Not all Hoaxes: Mexican UFO's and Jaime Maussan

Originally posted by GeminiSky
reply to post by Mclaneinc

 

I am not refusing to accept that some of the videos are proven hoaxes and that he continues to support them even after the fact. All im saying is that we can leave him out of the discussion once in a while and focus on the VIDEO EVIDENCE that was sent to him from INDEPENDENT WITNESSES from all over Mexico.

If I filmed a genuine UFO sighting, and the sent it to Jaime and he showed it on tv, would that make my video an automatic hoax?

I understand that he has a tarnished reputation, but why would that stop someone from STILL examining my video REGARDLESS of who is relaying it to the public?

There in stands the problem, thanks to Jamie and his reputation anything he shows is tarnished by his name.

Too many times people have put aside it's source is Jamie and spent ages only to find out yet again it was another Jamie special. I agree people should look at what he puts out and process it but the boy who cried wolf tactics so annoy most people they won't spend the time on checking his stuff out.

Jamie is and always will be his own worst enemy and sadly the worst enemy of those souls who like you send him stuff. If I were you, if you ever film anything else then put it up on Youtube and post it in here. Once there's no JM you will get a much fairer deal with the people in here.

Seeing your stuff on TV is nice but pretty useless if no one believes it..

Originally posted by GeminiSky
If I filmed a genuine UFO sighting, and the sent it to Jaime and he showed it on tv, would that make my video an automatic hoax?

Should we dismiss everything that Mr. Maussan's presents? Absolutely not. However, because of his tarnished reputation, an unwillingness to back up extraordinary claims, poor judgement, promotion of hoaxes and a perpetuation of hoaxes after they have been exposed as such, Maussan should be considered with an even more critical eye than would be cast on similar claims by other researchers. I am sure you have heard the maxim "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence". In Mr. Maussan's case, because of his history and reputation, his evidence would need to be even more extraordinary.

He is bound to get lucky but nothing of first hand encounters
ever get out as far as we know from US examples that are
covered by secret government information officials.

Videos of lights in the sky can be made anywhere, he has the
concession in Mexico.

Does he have any better photos than the flat saucer of Rex Heflin that
was suppressed or the Belgian Triangle.

When he does ring a bell.

Originally posted by GeminiSky
Again not accusing anyone on these forums, just a general pattern im beginning to notice..

The only pattern here is a pattern of rationalization among believers.

Presented with evidence that a particular research may have been victim to, or participant in, a hoax or has lied or otherwise committed some offence that brings doubt on their credibility, instead of accepting it for what it is, some believers rationalize it as part of the conspiracy. They claim the researcher was not a hoaxer or a lie, but a victim of a government conspiracy to cover-up UFOs. They refuse to accept the truth, that someone they invested trust and belief in has betrayed them.

reply to post by Mclaneinc


I have never sent anything to JM and dont plan to....I was just using myself as an example.

Originally posted by DoomsdayRex

Originally posted by GeminiSky
Again not accusing anyone on these forums, just a general pattern im beginning to notice..

The only pattern here is a pattern of rationalization among believers.

Presented with evidence that a particular research may have been victim to, or participant in, a hoax or has lied or otherwise committed some offence that brings doubt on their credibility, instead of accepting it for what it is, some believers rationalize it as part of the conspiracy. They claim the researcher was not a hoaxer or a lie, but a victim of a government conspiracy to cover-up UFOs. They refuse to accept the truth, that someone they invested trust and belief in has betrayed them.

Well I certainly hope you aren't referring to me in the above reply. I do not feel the need to rationalize something being part of a conspiracy in order to defend myself if someone disagrees with me or because I am in denial about being "betrayed" by some UFO hoaxer;

I am not a blind believer in anything. And yes I have noticed disinformation agents and efforts underway that are a covert attempt to discredit individuals that are getting too close to the REAL truth of it all. Like I said this was a general statement about the information age in general and not about JM or this thread in particular.

But I can see your point, and there are people who fit into the category and patterns that you describe.

Originally posted by DoomsdayRex

Originally posted by GeminiSky
If I filmed a genuine UFO sighting, and the sent it to Jaime and he showed it on tv, would that make my video an automatic hoax?

Should we dismiss everything that Mr. Maussan's presents? Absolutely not. However, because of his tarnished reputation, an unwillingness to back up extraordinary claims, poor judgement, promotion of hoaxes and a perpetuation of hoaxes after they have been exposed as such, Maussan should be considered with an even more critical eye than would be cast on similar claims by other researchers. I am sure you have heard the maxim "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence". In Mr. Maussan's case, because of his history and reputation, his evidence would need to be even more extraordinary.

I agree with you which is why I put together this thread to present the "extraordinary" evidence that he has presented, and anyone who wants to scrutinize and discuss it is WELCOME. We are all working towards a common goal and that is discovering the truth and reality of what is happening on our blue sphere.

Originally posted by GeminiSky
Well I certainly hope you aren't referring to me in the above reply. I do not feel the need to rationalize something being part of a conspiracy in order to defend myself if someone disagrees with me or because I am in denial about being "betrayed" by some UFO hoaxer

Actually, I am referring to you, because that is exactly what you were doing in the post I replied to.

Originally posted by GeminiSky And yes I have noticed disinformation agents...

The disinfo agent tactic is yet another rationalization and often used as an ad hominem. Presented with someone who disagrees, or presents evidence counter to them, some believers resort to calling them "disinfo agents" so that they may rationalize certain facts away as lies.

When pressed on who these disinformation agents may be or what proof there may be that this person may be a disinformation agent, all the believer can muster is the childish, closed-minded and ignorant arguments that, "they don't agree with me," or "they are passionate", arrogantly believing they have a monopoly on the facts or passion.

If you have anything of more substance to present, then please, tell us who these disinformation agents are and what disinfo they have passed along.

Originally posted by GeminiSky
and efforts underway that are a covert attempt to discredit individuals that are getting too close to the REAL truth of it

And who are you to know what the "real" truth us? How would you know if someone was getting to close to it to begin with?

Originally posted by GeminiSky
Like I said this was a general statement about the information age in general and not about JM or this thread in particular.

You are trying to equivocate, but I (and I am certain other members as well) are not buying it. It is far too much of a coincidence that you would make such an argument in this thread.

reply to post by GeminiSky


Forgive me for I realize this isn't the gist of your thread or intent but..........as soon as I hear 'music' accompany a UFO video, I am immediately turned off, unplugged, disassociated and totally uninterested with the video.


I mean really! If I filmed a genuine UFO (off-world or Human churned) I hardly think I need music to help generate the 'feel'.

It's like if I all of a sudden saw a creature, unlike any I've seen before and was able to capture it on film.....the last thing I would think of doing is, dubbing in music to sensationalize it.
It feels too staged and too contrite.

So............that video you embedded? Thumbs down right from the get-go.

reply to post by DoomsdayRex


Im sorry that you feel I have nothing of substance to discuss.

Still, thank you for contributing to my thread.

Originally posted by GeminiSky
ok....Please explain how lens flares can move in and out of the picture, when the camera is completely still and pointed towards open space.

I didn't say they were all lens flares. The small or fuzzy objects that move are likely either little pieces of ice or other debris like paint chips which flaked off the spacecraft, or if larger it could be space junk.

The shuttle orbits the Earth at over 17,000 miles an hour so it's not standing still, it's moving. Therefore when the sun catches the edge of the lens, the position of the sun relative to the camera is also changing even if they don't move the camera. It looks to me like the way the angle of the sun is changing with respect to the camera lens is what causes the lens flare they call a "UFO" to first fade in, and then fade out.

Lens flares are both simple and complicated at the same time. Simple because it's just a reflected image of the sun or some other bright object, that the sun is reflecting off of, reflecting off of a lens element. But it's complicated because most of the NASA cameras use zoom lenses which have many elements and each lens element can reflect sunlight, making for many complex and intricate patterns, as you can see in the first image. There are many different lens elements involved in those lens flare reflections. Here's a lens flare schematic to give you some idea:

toothwalker.org...
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/0dbc704fdd79.png[/atsimg]

See that dark shield in front of the lens on the left? The purpose of that is to prevent lens flares just like we see in the video. So why doesn't NASA have a shield like that in place? Because it's a zoom lens, and when they try to get a wide angle shot, the shield will block the view.

A photographer on Earth might be putting that shield on and taking it off his zoom lens when he zooms in and out, but of course in space it's not that easy to do so they don't have a shield like that in place. So we get lens flares.

reply to post by Arbitrageur


Agreed. Some of them may be lens flares.

And some of them may be space craft that are observing the shuttle.

Yes I agree the shuttle is always moving, even if the camera itself is still.

This makes the some of the footage we see even more compelling since the objects appear to be under intelligent control in relation to their apparent maneuvering around the shuttle, which as you said is traveling very fast around the earth.

Thank you for the graphic and explanation of how a lens and camera work. I enjoyed reading your post.


[edit on 30-5-2010 by GeminiSky]

Originally posted by GeminiSky
Im sorry that you feel I have nothing of substance to discuss.

Still, thank you for contributing to my thread.

And I am sorry that you continue to twist my words. It is clear from my post I said no such thing.

If you wish to be taken seriously here, to have adult, rational conversations, you would do well to stop twisting the words of others. It is a gross red-herring tactic.

reply to post by DoomsdayRex


Being a grown man I can decide for myself what to say, how to say it, and who to say it too.

You being an adult as well can avoid my thread all together and avoid having to deal with my "gross" red herring tactics.

I do appreciate the suggestions tho. Thanks anyway!

Originally posted by GeminiSky
This makes the some of the footage we see even more compelling since the objects appear to be under intelligent control in relation to their apparent maneuvering around the shuttle, which as you said is traveling very fast around the earth.

Where is there evidence of intelligent control? They are just drifting, in orbit, under the influence of gravity and drag, and on rare occasion, subjected to thruster propellant. There's no intelligent control in any of those.

Thank you for the graphic and explanation of how a lens and camera work. I enjoyed reading your post.

You're welcome.

reply to post by GeminiSky


I have seen him on ufo hunters the dude seems like a fraud to me. Its a shame because it gives everyone a bad tast,and this is why debunkers are all over this guy.

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

Originally posted by GeminiSky
This makes the some of the footage we see even more compelling since the objects appear to be under intelligent control in relation to their apparent maneuvering around the shuttle, which as you said is traveling very fast around the earth.

Where is there evidence of intelligent control? They are just drifting, in orbit, under the influence of gravity and drag, and on rare occasion, subjected to thruster propellant. There's no intelligent control in any of those.

Thank you for the graphic and explanation of how a lens and camera work. I enjoyed reading your post.

You're welcome.

Well in the NASA video, most of the objects appear to approach the shuttle, stop...and then REVERSE direction going back where they came from. Does not seem like drifting, and floating around in space to me.

To me this reversal of direction, and lack of tumbling of drifting motion (for the most part) shows that they are under control.

Yes sometimes it may be subject to thruster propellant, but please indicate where in the video there are thrusters being used and causing MULTIPLE objects in several different shots to reverse direction and go back after initially approaching the shuttle?

reply to post by GeminiSky


GeminiSky.....

It appears we need to get you some more reading regarding these shuttle / STS videos, including the infamous STS114 "tether" video.

I will find some links for you during today.

Kind regards
Maybe...maybe not

reply to post by Maybe...maybe not


Already seen it friend. The one where the UFO passes BEHIND the tether....yes ive seen those pulsating UFOs on the video.

It seems that they are a particular model of craft that have the "slice" or "notch" taken out of the side? lol Are those the pizza UFOs we have been hearing about? That type of UFO may or may not be in the tether video, but im sure you know what kind of shape I'm referring to.

But jokes aside, the tether video is awesome and to my knowledge has not been debunked. Genuine UFO evidence from space.

[edit on 30-5-2010 by GeminiSky]

Originally posted by GeminiSky
reply to post by Maybe...maybe not

 

Already seen it friend. The one where the UFO passes BEHIND the tether....yes ive seen those pulsating UFOs on the video.

It seems that they are a particular model of craft that have the "slice" or "notch" taken out of the side? lol Are those the pizza UFOs we have been hearing about? That type of UFO may or may not be in the tether video, but im sure you know what kind of shape I'm referring to.

But jokes aside, the tether video is awesome and to my knowledge has not been debunked. Genuine UFO evidence from space.

GeminiSky.....

I too thought those STS75* (see note below) "tether UFO's" were real & I was so happy to be thinking that. I thought that for many years.

* Please note I edited this from STS114 to STS75 subsequent to Arbitrageur's post (thanks Arby

)

But.....

I kept reading & watching & discussing this case.....I spent COUNTLESS hours on this.

And.....

Much to my HUGE sadness, it became 100% apparent these objects are unequivocally caused by a camera bokeh effect that has been shown unequivocally to cause objects to:

- Take on a large, notched appearance

- Look as if they are passing behind the tether

- The pulsating / spiralling effect is caused by a distortion of the video scan lines produced during the making of the video.

You must "keep on your toes" with this incredibly complex topic of UFO's.

Also.....I hope you don't tag me as a "non-believer", because that is not true at all.

Kind regards
Maybe...maybe not

[edit on 30-5-2010 by Maybe...maybe not]