UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 2007 > Aug > Aug 18

Re: 'Worm' UFOs Or Baloons?

From: Kentaro Mori <kentaro.mori.nul>
Date: Sat, 18 Aug 2007 00:32:52 -0300
Archived: Sat, 18 Aug 2007 16:59:35 -0400
Subject: Re: 'Worm' UFOs Or Baloons?

>From: Santiago Yturria Garza <syturria.nul>
>To: ufoupdates.nul
>Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2007 19:38:03 +0000
>Subject: Re: 'Worm' UFOs Or Baloons?

>>From: Kentaro Mori <kentaro.mori.nul>
>>To: ufoupdates.nul
>>Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2007 22:19:48 -0300
>>Subject: Re: 'Worm' UFOs Or Baloons?

>>And if one thinks these are 'mysterious, it must be
>>considered that it has the same origins as even more
>>incredible footage of flying horses and characters
>>from Pokemon and Spongebob Squarepants - I'm not
>>joking. Flying objects of those shapes were actually
>>filmed and promoted as mysterious things.


>But you
>took the easy way and went to the extreme position quoting
>ridicule examples like Pokemon and Spongebob wich are not the
>case and just revealed you are not serious in your inquiry.

Interesting thing that you quoted Pokemon and Spongebob, but
repeatedly ignored the flying horse example. I cannot help but
suspect that's because the flying horse case was promoted as
mysterious by the very same person who is the main responsible
for publicizing the "Flotillas".

The Pokemon and Spongebob character examples were also filmed
and/or promoted by people directly related to the promotion of
the less bizarre spheres.

I'm avoiding quoting names because I don't want this to sound
like a personal attack, but both you and I, and hopefully some
others, know
who we are speaking about.

>Ademar has published several times
>accurate information about this phenomena and is an important
>colaborator in this international research.

I have read the articles he published. It's mostly all based on
the material that came from the publicizer referred to above,
who also promoted the flying horse case on TV. Several local
Brazilian ufologists, who support the ETH, clearly stated they
did not find the Flotillas convincing and that they thought they
are indeed balloons, birds and things alike.

But I must be the first to promptly admit that I did not
research all these cases in depth, though I did analyze and
investigate at least one example, promoted on this very same
List some years ago:


I never claimed that I was an "expert" on the subject. My
argument was the simple one I explained below.

>>If it's reasonable to assume these were just
>>balloons, as there  are balloons of the exact same
>>shape being sold, then it's also reasonable to assume
>>these Flotillas are also more common balloons.
>>Unless someone proves and shows the contrary.

>You are wrong again Mr. Mori. You should say Unless someone
>proves with hard evidence that the UFO fleets are balloons the
>phenomena will remain unexplained. As the lawyers say: "
>Innocent until proven Guilty"

Indeed. That's what I implied, Santiago. I wrote that it was
reasonable to assume they were balloons, but there's indeed a
difference between assuming something because it's reasonable,
and proving, explaining it in certain terms.

It's just that one shouldn't also claim they are mysterious
unless any of these mysterious features is actually convincingly

>We have made a deep investigation for decades, we have made
>recreations with actual balloons and they failed to behave like
>a UFO fleet, we have asked skeptics to make their own
>experiments throwing 1000 balloons to the sky to see the results
>but they could not do the test. I could go on and on with this
>just to prove we are working seriously to learn about this
>phenomena and to date we have proven it's legitimacy.

But as far as I know you didn't publish these alleged analyses
on an open, scientific way for broad peer evaluation. If you
did, could you please share them here, as Milton Frank asked you
days ago?

Once again, I claim no expertise on the subject and admit no
case can be claimed to be definitely prosaic unless proven so.
But at the same time, I'm arguing that it's reasonable to assume
they are, unless proven that they have indeed features
unexplainable by these prosaic assumptions.

Respectfully yours,


Listen to 'Strange Days... Indeed' - The PodCast