From: James Smith <zeus001002.nul> Date: Sun, 8 May 2005 12:10:15 -0400 (GMT-04:00) Fwd Date: Mon, 09 May 2005 20:30:05 -0400 Subject: Re: New Mexican UFO Fleets Footage - Smith >From: A. J. Gevaerd - Revista UFO <gevaerd.nul> >To: <ufoupdates.nul> >Date: Sat, 7 May 2005 10:01:56 -0300 >Subject: Re: New Mexican UFO Fleets Footage >>From: James Smith <zeus001002.nul> >>Date: Tue, 3 May 2005 09:12:50 -0400 (GMT-04:00) >>To: ufoupdates.nul >>Subject: Re: New Mexican UFO Fleets Footage >>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. >You bet we have different filters, James. For instance, you seem >to have a preconceived idea of just whatever comes south of the >border. I had not preconceived notion when I saw the Campeche FLIR video. I thought at the time. Holey cow! This is it, finally a video from a respectable source, with radar confirmation, a lots of good witnesses (pilots!, military!), with lots of good camera data (field of view, azimuth, elevation, cooridnates!!!). Who could ask for anything more! And these things really looked weird and you had to say, hear was a truly exellent UFO video and should shake up the whole world! Well, we found out what happened after a little analysis. So I am more jaded after that little event. This has nothing to do with being from south of the border. What is it with all this nationalism of UFOs? Kyle King pointed out to me and I wholy agree with him that this concept of nationalism has no place in UFO research but seems to be some sort of "race card" being used by foreign UFO promoters to get the recognition they want. The country of origin does play a role. If a government is corrupt, so it can't train its military or provide it with good equipment, then that is relevent. If the country is technically, educationally backward, then doesn't this affect the reliability, quality of the UFO data? >The way you mention Telemundo and other Latin media is a >proof of that. I, on other have, have no problem in seeing good >material shown in bad program, in any country, as long as I get >to take a very close look at them after. Here in Brazil we have >great cases found first by the worst kind of media there is, and >then, when we have the chance to talk to the experiencers and >witness, we do our job. And, of course, apply our filters. I haven't seen enough "analysis" of these videos. Given the paucity of supporting data, I am less inclined to do so than the Campeche case. >>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. >On the contrary, James. Neither Jaime Maussan, nor Santiago, >Daniel or I have made a cent with this new Mexican material. >Jaime isn't selling that, nor am I. On the contrary, I am having >some good expenses down here in Brazil contracting good personel >to convert, adapt and publish the material in our website >www.ufo.com.br and applying some money as well to increase the >bandwidth of it, so everyone can see that. The material has all >been shown to everyone absolutely for free. As a matter of fact, >all material in our website is entirely free. We have a team of >people working on the website and being paid to post and publish >all sorts of material entirely for free (including over 400 >pages of official Brazilian UFO docs that we have managed to >get). And we get an average of 14,000 hits per day, with >consumes a lot of bandwidth. I wish you were more informed about >the details of my working before judging it. You have advertising. More hits means more revenue. More supporters that are drawn into your group to offer memebership dues means more money. I am not trying to follow a money trail. However, logic indicates that having hype and sensationalism will provide more inflow of money than no hype and sensationalism. If you or the gang are not personally making money, fine. Who am I to say you are or are not? >>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! >Easy, James. Please do not generalise, as this is one of the >biggest problem of the UFO researchers. To be honest, I don't >know anyone, not even the Mexican UFO researchers, questioning >that _some_ of the lights detected and registered in Campeche >are oil rig burnoff flares, maybe more than expected (or desired >by a few people). However, are _all_ of the lights detected and >registered in Campeche just oil rig burnoff flares??? I have my >questions. Filters? Maybe. I think its clear that ALL the lights of the hyped FLIR video _are_ burnoff flares. A few of the individual lights are unknown, but you and I know the hyped part fo the video was the groups of lights and they ALL have been shown to be burnoff flares. >>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. >Again, you seem to be applying more filters than required. And >again, you come up to a generalization. I have seen that you >question Maussan's role in all this and that you question, of >course (who wouldn't?), Arturo Robles Gil past reputation. Actually, I personally did not question Maussan's role (he seems clearly to me to be the hypemaster not an analyst) or Robles Gill reputation (someone gave me the Gill data and I included this data in a posting). >But I >am afraid that the personal questions of these individuals must >be lest behind if we intend to do a serious and impartial job. It s fundamental in dealing with the 100's of UFO videos and photos to understand where they came from. For this reason, the Campeche original source was impressive, although that Maussan distributed it was questionable. >Robles Gil wasn't the only one to film the objects on April 11. >There were other people, is other locations, who do not know >each other. Are they all lying? Maybe, but we only will know if >we talk and interview them, and if we get to analyse the >circunstances of the footages. No condenm them first. Who said they were lying. If someone releases balloons and lots of people film them, then they all may be innocent dupes. >Maussan, >on other hand, has not been the only one to release the >footages, and this is basically what he did: released the videos >and let researchers investigate them, let people decide what >they are. I wonder at the benefit of his methodology. He seems better at posing questions than answering them. But he can ride the tide of hype as he promotes the latest "UFO" footage. >Well, you don't like Maussan and Robles, it is pretty >obvious. But they are only the messengers. And because you don't >like the message you do not need to hurt the messengers. I never said I don't like them. Whenever I mentioned them in my emails it was what others have said about them. Have I first hand interaction with these guys? No. Still, the circumstantial evidence is there. One may choose to accept or ignore it based on one's sensibilities. I take the data in, but it is not everything. They both seem suspect to me.
[ Next Message | Previous Message | This Day's Messages ]
This Month's Index |
UFO UpDates - Toronto - Operated by Errol Bruce-Knapp