
Maussan for "most reliable" ufologist of the decade, but it
pains me to think how much is being lost because people
automatically write off _everything_ that comes from him.

It's not an easy nut to crack.

>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.

See! That's the kind of thinking I'm talking about. Let's say
that 'cry' number four (as in the original story) is
_legitimate_. As responsible people, are we to allow the wolf to
simply eat the child? That's what I meant by... "we need to
consider the material he presents on a case by case basis."
Otherwise we risk losing valuable material along the way. As it
is, because of his reputation in North-America, much has been
lost because _anything_ that comes from Maussan is generally
dismissed out of hand.

>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.

You're welcome. I hope you can at least appreciate where I'm
coming from though. This airline collision case is one I plan to
follow-up regardless of Maussan's reputation. We have a pilot
who is willing to testify, an air traffic controller, and a
damaged commercial jet. I don't care how flakey Maussan may be,
if you put him aside and just look at the witnesses reporting
this incident, you have something solid and meaty to sink your
ufological teeth into. There has to be a paper-trail ten miles
long stemming from this incident. I want to make sure that
somebody looks into this who can actually do something with the
material. So far, it's all been ignored. Probably because of
Maussan's connection to it. That's a shame man. Shouldn't be
that way.

Warm regards,