UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 2005 > May > May 4

Re: New Mexican UFO Fleets Footage - Smith

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 Main Index

UFO UpDates - Toronto - Operated by Errol Bruce-Knapp

Archive programming by Glenn Campbell at Glenn-Campbell.com