From: James Smith <zeus001002.nul> Date: Tue, 3 May 2005 09:12:50 -0400 (GMT-04:00) Fwd Date: Wed, 04 May 2005 07:32:35 -0400 Subject: Re: New Mexican UFO Fleets Footage - Smith >From: A. J. Gevaerd - Revista UFO <gevaerd.nul> >To: <ufoupdates.nul> >Date: Mon, 2 May 2005 11:25:27 -0300 >Subject: Re: New Mexican UFO Fleets Footage >>From: James Smith <zeus001002.nul> >>To: ufoupdates.nul >>Date: Sun, 1 May 2005 12:03:52 -0400 (GMT-04:00) >>Subject: Re: New Mexican UFO Fleets Footage >>I am afraid that you and your fellow Mexican UFO >>esearchers are being made fools of with sometimes >>sophisticated and complex balloon releases. >>If I saw complex fast movement, circling, darting, >>then I would be more inclined to put the UFO >>moniker on these videos. >I am afraid it is not that simple, James. >I have watched quite carefully the videos and read a few >reports and witness's accounts of the "flotillas", and I am >inclined to believe that _some_ of them definitely have >no easy explanation. If any. They simply defy logic in >all terms. Okay. You say some of them, then you say maybe _none_ of them have an easy explanation. Exactly which videos do you think have an easy explanation? >Sure, I certainly agree with the fact that there are >involuntary misunderstandings of some images, that >ended up included as genuine flotillas, and some >voluntary hoaxs, perpetrated by people taking advantage >of the situation. It is a natural thing. I would first find out who is the author of each of the videos and examine this person's reputation and credibility. Was the author asked to film the video by someone else? Was the object pointed out by someone else for the author to film? >However, to simply rule all the flotillas as either hoaxes >or genuine UFO fleets is a big mistake. Each case has to >be analyzed separatelly, to start with. Then, take the >ones which defy explanation and analyze them as group, >observing and registering their common behavior, shapes, >sizes, flight patterns etc. If you wish to devote you time to this, fine. No one is stopping you. We all have different filters. The problem is that there is alot of sensationalism and hype which, although it may play well on Telemundo, would not be respectible in a scientific journal. If you want to make money, then by all means distribute UFO fleet videos or UFO hieroglyphics videos. If you want to explain it, then hunker down and do the legwork and make sure you got all the data you can to verify the video before placing your reputation on it. But then, what sells to audiences of people who want to believe (and perhaps take national pride in) is UFOs, not analysis of UFOs. After the Campeche UFO video fiasco, which some people still stubbornly refuse to believe was oil rig burnoff flares, I would hope folk would have learned its better to do analysis up front. Ah, but it isn't the analysis that counts, is it? Its the glory and fame and hype! Again, if you want to go through one video at a time, we can do it. But the burden is on the presentor of the video to prove it isn't what it appears to be, obvious balloons.
[ Next Message | Previous Message | This Day's Messages ]
This Month's Index |
UFO UpDates - Toronto - Operated by Errol Bruce-Knapp