Hope dashed for those who believed in demon fairies

A creature promoted as being a “demon fairy” or “winged nightmare” by those who thought it matched a description in Revelation, has been revealed as a hoax.

alien-fairy-real

Synchronicity. Or something. Coincidences can seem very strange some times. Earlier today, I received an inquiry from Dr. Michael Heiser asking if I knew of anyone who had looked into this monstrous object since it reeks of a hoax of the likes we’ve seen before. I hadn’t seen this one. I did my typical Googling and inquired from others who might know more about it including the Group of Fort on FB, my crowd-sourcing means of choice to get good info on Fortean topics. Within hours I had the answer that this was revealed to be a hoax. Except, the exposé had just been posted yesterday on YouTube and posted on the researcher’s page today.

The story goes back three years and involves notorious hoaxer, Jaime Mausson from Mexico. Known as Mexico’s foremost ufologist, he’s been involved in hoax alien photos, the Roswell slides, the Metepec creature and more. In fact, you can pretty much guarantee that whatever he claims is the real deal is a total fake. He claims he’s the one who gets duped and that he has scientific evidence and documentation of all these things, but they never pan out and are often easily unmasked not long after. Is he gullible or fraudulent? Does it matter?

Back in July, 2016, SkyWatch TV, a religious-themed media outlet, featured researchers Richard Shaw and L.A. (Lynn) Marzulli who flew to Mexico several years ago to see this thing, preserved in liquid. They revealed it in Watchers #10, saying that based on X-rays and local stories, they believe it is a ‘real creature’. Watchers is a series of documentaries put out by Shaw and Marzulli based on their idea that UFOs are related to fallen angels, the Watchers, come to earth. Marzulli, author of Nephilim Hybrids and books about other fringe ideas like this, presented the info on the creature to a UFO conference and in other outlets to promote the Watchers X DVD. Shaw and Marzulli explain in this clip why they felt it was probably a real thing and noticed it eerily resembled the creatures described in Revelation 9: 7-10, a herald for coming End Times – it looked like a locust, face of man, wings, tails with stingers.

And the shapes of the locusts were like unto horses prepared unto battle; and on their heads were as it were crowns like gold, and their faces were as the faces of men. And they had hair as the hair of women, and their teeth were as the teeth of lions. And they had breastplates, as it were breastplates of iron; and the sound of their wings was as the sound of chariots of many horses running to battle. And they had tails like unto scorpions, and there were stings in their tails: and their power was to hurt men five months.

Or, they were evil fairies. Regardless, it gave them the creeps. They had X-rays done to reveal some internal structure that looked like a skeleton but also spherical beads that were concluded to be birdshot used to kill the creature. They were adamant that this was too elaborate to have been hoaxed. They presented the evidence to three veterinarians (who remained anonymous) that (they say) said it was real. Dr. Ricardo Rangel insisted DNA testing showed it was 98.5% human. Check out Jason Colavito’s blog from July 2016 when this news broke for more of the story. It’s obviously full of holes.

Jumping to yesterday, when this video was posted to SkyWatchTV’s channel and linked today on Marzulli’s blog, here is the story of the hoax reveal:

The researchers had paid $5,000 to get expert opinions on the creature. Marzulli insists that the three veterinarians were fooled so he was not gullible. Jaime Mausson had reportedly paid $10,000 for the creature. After examining the specimen outside the liquid for a while, the skin dried out revealing wood, glue, and plastic that a taxidermist had used to construct the thing. After hearing that the creature’s reality fell apart, Mausson still insisted “It’s gotta be real!” Marzulli said he then reached out to zoologists via email who quickly ascertained the X-rays showed it was a hoax using some animal parts.

Well, we have to appreciate that Marzulli readily admitted they’d been taken. He insists he didn’t mean to mislead anyone. But…

Why did he go forward with such incredible assertions without checking with zoologists that so readily saw through it FIRST? Why did he put it on his DVD before thorough peer review? He claims that experts regularly refuse to touch this stuff because it’s “woo-woo”, which is FALSE. And he still talks as if Mausson is respectable!

Marzulli remains blinded by cognitive dissonance because he is very much committed to the ideas that provide him with a livelihood but have no basis in nature, reality or what we already know to be true.

Dr. Heiser has written a post about the incident today. Head on over and read his version of the events that have transpired over the past few months. Marzulli had chastised him for being skeptical of the creature back in August:

The point of wanting the “fairy” specimen tested under transparent peer review is to make sure it isn’t an example of this (anything look familiar?) X-rays don’t establish what material something is made of. Lots of material will show up on an X-ray. Sincere researchers have been duped before. I don’t want that to happen to Lynn or anyone else. If insisting on transparency with this sort of thing draws abuse for me, so be it. Let me go on record now as saying that I believe real scientific testing will show the specimen is not an unknown life form.

And, of course, he was right, concluding “Jaime Maussan should not be trusted. Ever.” Heiser also notes that all involved didn’t do enough work up front, and that peer-review before going public is essential.

screen-shot-2016-09-17-at-6-09-32-pm

Derek Gilbert of Skywatch TV talks to L.A. Marzulli who reveals the fairy creature was a fake.

Marzulli says he learned his lesson. I doubt it… Anyway, he still has high hopes for the Paracas skull.

  6 comments for “Hope dashed for those who believed in demon fairies

  1. jamesrav
    September 18, 2016 at 5:06 AM

    pretty funny really. Seeing guys in ties discussing fairies is almost as unbelievable as fairies themselves. Let’s face it, a world without this silly stuff would be more boring than reality (which we’ve now determined doesn’t actually include this stuff), so it’s kind of a trade off.

  2. Ron Cunningham
    September 18, 2016 at 3:30 PM

    Ach. I came here on recommendation by Brian Dunning (Skeptoid). I stubbed my toe on the very first sentence with the ubiquitous and annoying use of “Revelations.” It’s yet another of the pluralization of so many things, e.g, the name of the company or agency one works for or, say, “Wal-Marts.” I worked for Tessy Plastics, and it was universally called “Tessys.” I work for Franziska Racker Centers, and it’s referred to frequently as “Rackers.” One could argue that irritation with this this is far too picky. One could also argue that if a web site is debunking things that they’re being picky as well. Or should be. In any event, I recognize that frequent usage can force non-standard terms into acceptable common parlance. Still, I suggest that if you’re interested in getting things right and not alienating thinking people you be a little slower to contribute to this type of language bastardization.

  3. September 18, 2016 at 3:37 PM

    Sorry. I’ve removed the ‘s’. I hope you can get through the rest of the post to see the actual point.

  4. Perry
    September 18, 2016 at 6:37 PM

    “I hope you can get through the rest of the post to see the actual point.”

    I love a great comeback like that! I hope the grammar police don’t hit me for using that exclamation mark.

  5. Jim
    September 19, 2016 at 8:41 AM

    Good post, Sharon. Reminds me of the infamous Cottingley Fairies hoax.

  6. BobM
    September 23, 2016 at 1:59 AM

    Fascinating. They so want to believe that they are willing to accept pretty much anything. I wonder if they’d buy my bridge?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *