Carlos Diaz case HOAX OR NOT!

reply to post by internos


You will be interested to watch this video presented by british Russell Callaghan,
researcher and editor of UFODATA Magazine, a video he got from Mexico showing
an investigation titled Making the Carlos Diaz Light Ships. Watch the images and
make your conclusion.

I have to say I'm not endorsing Russell Callaghan neither Carlos Diaz, I will remain
neutral in this case but the images shown in this report are remarkably similar to
those photos and videos from Carlos Diaz wich interestingly is also a professional
and skilled photographer. Here is the report.

video.google.com...

reply to post by free_spirit


Thank you for the video link. I would hope people watch this and make their own conclusions. It is also interesting that the glass factory is close to Mr Diaz' home.

I don't know if anyone ever made a decent recreation of Carlos Diaz' photographs. Having said that, that wouldn't prove his pictures are a hoax just that it could be done using 'off the shelf' objects/products. I haven't looked at the case for a while so I don't know of any recent developments.
What I do want to say is that nearly 2 years ago I saw something somewhat similar although I doubt it has anything to do with this case. I saw a bright orange slightly eliptical sphere which was pitch black in the center, I guess the size of a basketball. Maybe it was one of those ufo-balloons but I sincerely doubt that as well since the object was about 100 feet - 30 meters straight above me and I couldn't see the normal characteristics of a balloon.

reply to post by free_spirit


free_spirit, thanks for the enlightening video. As kidflash2008 said, people shoud watch it before making any judgement.

I've taken a screen of the "Making the Carlos Diaz Light Ships" video to compare/contrast images.









They only similarity I see initially is the shape. But, that is only slightly. The Russell Callaghan video screen seems blobbish and out of sharp focus. And whats with the green?

Theres one other point i think is valid when trying to debunk something. Why would the makers of this video squat on it for 5 years? If your trying to discredit somebody wouldn't it be better to get that kind of information out when the case is hot rather than 5 years later. Struck me as off a little bit.

If any one wants more screens put up let me know. They all look pretty different.

This just screams fake to me. Doesn't look real at all. This looks like a typical 50's movie prop. Doesn't this look like a plastic model with a light shone from the inside?

Ufowatchdog has a less than stellar review of the Diaz "body of work".

I'm open to the UFO phenomena, but this just doesn't have anything that stands out as even worth being interested in. The comparisons to Billy Meier seem fair to me from what I see.

www.ufowatchdog.com...

reply to post by free_spirit


Firstly, I am on the fence with Diaz and the ships of light.

It a cool story!

This is an interesting video.

It shows that the physical appearance of the craft that Diaz said he saw can be replicated.

However, all this proves is exactly that. The the physical appearance of the craft that Diaz said he saw can be replicated.

I was under the impression that the real mystery with the Diaz case is that the video is considered to be either genuine or "the best hoax ever seen" and that all attempts to prove it a hoax have been inconclusive at best.

If it was a easy to fake as what you saw in that video, it would seem to me that the Diaz case would have been exposed as a hoax by now.

If the ship of light was indeed made at a glass factory then you have a couple of scenarios that prove problematic.

Someone must have made this for Diaz and someone would have most likely seen this being made and, right there, you already have too many mouths to keep the secret.

If it was a model then it would have been either a huge glass ship which Diaz hung or a small one that he superimposed on his video or a combination of the two.

Glass is heavy. Something that big would have to have been held up by a crane or something similar. This would have been very hard for Diaz to hide. This also aadds to the problem of the actual glass blower. How could they make something so big without drawing attention to yourself making it? To make something that big out of glass would also take incredible skill. No saying that the blowers at that factory do not have the skill but it is something to consider.

If Diaz superimposed a small model over his film, then, unless he is a master at editing, the experts that study the tape would have picked up signs of the work. If it was a large model, then he would have had to have edited out the crane which would one would assume would have been picked up by the experts studying the film.

The other thing I wanted to point out was how many people did it take to perform the recreation in that video and it was blown at a factory, but where was it painted and where was the model set up?

I count at least 5 people in the making of this and probably more.

The glass blower, the modeller, the photographer and at least 2 assistants.

Russell Callaghan says himself:

"Now this is quite tricky how they got the laser beam to fire out."

The question then asks, did Diaz have the technical know how to do all the individual jobs himself and then did he have the technical ability to actually do all these jobs himself.

If he didn't, who helped him?

I think this video asks many more questions about the claim of "hoax" than it answers.

Ladies and Jerkoff's its real. # it ill say it. Prove its not!

I met Carlos Diaz years ago at a UFO convention, and even bought some big prints of his photos and had them on my walls for years. But after I saw some of his film footage, I took the photos down. You don't have to be Industrial Light And Magic to see that (at least some of) his visual evidence is obviously fake. See for yourself, just look at the first 30 seconds of his video at www.youtube.com... . You can see the "ship" jerking around behind a branch (which is itself moving in relation to the camera) and then swinging briefly as if on a thread. As for the rest of his story, he may actually have had some real experiences, and the aliens may actually have mastered tripod technology (and loaned him one), but his putting forth of such patently fake footage as I saw forces me to come down on the HOAX side. Sorry fellow believers.

[edit on 10-5-2010 by openmindedguy]

[edit on 10-5-2010 by openmindedguy]

[edit on 10-5-2010 by openmindedguy]

[edit on 10-5-2010 by openmindedguy]

originally posted by: Anonymous ATS
Ladies and Jerkoff's its real. # it ill say it. Prove its not!

originally posted by: Horza
reply to post by free_spirit

 

. . . the video is considered to be either genuine or "the best hoax ever seen" and that all attempts to prove it a hoax have been inconclusive at best.

I'm rezzing this because nobody with an open mind or with the ability to think critically addressed this earlier (which is odd because there are usually a few on ATS who aren't afraid to think critically).

The burden of proof of whether Diaz's claims are true is _not_ on disbeliebers. The burden of proof is _squarely_ on the shoulders of Diaz to demonstrate that alien life forms from outside our solar system actually visited him and lent him a tripod. Diaz has _not_ demonstrated any of this, he has only demonstrated that he collected light from some object, recorded it in some digital format, and shared some of it while being incredibly secretive about other parts of it.

We have absolutely _zero_ observable evidence of intelligent lifeforms creating plasma ships and flying them around. Even if we saw plasma ships flying around every day and they came to pick us up and take us to work and school we wouldn't have evidence of alien life forms building the ships, we would simply have evidence of ships flying around.

A hypothesis _must_ be based on a prior observation, otherwise it is just a conjecture or a guess. Even if we assume it is _true_ that aliens exist and create plasma ships we wouldn't be able to make a hypothesis that aliens interact with our solar system because we don't have any observations of it.

Let me say that again: given that alien plasma ships are real and fly around on Earth and interact with humans, we would _not_ be able to make the hypothesis that aliens interact with us because we don't have any observation of aliens.

Also, people seem to be confused about what open minded means. It does _not_ mean the ability to be gullible enough to belieb claims just because they have not been proven wrong (that is the argument from ignorance fallacy). It means being okay with the conclusion if the conclusion means we are wrong, and being okay if the conclusion means we are right. In other words, if aliens interacted with Diaz, I'm fine with it. And if aliens don't exist in our galaxy, I'm fine with that also. Most of the members here who claim to be "open minded" are okay with aliens interacting with humans, but hardly any are okay with that _not_ being the case.

Again, the burden is on Diaz to demonstrate that an alien "hypothesis" is anything more than a conjecture, and showing videos of ships made of light does nothing to support his claim. Nevermind that he hasn't even demonstrated that his photos or videos even record any such ships to begin with.

I don't claim Diaz is a hoaxer, but he certainly hasn't given anyone _good_ reasons to become beliebers in his extraordinary claims. So, the default position remains the same: lack of belief until sufficient evidence has been presented demonstrating that plasma ships actually exist AND that aliens exist in our galaxy AND that aliens interact with humans AND that the _best_ explanation for said (and as yet, unverified) ships are the aliens and not something else.

An open minded, critically thinking person would stick with the default until, and _only_ until, the burden of proof has been met. Everyone else (the vast majority) can, and will, belieb anything they want as long as they remain infallible wrt their core beliefs. I'm ok with being wrong, are you?

[Edit, forgot to append "critically" to my opening sentence]