Carlos Diaz case HOAX OR NOT!

Carlos Diaz case HOAX OR NOT!

www.truveo.com

Ships of Light

(visit the link for the full news article)

I would like to know what do you people think of Carlos Diaz UFO story? If someone would ask me about Billy Meier story and photos I would immediately tell you that it is HOAX without any doubt. But Carlos Diaz….hmmm I don’t know I am not sure I think its hoax too but….very confused. I cant believe than no man since now did not provide same duplicate of his photos as a proof that he use a model or some kind of toy’s but no, since now his case is unique or maybe I don’t have enough information. Please post your comment and info of this case.

part 1
www.truveo.com...
part 2
www.truveo.com...

www.truveo.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

reply to post by Cristo


Some claim it a hoax, but truth be told, no one has been able to prove that.

I saw the documentary "ships of light" a while back, and I found it interesting that Col. Corso had taken a look at the pictures and claimed that they were genuine.

Of course, Corso is a man with his own case, Nobody has been able to determine whether he was a fraud or not. He wrote a famous book called "the day after roswell" that sparked much controversy, unfortunately that's where it ends with him(controversy).

Check out this website

It has Carlos Diaz in it's hall of shame. Quite a short argument for why the guy is a hoaxer, but nevertheless.. a good one.

Originally posted by Majorion
reply to post by Cristo

 

Some claim it a hoax, but truth be told, no one has been able to prove that.

I saw the documentary "ships of light" a while back, and I found it interesting that Col. Corso had taken a look at the pictures and claimed that they were genuine.

Of course, Corso is a man with his own case, Nobody has been able to determine whether he was a fraud or not. He wrote a famous book called "the day after roswell" that sparked much controversy, unfortunately that's where it ends with him(controversy).

Check out this website

It has Carlos Diaz in it's hall of shame. Quite a short argument for why the guy is a hoaxer, but nevertheless.. a good one.

Actually the argument provided is extremely weak and it doesn't even have sources to back up the accusations.

Claimed that aliens lent him a tripod to take photos of their ships...

Actually, this part is quite true when you listen to Diaz's explanation in "ships of light".

All evidence seems to point to it NOT being a hoax at this poit, IMO. I've read a couple posts on a different Diaz topic who scream hoax up and down, but i havn't seen one real well thought out reason as to why it is a hoax.

My personal belief is that this man has had some pretty extraoridnary experiences in his life. He's faced a lot of ridicule from people for coming out with his information too. In regards to the 'ships of light' his photographs and footage are very impressive. Analysts (i forget their names now but one was pretty renowned, from other ufo vids) have concluded that his footage and photographs are either the best hoaxes they've seen or they're real. I say he's legit, and deserves a lot more credit, and that his vids should be seen by as many open minded people as possible.

Originally posted by W3RLIED2
All evidence seems to point to it NOT being a hoax at this poit, IMO. I've read a couple posts on a different Diaz topic who scream hoax up and down, but i havn't seen one real well thought out reason as to why it is a hoax.

I have to agree. Of course two lines claiming that he's a hoaxer don't make of him a real hoaxer. While i do like ufowatchdog, i have to say that i would like to see something conclusive, based on real assesments: the case is controversial, but which UFO case isn't? I really don't know if he has ever been debunked, i've never researched on his story as it would deserve. I hope that someone will bring some informations about it.

The Carlos Diaz case is certainly one of the most convincing cases, but when I watched "ships of light" I still felt like there were many claims made by Carlos that didn't make sense or were illogical.

I'm pretty sure that he did claim that an ET gave him the camera, not 100% sure about that though. But if that is the case, then I would deem him as a hoaxer in my book(personal opinion).

Convincing? This case is a hoax.
www.rense.com...


included is the only person who ever did to any kind of analysis on the photage,and other then that No one else has been allowed to do so.

I would say it is a hoax. The thing looks like an illuminated helium balloon ffs.

reply to post by NavalFC


Not convincing in the least. Heres a couple reasons why:

To take a couple of quotes from the exact page you just posted a link from.

"When Jim Diletosso loaded the footage into the computer and we started stepping through the frames as well as playing it at various speeds I noticed that the so-called plasma craft, looking like a Japanese hanging lamp"
-- This , in theory, is becasue the craft is more than likely using some sort of magnetic wave technologies or other similar technologies. Have you ever seen what happens when an object is suspended in the air on a magnetic field?? It bounces and wobbles slightly using the fields to keep itself stable.


"The so-called firing of a laser beam from near the bottom side of the object appears like a small focused flashlight beam."
Be that as it may, upon a closer inspection provided by Jim Diletosso he actually points out that unlike a normal source of light the light that came from the craft has a greater luminessence at the bottom of the light then it does coming from the source, which is as far as our technologies are concerned, impossible. Light will always be stronger at the beginning then at the end becasue of dissipation.


"Our conclusion, also based on the fact that Carlos does video work and films weddings and celebrations, is that his video of the plasma ship is most likely a hoax using a small model"

That conclusion totally ignores the fact that after the videos went public several teams of ufologist went with Carlos Diaz to the sights that he filmed the objects at. While there the walked off every single measurement they could using landmarks from his video footage. Once that was completed, they compared all their findings to Diaz' video camera. Why? because they were making sure that the zoom settings the film was taken with were matching up with the landmarks from the video sight, which as it turns out they did.

Further more, if would read the whole page of the link you have posted a few, more credible people make replies such as this one.

"From Michael Hesemann

Dear Mr. Rense, Carlos Diaz Case Is Not A Hoax!"

Hesemann also took the time to contact some pretty smart people as well.

"I did not only travel to Mexico twelve times for on-site field investigations, but also consulted leading experts in the US, Belgium, Germany and Italy, including:

Prof. Corrado Malanga, University of Pisa

Prof. Manfred Kage, University of Mannheim

Prof, Auguste Meessen, University of Louvain

Bob Shell, editor "Shutterbug" Magazine, phototechnical consultant of the FBI

Dr. Robert Nathan, Jet Propulsion Lab/NASA, Pasadena

Jim Dilettoso, The Village Labs

None of these phototechnical experts found any evidence of a hoax in the films and footage shot by Diaz."

** all quotes from Rense

SO, no i'm not convinced.... still

reply to post by NavalFC


NavalFC, i saw that artice some (hundreds?) times: actually, all in all it endorses the genuinity of the case. They are a series of letters where people claim this and claim that: this is not what i was referring to
I would like to see some analysis proving it in some conclusive way that it was a hoax. Of course, if he did (actually) impeed some independant analysis, that would be some HUGE red flag, but so far we have evidences in one hand (photos, videos and witnesses) and claims in the other one. Too few to call it as debunked, but hey, i could be wrong.

Why is Jim Diletesso involved in this case? And is he the only person to officially analyze the footage over all these years?

If this case is indeed a hoax, and it seems like it is. Does that also make Col. Corso(who supported this case) a hoaxer as well?

Another poster besides me said said that Corso only came out with his book "the day after roswell" when he was 80 years old, and subsequently died one year later. Is that true? .. if so, what would the man have to gain from all this being that old?

And NavalFC, I don't personally find this case to be convincing, I just think that many people DO. It's no Roswell or Rendelsham in my book.

I think hoax. Interesting doco, but too easily hoaxed. He's a good actor. Like Bob Lazaar (assuming he is acting). Very convincing. Probably a failed Hollywood extra.

The Corso book "The Day After Rosewell" fascinates me. I believed it and his credentials are what he claims, unlike so many frauds who have no evidence of their past etc.

Has there been any proof that Corso is lying?

Sorry to change subject but all relevant. "Ships of Light" has the new age angle and Corso is more the military angle. I am very suspect on new age ufologists.

As for Billy M and his ray gun. Some of the best comedy I've ever seen. He may have had an experience when he was young. It obviously gave him the idea that been a fake new age guru prophet would be easier that getting a real job.

There are so many decent stories (two thread alive and kicking now on ATS-the Valentich case from Aus in '78 and the follow u NZ Kaikouri cameraman case)

I will watch Ships of Light again. But I feel it reeks of new age guru stuff. And poses the question "why him"? Why would alies choose anonamous people to present their ships to?

I don't remember been impressed by any of the footage, but will watch again.

I for one, i'm not endorsing the case, because i don't know it: i'm just saying that in order to label it as hoax, some conclusive proof is needed. NOw, ufowatchdog labeled it as hoax, but on what is based this decision? Proof, analysis, witnesses, claims or something else?

Certainly, for many who have examined the three images, the first shot is the most impressive. In it, the orange glowing craft can be seen through the windshield of the car, and light from the object is reflected both off the car's bonnet and off the metal guard rail by the side of the road. These, in particular, are details that experts claim are extremely difficult to fake.

Interestingly, the photographs were also analysed by Dr Robert Nathan at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory in California. Nathan, a notorious UFO sceptic, stated that he could find no evidence of a fake.

source ufocasebook........

I just spent the last 45 minutes reading all sorts of crap from ufowatchdog and couldn't find one word about Diaz. but then again, i could just be looking in the wrong spot... they've been up for a while.

I havn't been able to dig up one valid reason to back up the hoax claims.
You guys that think its a hoax have anyhting better than hear-say? Until then i think this is a pretty one sided argument.

reply to post by Cristo


I believe the case is real,

ET ships appear exactly as described.

ET ships are alive as described and can morph/change colors shapeshift as described, made of pure energy pulsating different colors of light energy as described, materialize de-materialize or vanish into thin air interdimensionally as described.

Colors, shapes variations of the ships depending on species.

The other sign is Diaz talks about a feeling he gets in his solarplexus area before an encounter with a feeling of communication non-telepathic of just knowing.

The other part of his story was meeting someone after his first encounter, I believe him.

I believe his case to be real as much as I woud say the Travis Walton or Betty & Barney Hill case to be real but who knows for sure unless we experienced what they did ourselves. If I was to share my own case nobody would believe me but then it wouldn't matter because I could know for myself it was real.







[edit on 12-11-2008 by Malevolent_Aliens]

Originally posted by W3RLIED2
reply to post by NavalFC

 

Not convincing in the least. Heres a couple reasons why:

To take a couple of quotes from the exact page you just posted a link from.

"When Jim Diletosso loaded the footage into the computer and we started stepping through the frames as well as playing it at various speeds I noticed that the so-called plasma craft, looking like a Japanese hanging lamp"
-- This , in theory, is becasue the craft is more than likely using some sort of magnetic wave technologies or other similar technologies. Have you ever seen what happens when an object is suspended in the air on a magnetic field?? It bounces and wobbles slightly using the fields to keep itself stable.

"The so-called firing of a laser beam from near the bottom side of the object appears like a small focused flashlight beam."
Be that as it may, upon a closer inspection provided by Jim Diletosso he actually points out that unlike a normal source of light the light that came from the craft has a greater luminessence at the bottom of the light then it does coming from the source, which is as far as our technologies are concerned, impossible. Light will always be stronger at the beginning then at the end becasue of dissipation.


"Our conclusion, also based on the fact that Carlos does video work and films weddings and celebrations, is that his video of the plasma ship is most likely a hoax using a small model"

That conclusion totally ignores the fact that after the videos went public several teams of ufologist went with Carlos Diaz to the sights that he filmed the objects at. While there the walked off every single measurement they could using landmarks from his video footage. Once that was completed, they compared all their findings to Diaz' video camera. Why? because they were making sure that the zoom settings the film was taken with were matching up with the landmarks from the video sight, which as it turns out they did.

Further more, if would read the whole page of the link you have posted a few, more credible people make replies such as this one.

"From Michael Hesemann

Dear Mr. Rense, Carlos Diaz Case Is Not A Hoax!"

Hesemann also took the time to contact some pretty smart people as well.

"I did not only travel to Mexico twelve times for on-site field investigations, but also consulted leading experts in the US, Belgium, Germany and Italy, including:

Prof. Corrado Malanga, University of Pisa

Prof. Manfred Kage, University of Mannheim

Prof, Auguste Meessen, University of Louvain

Bob Shell, editor "Shutterbug" Magazine, phototechnical consultant of the FBI

Dr. Robert Nathan, Jet Propulsion Lab/NASA, Pasadena

Jim Dilettoso, The Village Labs

None of these phototechnical experts found any evidence of a hoax in the films and footage shot by Diaz."

** all quotes from Rense

SO, no i'm not convinced.... still

So your response to a analytical criticism is to make a presumption as to the use of technology and said aliens would be using with no proof and not actually knowing?

reply to post by NavalFC


So your response to serious reply is a huge quote of mine and two lines of crap?

And the evidence for the Diaz case leans in his favor, as i've shown. Also the evidence for anti grave tech that takes advantage of earths natural magnetic fields is very strong. Maybe another video that hasn't been debunked would help you.



ED- hit button too quick. Notice that when the craft slows down to hover it's not perfectly still. It appears to be rotating and wobbling slightly, very much like the model that is floating above the kitchen table...



[edit on 12-11-2008 by W3RLIED2]

reply to post by Cristo


The problem I have is not only the fake looking ships, but Mr Diaz did not get one photograph of the aliens he supposedly met. How come no one else has seen his aliens?
The videos near the tree look like models and the "tree" itself looks like a houseplant. The one video looks like a jello mold quivering if you look at it close enough.

This story, like the Meier case, is a hoax.

Watch how the craft in the video moves by the "tree". Its movements are jerky and not very smooth. Also, look at the branch of the "tree" and watch how it shakes. It shakes like a small houseplant would, not like a big tree where the branch would have more fluidity.
I honestly don't see how anyone can claim these are real. Maybe have a father who know about photography helps me out a little on what details to look for.

Edited to add.

[edit on 11/12/2008 by kidflash2008]