Jump to content

Talk:Jaime Maussan

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Controversial claims

[edit]

Jaime Maussan, due to Televisa sponsorship, is more or less untouchable by mexican TV. He has promoted several well known hoaxes as true evidence (as the infamous "alien autopsy" video), and even when proven wrong, he adamantly mantains his story. I think these controversies should be adressed 189.192.44.129 21:21, 27 April 2007 (UTC) Not Signed In. 27/04/07[reply]


Everybody in Mexico make fun of him, he's a liar. - Leonel —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.146.224.196 (talk) 21:58, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that he is a fraud needs to be stated on this biography. He is well known for that, all around the world. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Larresgoit (talk • contribs) 20:05, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I feel the controversial claims of this particular wiki article tie very much into the citations issue. That's just it... there are almost no citations and very bold claims. TwistedNine (talk) 06:29, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Citations & References

[edit]

See Wikipedia:Footnotes for an explanation of how to generate footnotes using the <ref(erences/)> tags Nhl4hamilton (talk) 08:32, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bad English

[edit]

Just one example: "George Adamski Rome receives prize the international." This doesn't make sense in English. At all. It stinks of bad quality automatic translation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dilettant (talk • contribs) 08:48, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The entire article is full of bad grammar. Exactly what the subject deserves, BTW 177.133.128.252 (talk) 02:44, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Flag this article!

[edit]

There is so much out there about this man and his alleged fraudulent actions that I suppose this article does need some rewriting and at least should be flagged to warn visitors that this man is highly controversial. I got here to find information and I was baffled that it's just a summing up of how great the man is. Is nobody watching this page?

English is not my native language and this article needs so much work that I don't feel qualified. But someone really should take a serious look at this! 82.217.111.143 (talk) 23:38, 22 June 2017 (UTC) Edit: also most documentation on him is in Spanish, which I'm not very good at. But here's an article in Snopes that debunks two recent hoaxes in which Maussan was involved: http://www.snopes.com/alien-mummy-peru/ 82.217.111.143 (talk) 23:57, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well your English is better than the primary author of this article. I suspect that the majority of it was written by Maussan himself. It reads like a badly-written resume more then a Wikipedia page. Prophet of nuggan (talk) 21:19, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Snopes' article is pure disinformation. Nobody knows the origin of those mummies. Why would Maussan claim that they are of extraterrestrial origin? He doesn't, and it's not about that. There is an ongoing investigation with specialists from all around the world, and the only thing that is known so far is that the possibility of fraud has consistently been excluded, and that these corpses are different from any known living thing. Yes, a likely explanation is that they come from another world, but no one can claim that, and likewise no one can deny that possibility. Either way, this is not a claim made by Maussan, so it cannot be debunked. Bogus article, and shame on Wikipedia for gathering "information" from Snopes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DGuerra (talk • contribs) 00:52, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So, we should disbelieve Snopes but instead believe you, a random person on the internet?
Snopes is green in WP:RSP. You need better reasoning than the one you have offered. And you should learn how to WP:SIGN. --Hob Gadling (talk) 14:59, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
He is right, the accuracy of this page will be proven wrong as other renowned academic institutions as Harvard or services like 23andMe join in. The DNA from some of these dissected bodies are now at SRA (Sequence Read Archives at NCBI), JM has performed a live streaming last week in a clinic along with physicians, technicians and a public official to vouch for the proceedings where they have analyzed one specimen through tomography and X-Ray, confirming it was once alive and it's consisted of a whole organism, not a fake chimera. The analysis that "debunked" the whole case was made upon 25 cm ceremonial dolls and these are 60 cm dissected (diatom sand) biological specimens. Now I don't know the details of how to cite and link, but I am versed in academic editing and this Snopes citation and referece, used to put in question one's word and honor would never stand the test of peer-review. Also, genetic fallacy, an argument is not necessarily wrong because the person stating it has been proved wrong in the past.
Please, independent and justice prone minds, do review, arbiter and act upon this injustice here! 177.72.22.18 (talk) 22:57, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
the accuracy of this page will be proven wrong We will change the page as soon as this happens. Not before. See WP:CRYSTAL. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:53, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Let me restate: the lack accuracy and bias is already present. This cannot represent a fair assessment of the ongoing situation: The dissected biological bodies were examined and SHOWN to be a WHOLE ORGANISM not an assembled puppet out of different animal or human remains. BBC has this on record [1]. The accuracy of this page is DISPUTED. 177.72.22.18 (talk) 08:39, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Your BBC link does not mention any WHOLE ORGANISM not an assembled puppet out of different animal or human remains. --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:01, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
But so does the video embedded along with it, and it is not the only source:Check (and undo the editor's bias [2], Also, a NASA contractor will review the samples [3]. The article is criminally biased and making serious alegations of fraud. But truth is the bodies are being carefully scrutinized and so are the DNA samples. 177.72.22.18 (talk) 15:31, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
But so does the video embedded along with it No, nothing in the embedded video shows the BBC reporting that "dissected biological bodies were examined and SHOWN to be a WHOLE ORGANISM not an assembled puppet out of different animal or human remains". The video does show clips of Maussan and his accomplices speaking Spanish, but whatever claims they are making are definitely NOT being endorsed by the BBC. - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:52, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2023/09/19/mexico-aliens-x-ray-corpses-congress-jaime-maussan-ufo/ 177.72.22.18 (talk) 16:26, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Again, The Telegraph isn't endorsing the claims of Dr. José de Jesús Zalce Benítez, who is an old grifter partner of Maussan's: [1]. Benítez was also a lead researcher in the presentation of the other thoroughly debunked body discovery, which showed six three-finger mummified bodies in a video posted in 2017 by conspiracy theory website Gaia.com. - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:46, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think the time has come to direct the IP towards WP:NOTDUMB. --Hob Gadling (talk) 17:40, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm pretty sure this user is a sock of Ana Mills (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who has been blocked on the Spanish wikipedia for sockpuppetry, it's probably worthwhile to revert/ignore any of their responses. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:59, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oh boy, are you so wrong, just as you are with your blinding pseudo-skepticism? Oh, I guess you are. This is my Brazilian home IP and you can check that for a fact. You think you are smart, but you are wrong about smearing one man's name and the whole dissecated humanoid affair judgment. But I have seen where you are coming from, a biased pseudo-science hunter. Who make you an arbiter here: Have you any scientific training? Well, I do and I can tell you, from the reported facts in the media (learn some Spanish, btw, not my mother language neither), the bodies are not frauds, not puppets. It remains to be confirmed what they are. You only assume it is not real, "because it cannot be real" in your world-view, which is limited and incapable of judging the fact piling in front of you. Go on, suggest a ban for my IP, silence discidence, it won't make you right and it will hurt when you are definitively proven wrong. Cheers (I had it arguing with "truth" gatekeepers wannabe... 177.72.22.18 (talk) 19:15, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
it will hurt when you are definitively proven wrong. If you are certain the mummies will soon be proven as real humanoids and the shocking truth of our alien ancestors wholeheartedly accepted by mainstream science, why not just sit back and wait to be vindicated when it all comes to pass? Why waste so much energy trying to convince unbelievers when, shortly, the world will change and Wikipedia will change with it? - LuckyLouie (talk) 22:30, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is NOT the role of BBC or The telegraph to endorse (sic) any of that info, but to independently REPORT it, just as your precious tether Snopes did. You are all clearly biased and loosing the argument, go on and wrongly block my IP, it is what those who cannot argue with logic and facts do to silence opposition! 177.72.22.18 (talk) 19:09, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You are not arguing with logic and facts, you are arguing with ad-hominem attacks, untruths and baseless prophecies of your supposed triumph later. Stop it. We get this type of nonsense all the time, but it does not work. See WP:NPA and WP:CRYSTAL. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:07, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I was not the one accusing me of being someone else. Isn't that an Ad-Homninen (sic). I am arguing with REFERENCES. They certainly do not need to endorse anything, but to independent and unbiased REPORT facts, such as the ones where the specimens where THOROUGHLY examined and showed to be the remains of a whole once living being. But you will have the final word. I don't care for your ignorance spreading. It is the way it always has been. Because of people like you, arrogant, pompous and unfair I will never donate another Dime to wikipedia. Just stick to your pet Snopes reference, ignore all others and stick your head in the sand while you are at it! 177.72.22.18 (talk) 08:51, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You are all clearly biased is ad-hominem, as I said.
I am arguing with REFERENCES References that do not say what you claim they say. Untruths, as I said.
I will never donate another Dime to wikipedia Ah, the usual "if Wikipedia does not listen to my bad reasoning, I will not try to bribe it anymore". --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:26, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, the "doctors" who "thoroughly examined" the specimens were limited to Maussan's accomplices in previous scams such as Dr. Benítez, so their claims are not being taken seriously, per WP:ECREE, and Wikipedia naturally follows suit. - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:08, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The point is, you are accusing people of being cons, the burden of proof lies with the accusation. Accomplices? Is that criminal terminology? Who's not taken seriously BBC or The Telegraph? It dwarves Snopes for sure. Carl Sagan must be rolling on his grave for this heresy. You are being selective to what is and what isn't relevant. It is called cherry picking. 177.72.22.18 (talk) 18:39, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:DEADHORSE is another nice page to read. --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:41, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://www.bbc.com/news/av/world-66853551
  2. ^ https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2023/09/19/mexico-aliens-x-ray-corpses-congress-jaime-maussan-ufo/
  3. ^ https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-12546951/NASA-contractor-study-alien-corpses-presented-Mexicos-Congress-according-ufologist-brought-world.html

Removing large portions of this article

[edit]

In general: many claims are made, almost non of them is corroborated with references. I am going to remove all unsubstantiated claims. Also I'll be deleting all unnecessary adverbs, like "flagship newscast". What will be left will not be much, but it may be a fresh start to add things that are proven correct. While I'll be removing a huge amount of content, I'm quite confident that this will not be marked as vandalism. I'm trying to make this article more objective and less a promotional tool for a controversial person.

Here's what I deleted and why:

  • His career began with the report "Kids drug addicts" that came to be shown at the [Festival de Cannes France] in 1973 at which he won the "Gustavo Alatriste"
    • I googled for the title and found only results that were exact quotes of this sentence, copied from wikipedia.
    • I could'nt find a prize called Gustavo Alatriste
    • Maussan's name is not appearing on the archive of the Cannes festival
  • In 1980 with the investigation of the blood traffic, since in Mexico was sold and bought blood without control, and it is with several measures taken after this investigation a significant spread of the [Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome] was avoided.
    • This sentence doesn't make much sense.
    • Found not one other page than on Wikipedia about Maussan and blood traffic
  • In 1982 the World Population Institute selected his research Genesis and Apocalypse a four-hour series that spoke about the demographic exploitation and the accelerated growth of Mexico City and was the winner among 7000 jobs to be awarded at Mike Mansfield's room at the Capitolio[disambiguation needed] in Washington for statistics and information, giving a vision of what strongly affects humanity today.
  • In 1988, through his research about the Tarahumaras Indians, he provided important support to them after two one-hour TV shows. Given the conditions of poverty and hunger in which they lived, the Tarahumaras experienced a better winter with the "El Rescate Nacional Tarahumara".
    • again, any search related to this research leads back to this wikipedia article, no further references found
  • However, his dedication and concern in several social fields, mainly related to the environment, also made it stand out in a very important way, as he did with the monarch butterfly in 1979, since after the report "The Monarch, Queen of the Butterflies" was protected In their hibernation zones, the Mexico's president Jose López Portillo declared protected natural areas, avoiding the felling of the Oyameles mainly, and developing ecotourism, which also led him to winning the ONDAS prize in Spain in 1980.
  • He has contributed to stories relating to climate change and, in 1983, reported on conservation efforts to protect the sea turtle in conjunction with the World Wild Life Fund. This helped protection of the species in Mexico and the introduction in 1991 of legislation to protect them and banning the sale of their eggs for human consumption. He also helped raise awareness of issues resulting in the protection of the Lacandona and Chimalapas forests.
    • I was not able to find any indication that Maussan has been involved in the mentioned efforts.
  • In 1994 he warned of the risk of volcano eruption Popocatepetl highlighting the risk for Mexico City and nearby Puebla. This reality leads him to an important message on planet Earth, and relates it in search of another intelligence. He had anticipated major events such as the discovery of water on Mars since 1991 and the possibility of life on other planets in the universe. It is until February 27, 2017 that NASA has officially announced that there are life-expecting planets 40 light years from Earth.
    • unsubstantiated claims, no evidence

I added a reference for the statement that he was awarded a Global 500 prize. 82.217.111.143 (talk) 13:33, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Jaime Maussan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:37, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Jaime Maussan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:17, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Potential new sources

[edit]

Noted:

- LuckyLouie (talk) 18:29, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed

[edit]

"He has been linked to a number of hoaxes regarding supposed alien remains.[1]" I think it is reproachable and very grave one's name can be so easily potentially smeared by one single citation of a clearly biased article, where one claims to be a "number" of examples. Hoax implies ill faith and derision and these are serious accusations. The primary source does not cite and there is no corroboration for these alleged frauds. I think it is fair to remove that statement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 177.72.22.18 (talk • contribs) 12:19, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The sentence is from the lede, which is supposed to summarize the article. That is what it does: the article lists a number of hoaxes. The lede also does not need to be cited. See WP:LEDECITE. --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:40, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hydrotene

[edit]

In 2020, Maussan promoted something called Hydrotene as a miracle cure for Covid 19. Needless to say the claims for this treatment were refuted as evidence-free.

This should probably be included in the article. Some of Maussan’s associates (e.g. the “naval doctor”) were those currently involved with the latest alien mummy claims. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:54, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Removal of Irrelevant and Misleading Information

[edit]

I hope this message finds you well. I'd like to discuss a specific concern related to the content in the article under the "Alien Claims" section. The paragraph in question reads as follows:

"On January 12, 2024, forensic experts with Peru's prosecutor's office who had seized a number of the figures that were not exhibited, said they were dolls that were made with paper, modern synthetic glues, metal, and human and animal bones. The lead forensic expert explained, 'They are not extraterrestrials; they are not aliens.'[10]"

My concern is that this content is both irrelevant and misleading in the context of Jamie Maussan's claims and artifacts showcased in the Mexican Congress. Here are my reasons for requesting its removal:

Lack of Relevance: The paragraph does not appear to be directly related to Jamie Maussan's claims or the artifacts he presented. Placing it under the "Alien Claims" section creates confusion, as it does not represent claims made by Jamie Maussan, but a completely different finding.

Misleading Information: The paragraph suggests a connection between the artifacts and the conclusion of forensic experts in Peru, which may not exist. This can mislead readers and detract from the accuracy of the article.

Counterproductivity: Including this unrelated information harms the overall quality and neutrality of the Wikipedia article, as it does not contribute to a better understanding of Jamie Maussan's work and claims.

I have attempted to address this concern by discussing it with @Hemiauchenia, but we have not reached a resolution. I kindly request your input on this matter. To resolve this issue, I propose the following:

Removal: Consider removing the mentioned paragraph as it is unrelated to Jamie Maussan's claims.

Relocation: If there is merit in retaining this information, it may be more appropriate to place it in a different section where it can be discussed independently and accurately.

I appreciate your attention to this matter and look forward to your feedback and suggestions. Let's work together to ensure the article accurately represents Jamie Maussan's work and claims. 81.170.137.91 (talk) 13:10, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's hard to take your claims about harm[ing] overall quality and neutrality of the Wikipedia article seriously when you're adding stuff like this [6]. In that edit, you cited a random Ufologist's blog, which isn't a reliable source slightlest to counterbalance the overwhelming opinion in reliable sources that the supposed alien bodies are fake. Please read WP:FRINGE. In the meantime, I've changed the coverage of the 2024 AP story to focus instead on the separate 2017 Peru prosecutor's office report, which very directly relates to Maussan's claims. Hemiauchenia (talk) 13:18, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jaime_Maussan&oldid=1252141233"