Ships of light, Great UFO Documentary...If this is REAL then WOW

originally posted by: GeminiSky
a reply to: gavron

Nope it does not work...
GS

Actually it does, from even a second PC. Apparently your PC doesn't allow you to see the truth.

However, until you replace it with one that shows the truth, i'll link you the contents of that article:

www.ufoevidence.org...

UFO CASE ARTICLE Carlos Alberto Diaz Was a Hoaxer Source: Banchs and Heiden, APRO Bulletin, Vol. 26 No. 2, Aug. 1977 Summary: Investigation by one of the authors (Roberto Enrique Banchs) for the Centro de Estudios de Fenomenos Aereos Inusuales (CEFAI) of Buenos Aires has shown that the Argentine abduction case [of Carlos Alberto Diaz] was a hoax, as the events could not have occurred as the witness claimed. By Roberto Enrique Banchs and Richard W. Heiden Investigation by one of the authors (Roberto Enrique Banchs) for the Centro de Estudios de Fenomenos Aereos Inusuales (CEFAI) of Buenos Aires has shown that the Argentine abduction case reported in the APRO Bulletin of March 1975 was a hoax, as the events could not have occurred as the witness claimed. To briefly summarize the incident, Carlos Alberto Diaz said that after getting off work in Bahia Blanca at 3:05 a.m. on Sunday, January 5, 1975, he walked seven blocks to the bus stop at Plaza Rivadavia, where he took the bus to his home city of Ingeniero White, arriving at 3:30. Diaz was 100 meters (330 feet) from home, walking on a deserted street, when, just before 3:50, he saw a bright light, and then became paralyzed before being pulled up off the ground and then fainting. Diaz came to in an empty ovoid. After 15 minutes three humanoids appeared, who proceeded to hold down the witness, and pull out some of his hair. Diaz again fainted, and woke up at about 3:00 p.m. near Buenos Aires (400 miles away), lying off the side of a highway. He hitchhiked to the Railway Hospital, where he arrived at 4:15. The doctors were impressed by his story when Diaz showed them the morning Bahia Blanca newspaper, which indicated that he had been there not too many hours before, and they gave him a thorough examination. (Some of these details vary from those in the Bulletin; several versions of the story have been published.) Investigation revealed the following: 1. The abduction site, on Daniel de Solier Street, is always busy, even at that time, yet Diaz said he saw no one around. Also, house-to-house inquiries found that no one in the neighborhood had noticed anything unusual, nor had any watch dogs acted up. 2. The bus leaves Bahia Blanca at 3:30, and takes 25 minutes to get to Ingeniero White, whereas Diaz said he arrived at Ingeniero White at 3:30, only 25 minutes after leaving work. 3. Finding the above discrepancies, it was realized that Diaz probably went directly to Buenos Aires; he could have taken the train. The train originating in Zapala passes through Bahia Blanca at 6:15 a.m. (the newspaper having come out at 2:45 a.m.), though it is often behind schedule. During the investigation, Train 142 making this run passed through Bahia Blanca at 7:07, arriving at Buenos Aires at 4:10 p.m. 4. The records of the hospital guard show that Diaz arrived there at 5:30 p.m., not 4:15. 5. Psychological assessments of Diaz found these characteristics, among others: rich imagination, quick intelligence (but without depth), inclination to exaggerate, good memory, occasional use of poor judgment, and maladjusted personality. We think that under these circumstances we have enough sound arguments of the inauthenticity of the episode, and are able to consider the case a hoax, made up by the witness himself.

originally posted by: gavron

originally posted by: GeminiSky
a reply to: gavron

Nope it does not work...
GS

Actually it does, from even a second PC. Apparently your PC doesn't allow you to see the truth.

However, until you replace it with one that shows the truth, i'll link you the contents of that article:

www.ufoevidence.org...

UFO CASE ARTICLE Carlos Alberto Diaz Was a Hoaxer Source: Banchs and Heiden, APRO Bulletin, Vol. 26 No. 2, Aug. 1977 Summary: Investigation by one of the authors (Roberto Enrique Banchs) for the Centro de Estudios de Fenomenos Aereos Inusuales (CEFAI) of Buenos Aires has shown that the Argentine abduction case [of Carlos Alberto Diaz] was a hoax, as the events could not have occurred as the witness claimed. By Roberto Enrique Banchs and Richard W. Heiden Investigation by one of the authors (Roberto Enrique Banchs) for the Centro de Estudios de Fenomenos Aereos Inusuales (CEFAI) of Buenos Aires has shown that the Argentine abduction case reported in the APRO Bulletin of March 1975 was a hoax, as the events could not have occurred as the witness claimed. To briefly summarize the incident, Carlos Alberto Diaz said that after getting off work in Bahia Blanca at 3:05 a.m. on Sunday, January 5, 1975, he walked seven blocks to the bus stop at Plaza Rivadavia, where he took the bus to his home city of Ingeniero White, arriving at 3:30. Diaz was 100 meters (330 feet) from home, walking on a deserted street, when, just before 3:50, he saw a bright light, and then became paralyzed before being pulled up off the ground and then fainting. Diaz came to in an empty ovoid. After 15 minutes three humanoids appeared, who proceeded to hold down the witness, and pull out some of his hair. Diaz again fainted, and woke up at about 3:00 p.m. near Buenos Aires (400 miles away), lying off the side of a highway. He hitchhiked to the Railway Hospital, where he arrived at 4:15. The doctors were impressed by his story when Diaz showed them the morning Bahia Blanca newspaper, which indicated that he had been there not too many hours before, and they gave him a thorough examination. (Some of these details vary from those in the Bulletin; several versions of the story have been published.) Investigation revealed the following: 1. The abduction site, on Daniel de Solier Street, is always busy, even at that time, yet Diaz said he saw no one around. Also, house-to-house inquiries found that no one in the neighborhood had noticed anything unusual, nor had any watch dogs acted up. 2. The bus leaves Bahia Blanca at 3:30, and takes 25 minutes to get to Ingeniero White, whereas Diaz said he arrived at Ingeniero White at 3:30, only 25 minutes after leaving work. 3. Finding the above discrepancies, it was realized that Diaz probably went directly to Buenos Aires; he could have taken the train. The train originating in Zapala passes through Bahia Blanca at 6:15 a.m. (the newspaper having come out at 2:45 a.m.), though it is often behind schedule. During the investigation, Train 142 making this run passed through Bahia Blanca at 7:07, arriving at Buenos Aires at 4:10 p.m. 4. The records of the hospital guard show that Diaz arrived there at 5:30 p.m., not 4:15. 5. Psychological assessments of Diaz found these characteristics, among others: rich imagination, quick intelligence (but without depth), inclination to exaggerate, good memory, occasional use of poor judgment, and maladjusted personality. We think that under these circumstances we have enough sound arguments of the inauthenticity of the episode, and are able to consider the case a hoax, made up by the witness himself.

Um why are you posting about a case that happened in the 70's?

The Carlos Diaz in the OP had footage and encounters that were shot in the mid 90's...LOL were you in such a rush to debunk that you posted the wrong ufo case??

GS

Also would you mind replying to my previous post? About an individual refuting all the hoax claims and presenting an argument as
to why this was indeed an authentic case? Its located on the same Rense.com article you linked to (ironically)

a reply to: GeminiSky

It shows that he has been hoaxing for over 20 years :-)

originally posted by: gavron
a reply to: GeminiSky

It shows that he has been hoaxing for over 20 years :-)

Nah, in effect it shows NOTHING. Link still does not work, and im not sure this is the same individual even.

Ouch you are really in a pickle now....Awaiting further fervent last grabs at debunking.

GS

a reply to: GeminiSky

Wow, this just really shows how desperate some people are to believe.

It you want to see light ships, then see light ships

Hey Toni,

Yes I really feel that they purposefully wanted Carlos to film them, and may have even had knowledge of his camera equipment...remember this is the 90s and cameras were expensive...and not everyone had them.....

GS

Exactly, I agree. I feel the ships of light operators called Carlos's solar plexus when they were ready to be filmed.

Yes they most likely knew about the camera equipment that he was going to get from that news reporter (can't recall his name right off the top of my head).

There's a big difference between the photo/video taken by the guy in Minnesota and the one taken by the Tv reporter's camcorder. The one from Minnesota is fuzzy and the ones from Mexico are crystal clear.

And the paintings from the 1500's are very impressive. The likeness between the paintings and Carlos' video footage is impressive. It looks like this image I found on a Google search shortly before finding your thread or hearing of the Carlos Diaz UfO sightings...


Source

And here's a screenshot from the UFOTV video...



I was/am learning about Chakras and have been for about 6 months, when I found the yellow chakra-like pic. The keywords I used were 'heart chakra" in Google image search engine. The solar plexus is said to "honor the life force" or represent power, of what I have gathered at this point. Source

I'm left wondering if 'they' are using the look of their craft to get across a message. Especially in light of Carlos' sensation of feeling like "being in love" led him to film the craft. There are other ways to influence or persuade an audience but I what better way is there?

I can think of worse things than falling in love.

Carlos seemed determined to tell his/their story and I'm glad he did.

If you could ask the ship's operators anything, what would it be?

Ta ta for now,
Toni

originally posted by: gavron
a reply to: GeminiSky

Wow, this just really shows how desperate some people are to believe.

It you want to see light ships, then see light ships

Yes I will be doing that, there are many to see tonight actually...in the meantime are you able to explain the rense.com reply which rebukes your hoax claims?

Thanks!!

GS


OH my! Upon further research I have found out that the hoax case you referenced, Carlos Alberto Diaz from Argentina in the 70's is a totally different person and a different case than the OP, who is Carlos Diaz Martinez from Tepoztlán, which is a town in the Mexican state of Morelos.

Last time I checked those were 2 different countries, 2 different people and 2 different cases.

Not to mention the OPs case happened 20 years later!!!

Wow i didn't think you would be this careless, but you managed to really put your foot in your mouth by screaming hoax then posting a totally different case to prove it!!

OH my really in a pickle now you are!!

Fascinating case and one I had not heard of before. Thanks for sharing these vids!!

originally posted by: Night Star
Fascinating case and one I had not heard of before. Thanks for sharing these vids!!

You are very welcome...as the weeks go on I will try to bring other cases to light, especially the lesser known ones....stay tuned!


GS

originally posted by: Kandinsky
Alright bud? Have you seen this one at 2:05? >>

He's never been solidly debunked and, no, there's no *proof* that he was a hoaxer either. Still, when we look at the tree footage (his best evidence), it clearly looks like two stills (one in front of the other) being filmed whilst the one behind is being moved.

The other time index we need to compare 2:05 with is 2:55-2:58 and similar later shots, where we can see how the real tree moves, where the branches move independently of each other.

We have lots of objects flying in our skies, and none of them see to cause trees to stop behaving like trees. Yet in this video, the announcer points out an unusual "vibrating" of the tree where all the individual branches move in complete unison as if the branches were made of steel or perhaps something even less flexible than steel, which is totally unlike the natural movement of the tree where the branches move independently because they are made of soft flexible wood, at 2:55.

So if one was to suppose this is a UFO instead of a hoax, one would also need to suppose that not only is there an unknown object in the sky, but that the tree stops behaving like a tree and instead starts behaving like a hoaxed still shot. While Macabee is right that we can't say this is impossible, it seems far more likely that something that looks like a hoax, is a hoax, and it does look like a hoax because the tree doesn't move like a tree, it moves like a hoax (no independent branch movement in the hoaxed shot, when compared to the real tree shot which does show independent branch movement).

In fact even if one were to vibrate the entire tree, as in say an Earthquake for example, the laws of physics dictate that all the branches will not vibrate in unison like that. Each branch has a different mass and length and will respond differently to vibration (branches of different masses will tend t oscillate at different frequencies).

I'd say based on the preponderance of that evidence it's at least 99.9% likely to be a hoax, and probably higher than that.

a reply to: GeminiSky

The incorrect idea though is that the ships are ships of light. Though will have to say not quite sure what they are fully.

But the light that covers a craft, that makes them appear from a distance to be an orb of light, often covering triangles or saucers, OR, wedges of lights, covering other shapes, is more of a covering and sheild for a craft.

However, Sleeper/Lou Baldin wrote something interesting that I do concur with since the crafts are magical, out of our science, and out of our sense of time, as if they're interacting into our school, from a Higher Perspective. He wrote that they're not made of the same energy or matter that the universe is, so more like energy the real reality or home as perhaps would call it.

So light ships is probably a misunderstood term.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

I don't beleive the branch movement of the tree shows this is a definitive hoax. There have been investigations done to indicate the opposite. ...with advanced time space tech on this craft not only trees can move in unison but other solid objects appear to behave unnaturally as well when in proximity to such a craft .

GS

originally posted by: GeminiSky
There have been investigations done to indicate the opposite. ...with advanced time space tech on this craft not only trees can move in unison but other solid objects appear to behave unnaturally as well when in proximity to such a craft .

Are you saying that investigations have been done to show that trees defy the laws of physics in the presence of a UFO? I'd like to see those investigations.

Also size. A 30 foot craft on the outside, can be like an entire continent, filled with fauna and wildlife and cities, or a world, or a solar system sized, or a galaxy sized. Its kind of beyond our scope of imagination.

Similar thing with their bases, or asteroid stations/crafts, etc.

Often the crafts are depicted as living, ai or organisms, and crystaline in some way. Reminding me of the mercedes grown from a seed. If you are above plains/dimensions, or have physics that understands infinity and infinity within and without all things. Then the infinity within a seed, or a grain of sand is equal in volume to the infinity without all things. And if you're higher up, projecting in, for example, you could grow a seed, maybe its a similiar to how you form crystals, a crystalline living organism seed, that contains infinite potential within, akin to our computers, where we have a 2 TB hard drive, which we can partition and choose what size we need for our OS and programs. I kind of see it that way as a metaphor That with infinite hardrive you can format anything you wish.

In some cases, some kind of interfacing doorway.

originally posted by: Arbitrageur

originally posted by: GeminiSky
There have been investigations done to indicate the opposite. ...with advanced time space tech on this craft not only trees can move in unison but other solid objects appear to behave unnaturally as well when in proximity to such a craft .

Are you saying that investigations have been done to show that trees defy the laws of physics in the presence of a UFO? I'd like to see those investigations.

what im saying is that not only trees defy laws of physics but also solid structures like house walls roof ceilings. ..and space time itself can be bent.

When a really strong wind hits the tree next to my house. ..all the branches move in unison! (Gasp)

also the tree in the footage was located for scale purposes to calculate the crafts size which was around 60 to 80 feet I recall....quite large for a tinfoil tree and a saucer prop....


GS

originally posted by: GeminiSky
what im saying is that not only trees defy laws of physics

Is there a source other than this apparent hoax for that claim? It seems like special pleading to claim that something that looks like a still photo is actually video of a real tree violating the laws of physics.

When a really strong wind hits the tree next to my house. ..all the branches move in unison! (Gasp)

If you take a still photo of the tree, and jiggle it, you see one thing. If you take a video the the branches bending, each branch sways individually. They may all move at the same time, but they bend. You can see this difference between time index 2:05 and 2:55 in the referenced video. There is no bending in the movement of the apparent hoax at 2:05, it looks just like a still photo that's been jiggled. It's completely unnatural and is easily explained as a still photo manipulation. Someone has to want to believe this pretty badly to think a tree violating the laws of physics is more likely than a still photo manipulation.

a reply to: Arbitrageur


I dont beleive this is a hoax. You keep calling it that but in my opinion the tree behavior in the footage is not definitive of anything. Do yourself a favor and watch the 2 vids in the op...they contain more footage than the snippet you watched and from which you decided to call the whole case a hoax. Perhaps after watching the rest of the footage in its entirety (which includes daytime shots of the same tree) you will be able to make "apparent" educated comments.

GS

a reply to: Arbitrageur

I get the feeling that the reason the branches movement looks odd is because he's using models and perspective as with the Billy Meier hoax , the tree in the UFO video isn't the tree in the daytime shot.