This post is really just a clarification regarding a discussion on UfoUpdates regarding myself, so it very probably isn’t interesting to anyone, but anyway.
If you are interested on personal disagreements and silly conflicts, with only some information on crude hoaxes promoted on Italy and Brazil, then keep reading.
On Sep 2, Ademar Gevaerd replied to a post I made, asking me to:
I ask that Mori refrain from making generalisations. I have received only _one_ article from him for publication and I considered _only_ that article as worth publishing. This is very basic. I receive hundreds of articles every year. Contrary to what he implies, I didn’t invite him to write for my magazine, but only accepted one piece for it. I recognized the value of that particular piece as worth publishing, _nothing_ else.
I sent my reply, but it was not published by EBK. I tried rewriting and sending it three times, to no avail. I’m posting the last version here, where I simply quoted Gevaerd himself:
I quote below emails I received from Mr. Gevaerd in 2005.
From: A. J. Gevaerd (Brazilian UFO Magazine)
Sent: Monday, January 10, 2005 7:16 AM
Subject: Sending again
“I invite you to publish in UFO [magazine] the results of your investigation about the alleged recording, on an article following the February edition. Obviously it can’t be the same that is on your website, but something adapted. If you are interested, write me”.
From: “A. J. Gevaerd”
To: “Kentaro Mori”
Sent: Friday, March 18, 2005 12:05 PM
Subject: Re: Article, Apollo 11 audio
“As for your text, it’s a pity not publishing something so well written and elaborated. So, I’ll do it anyway. Not only because it’s an important piece of information but because, after what I wrote in the first email I wrote today, we cant’ let personal questions determine the way of the magazine, or even less, the Brazilian ufology.” …
“I insist on what I wrote below, and I think I told you before: with your capacity, why don’t you try to do something more concrete and visible. You have nice contributions to give, but this skepticism thing is no more. I’m also very skeptic, maybe even more than you. This is a natural condition of any human being, more or less. But promoting it, in my opinion, is foolish.”
It should be clear that I have many disagreements with Ademar Gevaerd, editor of the Brazilian UFO magazine (see Fact 2 of the Six facts about ufology in Brazil), this is just one more example.
The “investigation” I made was regarding an alleged audio from Apollo 11 sold on a video documentary by Italian contactee Giorgio Bongiovanni, and promoted by the Brazilian UFO magazine with the highest recommendation. Readers were told they shouldn’t miss it.
But the audio, as some research quickly revealed, was just part of the pseudo-documentary Alternative 3. The audio was directly copied from Alternative 3, with no modification, and promoted as something from Apollo 11. Shane Rimmer, the actor who voiced the audio, kindly confirmed to me it was him. Alternative 3 was fiction, an April Fools joke, clearly stated in the credits and acknowledged by those involved.
Even so, one could mistake Alternative 3 for a real documentary. That could be understood. But how part of it came to be sold as something coming from Apollo 11, when it was clearly attributed to another mission and astronaut (played by Shane Rimmer), is anyone’s guess. The voice is from Rimmer alone, but Bongiovanni’s video told the viewer it was from Armstrong and Aldrin, for instance. A mirale of the multiplication of astronauts, performed by an alleged stigmatic.
I published the results in Portuguese, “Houston, temos uma fraude” (Houston, we have a hoax), and informed Gevaerd of it. He eventually asked me to rewrite it for publication on his magazine. I should note here that he had previously offered no help in clarifying the video he was selling and recommending, he even refused to confirm if the audio was indeed part of the video recommended by his magazine to his readers, claiming he had no time to do that.
I did rewrite my article and sent it to him for publication, afterall, that should be clarified to the very same readers who were told they shouldn’t miss it. I expanded the article with more clarifications, for instance, on the more well-known “Pepper transcript”, based on Oberg’s research.
Gevaerd received it, praised it (as I quote his emails above), and told it would be indeed published. But later, as he wrote in UfoUpdates, he “decided to cancel the article and will never publish it, just as I will never publish any other from him.”
And that is the end of this episode, until it is, he wrote in UfoUpdates that he never asked me to write for him, that I sent him the article and that I was making “generalizations”.
I acknowledge the work and value of Errol Bruce-Knapp and the UfoUpdates list. But I also disagree that my reply wasn’t published, which explains why I’m posting about it here.
I should further note I seek no recognition from Ademar Gevaerd and his magazine. That’s the very same magazine that highly praises Bongiovanni and other infamous figures like Jaime Maussán.
It’s also the same magazine that promoted, on the same UfoUpdates list, the predictions of a kook spiritualist guru, which involved the Second Coming of Christ aboard flying saucers. It was the cover article of the magazine — ridiculously similar to the comedy movie poster for Mars Attacks –, and a central subject promoted for months.
When the predictions weren’t fulfilled, strangely it was not promoted abroad by the magazine. The same for the alleged opening of the UFO files by the Brazilian military, which ended up never happening.
This campaign that the Brazilian UFO mag heralded for declassification may have looked nice abroad, as their apparent success. But the central document of this campaign, the “Brazilian ufology manifesto“, clearly claims that:
The [UFO] phenomenon has had its origin satisfactorily identified as being extraterrestrial, the spacecrafts that visit us so insistently come from other civilizations, probably more technologically advanced than ours, and which coexist with us in the Universe, even though we don’t know the worlds from which they come from.
Everyone that was asked to support the campaign and sign it had to agree with this manifesto, which explains why many respected ufologists refused to sign it. This document was sent to the president and the military, so it’s a great surprise they were indeed welcomed by them at one time.
What is not much of a surprise is that their reception went no further than that, and the opening never actually happened. It was only a one-day media event, promoted on a very popular Sunday TV variety show, “Fantastico”.
Anyway. Those are just some more examples of why I do not seek their recognition, and why I have so many disagreements with Mr. Gevaerd and his publication. They do more harm to ufology than any mad skeptibunker could ever dream of doing.
I only mentioned it because in the discussion with Yturria, which by the way involved the “Flotillas”, another infamous non-phenomenon originally created by Jaime Maussán and sold in Brazil by the magazine, Gevaerd eneded up being mentioned as a reference.
Popularity: 1% [?]Posted in People | 1 comment