From: James Smith <zeus001002.nul> Date: Wed, 11 May 2005 10:20:07 -0400 (GMT-04:00) Fwd Date: Wed, 11 May 2005 10:25:06 -0400 Subject: Re: More UFO Fleets Over Mexico - Smith >From: John Velez <johnvelez.aic.nul> >To: ufoupdates.nul >Date: Tue, 10 May 2005 16:19:59 -0400 >Subject: Re: More UFO Fleets Over Mexico >>From: Jim Deardorff <deardorj.nul> >>To: ufoupdates.nul >>Date: Mon, 09 May 2005 18:20:25 -0700 >>Subject: Re: More UFO Fleets Over Mexico >Oh how you waste your time my friend. James Smith for all his >feigned pretension of honest skepticism, is quite the opposite. >If Smith is able to accept the sloppy 'proof' that Mr. Franz >presented recently while demanding precision and strict >adherence to empirical procedure from the Mexican research >community, contrary to what his mouth says, what he actually >does is to prematurely arrive at conclusions and apply a double >standard to everyone else. Ha-ha-ha! You really know how to give someone a good laugh! When did I ever give a critique of Captain Franz' latest video data? Pulling data out of the air again I see. Sort of like balloons. The fact is that Captain Franz has gotten off his ass, unlike many members of the UFO community, and actually gone out there to try to gather data to verify (or not) his theory. The passive UFOlogists instead like to sit back and wait for some day to arrive when the vaunted Mexican military will refly the path. I am pleased that Captain Franz is still working on the case, although I hardly see it as necessary. I have done my share of footwork on this case unlike you Mr. Velez. >The only thing Mr. Franz duplicated in his 'experiment to prove >his oil-well burn off theory' was that he was 'in' an airplane. >Other than that, he's the first one to tell you that in his >alleged recreation of the flight he did not follow the same >course, (in fact, he was nowhere near to where the original >recording was made) nor did he fly at the same heading, altitude >or speed as the original flight. (Reread the preceding sentence >until it sinks in.) He was gathering data, unlike you Mr.Velez who prefers to wait until the military doles out their latest "footage" or balloon experts film their latest release. >Yet he insists that the photos he took of Oil-well fires >corresponds -exactly- to the ones recorded by the military FLIR >equipment. And... that abortive effort by Franz which proves >absolutely nothing, is good enough for Smith to champion the >theory in public while looking down his nose at anyone who may >disagree. Sorry, I have not reviewed his latest video yet. I do not see the need. I am done with the case. It is proven to be oil rig burn off flares. Franz' dedictation does him credit. I have convinced MYSELF using satellite data. That is enough for me. If you wish to continue to believe your fantasies, that is your perogative. Believers will believe no matter what. I championed Franz' theory only after I could CONFIRM that he was RIGHT using satellite Landsat images to get the needed data to find the exact locations of each burnoff flare and match it with the FLIR images (thanks to the azimuth and aircraft position being imprinted on the video, unlike the balloon videos). I don't look down my nose at you stubborn anti-factualists. I smirk. >It's ordinary pre-judging, plain and simple. Oh-so-funny! >Bruce Maccabee met with Jaime Maussan at the Conference that >was held recently in Washington. They discussed (yet again) the >possibility of getting the Mexican AF to recreate the original >flight, using the same plane, equipment, speed, course and >altitude. Yes, a good idea whose time may never come, but I do recommend holding your breath until it does. >Pay close attention here Mr. Smith: You can't seem to squeeze >this one into your melon for some reason..... >Then, and only then, after the recreation/test flight, is >performed, (if) there is any _direct_ correlation between oil >well burn-off fires and the original FLIR recording, will you or >anybody else be able to dismiss the FLIR recording as mere heat >signatures recorded from oil well burn-off. Foolish man! Ignore all the satellite image correlations and platform locations and ancillary Franz videos and sure you can say there is no direct correlation. Continue to ignore the evidence, sir. It becomes you not. >Not before. >Whether you like it or not. >Period. Yawn. >I don't know how many times this point needs to be made before >skepti-bunkers in sheep's clothing (with itchy trigger-fingers) >finally chill out and wait for the Mexican military to do the >right thing. Yes, they are certainly going to make this top priority, showing that they are incompetent. Yes, I will follow these developments closely. >Until then, people who egotistically declare cases closed/solved >without being able to actually prove or document it, really are >better off lurking. Ignore the Landsat satellite data and all the FLIR directional data and you would be right, the case would NOT be closed. Maybe you don't understand what satellites are or something. Yes, thats mind boggling, but how else can I explain your fundamental inability to process the data I have presented in tedious detail to date (I even generated VRML models of the 3D data... oh yes, sorry, Mr. Deardorff prefers reality). >The only thing I'm surprised at is; why this test flight has not >been performed to date. It's _the_ real sticking point. They can >calibrate the FLIR and a fresh recording can settle once and >for all the question of oil well fires. As I said, the military doesn't what to advertise its stupidity. >Then maybe these alleged "honest" skeptics, cough, cough, >ahem... can put their heads together and try to explain the >radar target UFO that did all kinds of tricks in the air, ie; >dramatically speeding up and slowing down, as it wended its way >toward the city of Carmen. Have I ever stated that the target that Bruce Maccabee identified was explained by oil flare platforms? No. I tried. Its ONE light on the FLIR. Hardly the Earth shattering "fleet" of UFOs pursuing a poor Mexican military plane. If you want to call the ONE light a UFO, then by all means do so. It is one because I do not have any data to call it an airplane (which I suspect but cannot prove it is). As for the "tricks in the air", that does not show up on the video, it just moves like an airplane. I am skeptical of the radar after seeing the quality of the data (no data stream). Heh, what about later on in the FLIR video (after the "fleet"), there are some other lights which I can't identify. GO ahead and call them UFOs because I will not take more time to identify them (I tried and at least they aren't oil rigs or known heat sources on the mainland). So you got some UFOs on the video! Are you happy? Do I care? A nocturnal light on FLIR will not fill me with the truth that we are being visited, but we all have different needs. Maybe one light is enough for you. Enjoy! >Case closed? I don't think so. Whatever! >Let em all talk, Jim. Until the military makes the test flight, >the jury will still be out in on this one. In spite of all the >bleating coming from certain quarters. Let em squirm, protest, >demand and prejudge all they want. In the end, the truth will >out. Yeah baby! >My warmest regards to you Mr. Deardorff, stay well. Keep in >there swinging! ;) Yes, support your local balloon releaser.
[ Next Message | Previous Message | This Day's Messages ]
This Month's Index |
UFO UpDates - Toronto - Operated by Errol Bruce-Knapp