From: James Smith <zeus001002.nul> Date: Mon, 9 May 2005 09:00:45 -0400 (GMT-04:00) Fwd Date: Tue, 10 May 2005 07:44:14 -0400 Subject: Re: New Mexican UFO Fleets Footage - Smith >From: Santiago Yturria <syturria.nul> >To: ufoupdates.nul >Date: Wed, 04 May 2005 19:39:17 +0000 >Subject: Re: New Mexican UFO Fleets Footage >>From: Nick Balaskas <nikolaos.nul> >>To: ufoupdates.nul >>Date: Tue, 3 May 2005 21:40:14 -0400 >>Subject: Re: New Mexican UFO Fleets Footage >>I look forward to the opportunity of closely studying the >>complete new video footage which will soon be made available to >>all. >I must give you credit on this one. That's the attitude, review >the evidences, facts and testimonials, study every piece of >footage and analyze every element. Make calculations and >meassures and consider important issues as climate, wind etc. Good luck on obtaining all this data. An excellent job for UFO researchers "south of the border". You need details of camera angles and fields of view too. >Interview experts in aeronautics as well as advertisement flying >devices showing the videos to know their professional opinions. Fine. But then, the Campeche FLIR video had alot of experts look at it and form false conclusions. "Its a fireball... bolide... top secret military aircraft... alien spaceship....." >Then and here's the most challenging part: Make a re-creation >with balloons for comparison and evaluation and at the same time >film birds formations. Then study their behavior in the sky and >reach a conclusion based in facts and evidences. This proposals >is what we expect to try to understand what these things in the >sky are. You missed the option of computer simulations. Because of cost and time and difficulty in duplicating balloon deployment conditions, computer simulations might be better than your re- creations. >You know Nick there is a certain individual that does the >opposite and just speaks-speaks-speaks claiming the same thing >over and over without presenting or contributing any substantial >evidence, test or solid proof to sustain his allegations. We >call him "The Balloon Man" and you know very well who he is. >Well, his claims mean nothing-zero-nada. Maybe you can enlighten us all on the "Balloon Man". These veiled insults without giving names is quaint. Has it ever occurred to you that you might have a little more credibility if you assume something is NOT a UFO and try to prove it IS using analysis and facts and data as opposed to the other way around. Actually, all I see here is the "assume its a UFO and thats it" approach. >As long as this person don't provide a legitimate recreation >with actual balloons, ( wich you and me know very well will >never-ever do ) most required evidence then the "Balloon >Man" is just a fraud himself. I think computer simulations should be a useful next step in attempting to duplicate the videos. Of course, since the reputations of the videographers is in question, it may be useless to do so (the use of painted glass in front of the camera). We are not talking about video from the military here, but from people whose bonafides are not substantiated. This is the job of reliable UFO researchers from south of the border, not us gringos. >We are sick and tired of these opportunists that infiltrate >the ufologic community from time to time trying to make >their own scenario stealing the lights of those who >dedicated most of their lives to the serious and >professional research. I must >warn our collagues to be aware of charlatans like this one, >perfect example of cheap demagogy who just talks and talks like >a failed preacher to an empty audience. Enough for these ufology >parasites. Are you speaking for a group or do you have royal blood when you say "we"? What do you mean infiltrate? Is it not permissible to have opinions "south of the border"? I thought at least some of those countries were democratic. "Stealing the lights"? Ah, you want fame! Well, all you need to do is be good hypemasters, publicity seekers by dumping alot of UFO videos out there with little or no backup data. I would never dump a UFO video to the public, claiming it was a UFO, unless I had done as much research as I could on it. You talk about serious and professional research but isn't it clear that dumping UFO videos that are not properly screened (and which turn out to be as prosaic or more so than Campeche) will give the UFO community a bigger blackeye than a few UFO researchers who happen to be a little more skeptical than you are.
[ Next Message | Previous Message | This Day's Messages ]
This Month's Index |
UFO UpDates - Toronto - Operated by Errol Bruce-Knapp