Tuesday, 13 April 2010

New Witness: (California) UFO Drone Season Starts Early This Year!!

I received an email on Sunday (11th April 2010) and I've hesitated posting it for several reasons which I won't go into. Everybody knows how I personally feel about the 2007 California Drones and if you're unsure check out the website I dedicated to them (image link in sidebar to the right of this text). Anyway I emailed the witness back straight away and heard nothing, I also emailed the witness again on the 13th April (2010) again with no reply as of yet.

The email address is still ‘live' and the witness's full name was supplied (via Google-mail).

However, I will say that I suspect I'm the last person a genuine ‘Drone' witness would contact mainly due to my previous comments on the hoax aspect, I also feel that the report I received reads a lot like that of *Chad* (one of the original Drone witnesses) as it shares the same sense of urgency and similar words are in capitals to further STRESS this fact…..

So I share the following email exactly as I received it and without comment, make of it what you will (name & email address removed):






And as a refresher here's the original Chad report:

The Chad Account (First Contact)

Last month (April 2007), my wife and I were on a walk when we noticed a very large, very strange "craft" in the sky. My wife took a picture with her cell phone camera (first photo below). A few days later a friend (and neighbor) lent me his camera and came with me to take photos of this "craft". We found it and took a number of very clear photos. Picture #4 is taken from right below this thing and I must give my friend credit as I was not brave enough to get close enough to take this picture myself!


The craft is almost completely silent and moves very smoothly. It usually moves slowly until it decides to take off. Then it moves VERY quickly and is out of sight in the blink of an eye. MORE THAN ANYTHING I simply want to understand what this is and why it is here? We found your show with Google and I have listened for a few nights now. I have decided that if anyone can help me understand what this thing is, it is you and your audience. I must admit I am deeply unsettled by this thing. I have never seen anything like this in my life...

Location: I would prefer not to say for now.....

Labels: , , , , , , , , ,

Wednesday, 2 September 2009

James Carrion: A Blog Of Disrepute?

I wrote a few days ago about a Blog post that Mufon's international director, James Carrion made at his new Blog, a Blog that only seen its first post a few days ago (17th August 2009) and it's worth noting the first paragraph of his first Blog post as it states that:



“My name is James Carrion and I am the International Director of the Mutual UFO Network (MUFON). MUFON is a scientific research nonprofit organization that studies UFOs for the benefit of humanity through investigation, research and public education.”

(Source)



But back to my earlier Blog post and the original post by Carrion that referenced the (2007 California) Drones but more specifically it referenced the Open Minds Forum (OMF) and Carrion implied that a couple of administrators may not be all they seem, he wrote:

When I joined the boards, I was treated by the moderators and anonymous membership in the same way I was treated by the Dive Company message board members, in a negative way using disinformation methods of deflection and intimidation. When I pressed my case, I was then kicked off the boards. Now the interesting thing about Open Minds is that the two principles (Admin and Ivo5000) who allegedly co-own it and with whom I have had some interesting email exchanges don't seem to be real people themselves. I could be wrong here but I challenge anyone to investigate this for themself and if you can surface a real resume for either partner, then I will retract my statement.

(Source)



Carrion has since clarified that by, “Real people” he doesn't mean literally flesh & blood people as he accepts they are and I believe that he also accepts that he has the real names (as supplied) of the two people in question, his main gripe is the refusal of the two people in question to publish or supply him with verifiable (in the real-world) references/contacts/personal history.

It really is that simple, or is it…..

It seems to me that while establishing ‘non-repudiation' is the premise of Carrion's most recent foray there is surely a little more to it than that, and without being privy to any agenda (should one exist) I can only surmise it's due to the earlier altercation at OMF (that Carrion was referencing in his original Blog post that questioned the backgrounds of the two OMF administrators), or more precisely the less than respectful way his requests for information on the Drones and the opportunity to work with Mufon were greeted. As you can probably tell I still believe (whether this is the underlying reason for recent events or not) that Carrion had/has a legitimate argument regarding the way he was treated previously (18 months ago) when he first ventured onto the OMF boards.

Anyway, an OM member (Yex) started a thread at OMF, posted the statement (regarding the two admininstrators) by Carrion and as one would expect the comments came thick & fast with none of them being particularly favourable or reticent in voicing their opinions of Carrion and by direct association Mufon. Then Carrion posted a comment reiterating his request and there quickly followed a pissing contest between Carrion and the OMF staff in which all parties caught a little splash-back and it seems somewhat inevitably that the only hatchet buried was yet again –up to the hilt- in the others back.

And the end result? (Short version!!)

It would appear that since no verifiable authentication (as to the identities of the two administrators in question) was negotiated or offered to Carrion then he as a result he will not be retracting his original statement which questioned the validity of the identities previously presented of the two OMF administrators.

Also, while this drama was unfolding at OMF, Carrion was also offering a commentary (of sorts) on his Blog which referenced/named members at OMF as well as quoting quite extensively from the ongoing discussion there and in fact it's fair to say that several of the Blog posts were an extension of the OMF discourse as Carrion elaborated on what had transpired.

First mention of it was the, ‘Internet Matrix' post which started the ball rolling and Carrion posted to his Blog on August 20th, then this was in turn re-posted to OMF on the 26th August and Carrion posted there on the same day, then during the next two days while Carrion was posting at OMF he made two Blog posts on the 27th August and another three on the 28th August (2009). After stating his case in, “The Internet Matrix” he then posted large chunks of the discussion (ftrom OMF) in, “Wolves in Sheep's Clothing” then to further prove his point and after claiming, “Transparency was the best policy” (at OMF) he published his full CV on his Blog in a post titled, “Am I a Real Person ?

Carrion also posted his personal history at OMF along with contact details of people who could further confirm what he was stating was fact (referees for his references as it were).

The following information was included:



1983-1987 Signals Intelligence Analyst, United States Army

How to verify my service:

Official military records are stored at the National Personnel Records Center in St. Louis, Missouri. Information about U.S. service personnel is available to the public under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). Getting the information is not difficult. To make a request, all you have to do is download a form and mail or fax it in - http://www.archives.gov/st-louis/military-personnel/standard-form-180.html Include a cover letter requesting the records under FOIA, and ask for all available releasable information. If the person was never in the military, you'll receive a reply telling you that the center has no record of him or her.

You will need the following information:

Full name: James Patrick Carrion

Branch of Service: US Army

Dates of Service: October 1983 – July 1987

DOB: October 22, 1965 (use in lieu of social security number)



(The ONLY reason I mention this is due to what Carrion himself posted later, details below). Then on the next day Carrion made a Blog post titled, “Into the Lions Den" which he stated that his lucky readers had a rare chance to see, “Disinformation in action” at OMF and also stated that before you headed on over you really should educate yourself, writing:



“I suggest you first print out this article that lists the common ploys used by those practicing disinformation: http://www.whale.to/m/disin.html#Twenty-Five_Rules_of_Disinformation__ and compare it to the posts.”



Which while is an interesting read does seem a little too all-encompassing as several of the ‘ploys' can quite suitably be applied to situations and/or discussions where it is patently obvious that there is nothing untoward going on, for example have a look at the following ‘ploys' as listed at Carrion's' link:



5. Sidetrack opponents with name calling and ridicule. This is also known as the primary 'attack the messenger' ploy, though other methods qualify as variants of that approach. Associate opponents with unpopular titles such as 'kooks', 'right-wing', 'liberal', 'left-wing', 'terrorists', 'conspiracy buffs', 'radicals', 'militia', 'racists', 'religious fanatics', 'sexual deviates', and so forth. This makes others shrink from support out of fear of gaining the same label, and you avoid dealing with issues.

7. Question motives. Twist or amplify any fact which could be taken to imply that the opponent operates out of a hidden personal agenda or other bias. This avoids discussing issues and forces the accuser on the defensive.

8. Invoke authority. Claim for yourself or associate yourself with authority and present your argument with enough 'jargon' and 'minutia' to illustrate you are 'one who knows', and simply say it isn't so without discussing issues or demonstrating concretely why or citing sources.



Which to be fair, the above, is how it may outwardly appear and indeed be construed when Carrion singled out two administrators of an internet forum (where granted, he was openly treated with hostility almost two years ago) before proceeding to highlight the fact that as their personal backgrounds are not known to him and as they weren't provided at his request it qualifies them as “not real people”. That sounds a little like the (disinformation) ploy of questioning motives, and as for invoking authority, well surely just the title of International Director of Mufon is enough to do that when dealing with people from the UFO community?

This isn't saying that the above is what Carrion's actual intent was but rather that the article linked to seems far too broad, generalising and a little unfair when presented in the context within Carrion framed it, and once recognised and considered as such then somewhat ironically Carrion's own words & actions could equally be viewed as, well for want of a better term, “disinformation”.



Perhaps this was why it was later condensed into just eight simple ‘traits' about which the author (Sweeny) wrote -as an addendum- at the foot of the original article:

Note: There are other ways to attack truth, but these listed are the most common, and others are likely derivatives of these. In the end, you can usually spot the professional disinfo players by one or more of seven (now 8) distinct traits:



And trait #6 (of 8) states:

6) Artificial Emotions. An odd kind of 'artificial' emotionalism and an unusually thick skin -- an ability to persevere and persist even in the face of overwhelming criticism and unacceptance. This likely stems from intelligence community training that , no matter how condemning the evidence, deny everything, and never become emotionally involved or reactive.

(Source)



And the following is an –edited- excerpt from Carrion's Blog post, “Wolves In Sheeps Clothing” which he starts by saying that he wishes to analyze messages posted at OMF as he intends to point out disinformation tactics then repeatedly states that the important aspect (as he demonstrated) was not to allow yourself to become side-tracked:

Staying on message with my next post:

[snip]

See the pattern? Righteous indignation followed by questioning my credibility and motives to put the focus off of the question and back on to the questioner. Now the only way to get past this dance is to stay on message. If you allow yourself to be intimidated or cajoled into dropping your question, then the disinformation tactics have worked.

[snip]

I am including all of these responses to drive home how important it is to keep stating and restating your question in the face of intimidation and deflection. If you stray even in the least bit, then the disinformation tactics will win out.”



Now again compare & contrast this with #6 of the dreaded disinformation traits:

an ability to persevere and persist even in the face of overwhelming criticism and unacceptance. This likely stems from intelligence community training that , no matter how condemning the evidence, deny everything, and never become emotionally involved or reactive.”



The OMF thread was originally locked mid-discussion (August 27th) then briefly reopened only to be locked again a day later (August 28th) with the following statement:



Since the burden of proof for his frivolous accusations is on Mr. Carrion and he refuses to provide any, no progress has been made for 11 pages.

This discussion is going nowhere.

Thread closed permanently.

(Source)



A couple of observations if I may…..

I didn't really consider writing anything about this episode for several reasons with the main one being there's no mention of a UFO, in fact I had decided not to write anything about until I saw a post (31st August) over at Frank Warren's Blog called, “A Rebuttal To James Carrion's Article On Stan Romanek” and upon reading it I discovered that one of Mufon's investigators (Chuck Zucowski) had expressed his displeasure regarding another matter which Carrion had posted about on his fledgling Blog (which only celebrated its two week birthday yesterday!! )



Chuck writes:

“I'm a MUFON Field Investigator as well as a MUFON STAR Investigator, but I'm also an Independent UFO Investigator which includes “non” MUFON investigations. For various reasons, some people prefer not to use MUFON, so people like me are available for them and their needs. (Especially after James's last blog ”feud” with the “Open Minds Forum”.) I guess I'll be getting pretty busy.”

[snip]

Now let's discuss the “controversial” document, the “alleged Air Force memo” which was found in Stan's mailbox and you acquired without the consent of Stan Romanek. You even stated this yourself, “I subsequently located a copy of the memo from a third party source.” A third party? A third Party? Geeesh… Can you say “Smoking Man”? Again?

James! What the hell! You posted this document through your blog without Stan's consent? Can you say, “MUFON Board of Directors Meeting?”

(Source)



Now I feel obliged to point out that I actually agree with Carrion's opinion on Romanek and perhaps more importantly is that Carrion was perfectly justified in posting what Chuck has took issue with, my reasoning for this is it was an (alleged) Air Force document and as such was a document that Romanek has no claim to, but my intention is to highlight the medium that Chuck used to voice his opinion, i.e. –originally- his (public) internet Blog. Live by the sword, die by the sword? There does seem to be more dissenters of late as these aren't isolated cases but perhaps it's just more publicised now or as Mufon is relatively transparent in this respect and when coupled with the thriving internet culture of today then perhaps public disagreements are inevitable?

“Like gravity, Karma is so basic we often don't even notice it”



Anyway, in my humble, and admittedly probably uninformed opinion, Carrions recent excursion (read: ‘incursion') to OMF was motivated by the need to back up an unfounded allegation regarding the identities of two owners of an internet-forum who have done nothing wrong as they have never claimed or alleged anything that would require their CV's being posted, and certainly didn't expect the International Director of Mufon to publicly cast aspersions regarding their being ‘real' people with no provocation.

However, I believe their was an underlying reason but before I elaborate a brief history is required.

After the Drone hoax first broke back in May 2007 it cut a definite line through all of the online communities that discussed the Drones in any depth and inevitably divisions occurred. OMF was no exception and had recently introduced the idea of fielding, “Open Minds Research Team(s)” (OMRT) and one of these teams that were introduced was the Drone OMRT, but as practically all of the other members at OMF (yep, Carrion was wrong about OMF being pro-Drone) believed it was a hoax so a lot of the pro-evidence posted was attacked, but I hasten to add as the Drone OMRT consisted of Drone-believers subsequently any discussion/s were heavily stacked in favour of the Drones being a real-world phenomenon. Anyway eventually the Drone OMRT asserted ownership and sulked off with their football tightly tucked under their arm and so the Drone-Research-Team (DRT) was born in late 2007, a collective conceived of conflict, born of indignation, nurtured with indifference and positively bubbling over with self-satisfaction & elitism. I say this due solely to the fact that as well as not allowing people to join their forum who didn’t renounce Drone-scepticism and profess their belief at the church of Drone they often pre-emptively banned known Drone sceptics and/or critics from even viewing their website(s)!!

A collective which was headed by -the then- recently promoted OMF moderator, *Nemo492*(Didier De Plaige) accompanied by the four most vocal pro-Drone OMF members (*10538* - *Tomi01uk* - *elevenaugust* - *Onthefence*). All of whom were openly very critical of Mufon for (surprise, surprise) dismissing the Drones as a hoax, DRT member *10538* after learning who Mufon's investigator was even followed the investigator (Steve Reichmuth) to his own forum to further enforce a Drone reality, well briefly anyway as he was banned fairly quickly. And when Carrion first showed up at OMF it was almost exclusively the DRT who shouted Carrion down and were disrespectful to the point of it being uncomfortable to read.

This incident is what I believe originally made Carrion resentful (for want of a better word) of OMF and it spurred him on to post a message to the (closed) Mufon boards asking if anyone knew of their real identities. I recently went to look for the post and was unable to locate it but it was posted by Carrion using Administrator status and you can click here for a screen-grab of the post in question.

It has also transpired during Carrion's recent sojourn at OMF (August 2009) which resulted in details of private emails being published (with expressed permission) that Carrion had contacted OMF admin back in April 2008 stating the following:



----- Original Message -----

From: "James Carrion" <jcarrion@EDIT>
To: <ivo5000@EDIT>; <bren@xxx.com>
Cc: <chris@EDIT>
Sent: Sunday, April 20, 2008 10:39 PM

Subject: RE: OM

In addition to libel does Nemo492 as standard practice also engage in copyright law violation? He posted a link in the OM Forum at (SINCE REMOVED) to his own web site at http://ovnis-usa.com/mufon-journal-april-2008-no-480/which contains a copyrighted article from the April MUFON Journal. I don't believe France is outside the realm of US copyright law. I expect that his offending post will be deleted.

Sincerely,

James Carrion
MUFON International Director



I only post this so the reader can appreciate how petty it all was it and also to highlight the bad-blood between all involved prior to this recent episode. Also, when Carrion first ventured to OMF it was DRT member *Elevenaugust* who was the worst offender with regrds to just generally disrespecting Carrion & his standing in the UFO community.

But this brings us full circle and my reason for mentioning this is it has recently came to my attention that DRT co-founder *elevenaugust* has popped up at another UFO forum (Alien-UFOs.com) where the intricacies of the Drones aren't really known and after being helpful (critical but helpful) for a few posts he started a thread titled “James Carrion vs Open Minds forum” and posted the following:



Posted by: elevenaugust Aug 28 2009, 06:50 PM

Unbelievable things happens over there!

James carrion, International Director of MUFON, question the rights for UFO forum administrator to be anonymous!

He came, as an ordinary troller, on this UFO forum, to spread disinformation and ask for a complete CV of the forum administrator, like if they were not real people!!

All the details in the concerned forum topic avalaible http://lucianarchy.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=cali1&action=display&thread=6287&page=1.

Please, take the time to read all the concerned topic, it seems to me that this have something to do with every UFO forum as well....

Oh my, is MUFON doing so bad??

(Source)



He then proceeded to post screen-shots of what DRT co-founder and OMF moderator *Nemo492* posted to his personal (French) Blog back in March 2009, there were two Blog posts in the link he posted and the first was from Nemo reporting on the Examiner article which cited that Mufon had a sponsor (Bigelow) and the second was explained by *elevenaugust* with the following:




“OK, a first-hand information, for you, about the MUFON:

A roughly translation from French of our French blog about the meeting, after the Barcelona exopolitics summit, between Didier dePlaige (aka Nemo492), our French administrator and the bilionnaire John RAO”

(Source)



And an excerpt of the conversation was as follows (as penned by *Nemo492*):

A man approached, smiling, seeing my badge that we were the few "survivors" of Congress, he was like me a few hours before him before taking his plane. The conversation was initiated with John Rao on his passion for ufology, scientific research, and personal plans.

We came early to speak of MUFON, he thinks it necessary to renovate in depth: "It is an aging organization, poorly structured and financed through membership can no longer allow him to fulfill his role. My team provides infrastructure already its 40th symposium, held in Denver, Colorado, from August 6 to 9 next ... "

I point out that the billionaire Robert Bigelow has pledged its financial support last March ... He corrects this first paragraph: "He was given the money!" (one U.S. agency gave the money to pay it to the MUFON). He added: "Bigelow and its sponsors are not interested in collecting the items for close encounters of the Third Type. It allows the authorities to continue to manage the phenomenon ..."

Screen capture 1 - Screen capture 2 - Screen capture 3



And *elevenaugust* also offers up a scoop by answering a question regarding OMF & Rao with the following:

(Source)



And also states that he believes Carrion is well aware of this:

(Source)



I should perhaps point out at this point that when I tried to access Nemo's Ovnis-USA website I received the following message:

But it's been that way for ages now and in the spirit of ‘full disclosure' (!) I should also mention that my IP address has been banned from viewing the DRT website practically since its inception, yep, you read that right….. These two bastions of truth and free speech don't even like me reading what they post publicly, and they in fact fear it to such an extent that they actively pursue, obtain and instantly ban my IP address at seemingly every opportunity. And when I publicly enquired on OMF as to how their moderator Nemo492 was obtaining my IP address after I'd repeatedly changed it I was banned from there as well, so I guess what I'm trying to say is I have no allegiance to OMF, DRT, Mufon or Carrion, my only pledge -if any- is to the truth (scarce as it may be).

So hopefully if you've managed to wade through my rambling prose you can arrive at your own decision about why Carrrion felt compelled to act as he did recently, and you can do so armed with what I believe are the relevant facts (well, as I found them).

No disinformation, I promise.....

Labels: , , , , , , , , ,

Saturday, 2 May 2009

2009 Petten ‘Drone/Kite' – Raison d'être?

I posted a few days ago about what I believed was a kite being touted as a Drone. I was a little surprised at how quickly this was embraced as such by LMH, especially considering her last few posts were almost a year ago. Earthfiles posted a bit when the flap was ongoing in the summer 2007 but in all of 2008 and until April 2009 only four related posts were made:



• 06/06/2008 — Aerial Ring with Antennas in Southern Ohio Forest and Chicago Dragonfly Drone

• 05/09/2008 — Dragonfly Drones - Surveillance Technology?

• 04/04/2008 — Wingless, “Dragonfly” Sighting On March 31, 2008

• 03/21/2008 — Part 2, Dragonfly-Shaped Aerial Craft: Current Media Misinformation Versus Eyewitnesses 1987 to 2007

• 03/07/2008 — Mysterious Aerial “Drones” - Oklahoma and Arkansas



Also all of these witnesses made the Drone association themselves which is why it seemed doubly strange when the most recent Petten witness was blissfully unaware of the Drones and indeed their implications when quizzed by LMH. Yet the association was still made and LMH gleefully added this new account to her Drone timeline while the second post regarding this was a couple of emails, both of which made tenuous connections. The first one with the Petten reactor and the second with another one of LMH's marketable passions, crop circles, but as I said I was a little puzzled as to why this report was being ‘overcooked' as it were.

I was also puzzled as to why the sudden interest by LMH in what was an explainable sighting and her eagerness to portray it as a Drone, well, that was until I found the following which was recently posted to Whitley Strieber's website, it's from the press release for the Dreamland-II festival in June (2009) and states that:



The crop circles of 2008 astonished researchers and silenced debunkers, and Linda Moulton Howe is going to tell us why and then go beyond public knowledge and into the mysterious world of leaked documents and attempts to back-engineer technology based on the patterns. One pattern in 2008 amazed scientists when the first ten digits of the infinite number Pi were found embedded in t. This coded circle was found near Barbury castle, where a 1991 circle inspired astronomer Gerald Hawkins to discover new geometry theorems. Further, in 2008 and 1991, the same Barbury Castle ratcheted spiral designs in which numbers have been embedded is found in an alleged leaked document from the 1980s linked to back-engineering extraterrestrial technology. This is THE crop circle presentation. There has been nothing like it before. EVER.

Source: Dreamland Store



Obviously the, “leaked document from the 1980s linked to back-engineering extraterrestrial technology” is none other than the documentation which accompanied the Drones and crudely presented as genuine by Isaac, yep, the faked Caret documents.

All for a measly $250!!

So you see really it's a most fortuitous coincidence that the Drones are indeed still making headlines, even if it does only appear to be at Earthfiles…..

Labels: , , , , ,

Friday, 24 April 2009

When is a Drone Not a Drone? (Petten, Holland, 2007)

PLEASE NOTE : For reasons which will quickly become apparent I refer to the Petten, Holland object as a, “Drone” purely because this is how it is being referred to in the course of being perpetuated across the internet and will ultimately enable ease of access for SE's/reference purposes.

I personally do NOT believe this object is related to the 2007 Californian Drone Hoax in any way shape or form (and I am apparently in the minority) but for what it's worth I believe that the witness of this recent (Petten, Holland) object is sincere and has shared the circumstances surrounding the sighting to the best of his recollection.



It was first reported by BJ Booth at the UFO Casebook on 12th April (2009) with the following title and message:

Drone-Like UFO Photographed in Holland, 2007

Petten, Holland, September, 2007

I was fishing with my wife, when I noticed something in the sky. I could not see what it was, because off in the distance we saw it as a black spot.

Altitude was about 300 meters. I took my camera, Nikon D50 and had a 300 mm lens on it. I just shot some pics (about 12), so I could see it on the computer.

It stayed for about half an hour, and then it disappeared (we didn't see it flying away). Photograph was taken in Holland, near Petten, on September 8, 2007.

regards,

Source: UFOCasebook Front Page



This was then followed up on the 14th April (2009) with another two photographs then after further contact with the witness the full thirteen images were released at UFOCasebook as a zip file.

It was in this third posting that BJ Booth also wrote:

I had a phone conversation with Linda Moulton Howe this afternoon, and we are collaborating on the research and information gathering aspect of the Holland drone-like photographs... more info will be coming soon. thanks again.



To be honest my (and many others) initial thought was that it was a kite of some description, this was just from the first release which contained just the one image, this seemed to be further confirmed by the second release of two images. And when the full sequence of (13) images were all released in their entirety this further confirmed that we were indeed looking at the motion very similar to that of a kite:

Animation Of Petten UFO Sequence
Animation Of Petten UFO



Where's Waldof?!

The witness joined the UFOCasebook forum after the first image was released (April 13 th 2009) and was a willing participant in the discussion elaborating and answering more questions regarding his experience, his user name was/is *Ruud*.

Below are some of the kites located which were of a similar structure to the object that was photographed in Petten, Holland.

Here's an overlay courtesy of UFOCasebook forum member Marvin.

All of the above were posted to the Casebook thread on or before the 16th April (2009).

Most are from the following link which also describes how you can even construct your own Waldof kite!! (Source)

Also, as well as a multitude of similar kites being found a couple of kite forums were contacted in the process of trying to positively identify the object as a kite, here's the first reply to the question on the kitebuilder.com forum.


Hate to disappoint anyone but .....

I got no hesitation, that is a kite

Moves like a kite, looks like a kite..it's a kite.

I reckon you even named it. A Waldorf [*Edit: SP – Waldof] Box (or Variant)


pic courtesy of Kite plan base

Any of our guys want to own up

BTW, some of your guys saying about reported lack of wind.

Bare[sic] in mind, skies like that, on a beach, very unlikely to be zero wind.

May have been light, witness/photographer may have been in wind shadow from dunes or the like but I wouldn't belive[sic] zero wind.

Also, most non kite flyers underestimated the amount of wind needed to fly a well built and suitable kite. The Waldorf will fly in 10mph winds happily..... and stronger winds would be likely at 300m

Most people reckon 10mph is nothing, especially if they are sheltered.

It's also quite normal for wind to be selective, stronger in one place then another close by...ask any sailor or kite flyer

Source: Kitebuilder.com



DroneHoax.comI expressed my concern and disappointment at the time that this particular sighting was being associated with the Drones at all, irrespective of whether this was merely an aesthetic similarity or not. Mainly because I suspected it would (and now has) become inextricably linked to the original California Drones of 2007 which are widely recognised and accepted as an internet hoax, I also suspected that as a result of this vague marrying of rings and appendages the recent Petten image would be classified as ‘ guilty by association ' and wouldn't receive a fraction of the attention and analysis that the original Drone images had.

Well, I was also apprehensive of myself and others being too eager at drawing parallels with the Drones as I can still remember –with some clarity- the circus atmosphere that surrounded the Drone debacle once a couple of Ufology's ‘bigger' and more media-friendly players caught scent of a story. It was an atmosphere reminiscent of ‘old –school' Ufology with the one-upmanship mentality, ad-hominem attacks and refusal to co-operate. As a matter of fact Linda Moulton Howe (LMH) of the Earthfiles website still believes that she is perfectly justified in withholding vital evidence in the form of eleven high-resolution photographs (part of a set of twelve) which she was trusted to share in their entirety from one of the original five Drone witnesses, but I've wrote about this a couple of times prior so rather than rehash it again it can still be viewed online by visiting here.



Regarding the Drone association BJ Booth has since stated (April 15th 2009) that:

I never asked him [the witness] about the drones. It was I who first used the phrase, "drone-like" simply because that was the first thing that came to mind. What should I have called it?

(snip)

I do not know what it [Petten object] is, and I have never said what it is.”

Source: BJ Booth - UFOCasebook Forum



So it's clear to see that this link to the Drones was nothing more than a familiar phrase used to describe an otherwise difficult to explain shape and the heading of the UFOCasebook page in question even states that the object was “Drone- like” rather than a Drone.

Then in the early hours of the 17th April the witness (Ruud) wrote the following (please bear in mind that English is his second language and I've posted the comment exactly as it was originally posted):


Personaly I didn't made a link to a drone. I thougt drones were much bigger and much more suffisticated.

More alien so to speak. (fake or not)

I never heard about woldof kites, now I know there is a variaty of kites in al kind of shapes (impressive).

I have no benefit what so ever of posting those pics, (only that my English is updated).

I like to watch the sky, especially at night.

I don't believe in god, I have seen lots of meteorites, sattelites speeding through the space. I have seen UFO balloons. (Thai balloons). I have seen Skylab and the ISS.

I have also seen the Hayley comet (with the tail).

I am just a sober guy from Holland wich could not explain something I took pictures of.



LMH Strikes Again

And later on the 17th April and Earthfiles (after gaining access to the witness) writes a piece with the headline of:

Spider-Like “Drone” Photographed Over Petten, Holland.

Did you notice the less-than subtle difference between UFOCasebook's title?

UFOCasebook called it a “Drone-like UFO” while LMH (Earthfiles.com) removed the possibility of a UFO completely and called it a “Spider-like Drone”.

Then LMH writes:

“No other 2007 photographs of the mysterious “drones” emerged - until now…..So now, I am adding another line to the chronological list of eyewitnesses:”

This should surely raise questions about the investigative prowess of LMH in all persons, from the casual reader to the hardened ‘nuts & bolts' Ufologist.

As apart from the fact that the witness has stated prior that it in no way reminded him of a Drone LMH steamrollers over his opinion and classifies it 100% as a “Drone,” still, no real surprises there as “Drones” with a great deal worse defining criteria have qualified for LMH's –already laughable- list of “Drone-witnesses”.

When actually asked about the Drones by LMH Ruud stated that he wasn't really aware of them prior but was surprised that while his report was classed as a “Drone” people believed he was being less than truthful, this was due solely to the fact that everyone except LMH and a couple of hardcore Drone believers now accept that the 2007 California Drones were a deliberate internet hoax.




When Is A Kite Not A Kite?

In a thinly veiled attempting to justify this she states that:

“THAT WAS APPARENTLY PROVOKED BY SOME CALCULATED MISINFORMATION CAMPAIGN BY PEOPLE UNKNOWN IN 2007 TRYING TO PAINT THE PHOTOS THAT EMERGED AS BEING HOAXED.”

I had to re-read it a couple of times!!

Firstly, apart from the fact that LMH completely ignored the fact that 2007 Drones were analysed and found to be CGI by every single specialist who took the time, some of whom are industry recognised professionals and I hasten to add these are not ‘debunkers' by any stretch of the imagination as they are also believers and/or have first hand experience of the nuts & bolts UFO phenomenon.

Secondly the entire Petten Drone/kite are and the full article by LMH is basically turning a kite into a Drone and then it climaxes with unknown persons waging a “MISINFORMATION CAMPAIGN ”!!

Still, I suppose she is the expert…..

Anyway, after the interview was published with Ruud, he wrote:



“I have no intention my pictures going around knowing as an hoax.

I hate hoaxes.

I have seen pics of that phony thing you are calling a drone all speaking about that it is an hoax.

It never had my interest because it looked so unreal.

Also there is no resemblence with the pics I took.”



And for what it's worth here was my reply (to Ruud):

Regarding the Drones I agree with you and this is why I was keen to disassociate your report from them by posting to another board and when that failed by creating a new thread in the Drone section. However your report is destined to eternally be labelled as a “Drone” due almost exclusively to the portrayal of you and your account at Earthfiles.

I'm sure you can appreciate it's now a ‘done-deal' and you're a “Drone-witness” as far as LMH is concerned and what's good enough for her is good enough for die-hard Dronies the world over, as they all seem to classify and claim LMH's word as beyond reproach. But take heart because at least after this latest debacle a few more people have had their eyes opened to the media entrepreneur that is LMH, and hopefully also to her subscriber/ratings orientated method of investigative ‘scientific' reporting…..



I am however still pleased that LMH conducted the interview in her usual manner. I say this because as this time she wasn't the first port-of-call for the witness, it meant that she wasn't reporting on a sighting, witness & images that only she had exclusive access to (which was often the case with the original Drone reports).

So in my humble opinion and albeit inadvertently she's done us all a favour by once again reminding us of why the moniker of ‘story-teller' is infinitely more applicable than that of ‘investigative reporter' or a ‘scientific consultant' (which C2C touts her as when she appears on their show).

In short I believe that the 'kite' possibility at least warranted a mention, and certainly more than the inclusion of the report in the "Original Drone Timeline" did, but hey, what do I know.....

Labels: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Sunday, 5 April 2009

(June 2005) Jellyfish Drone (UFO?) Mufon FI Report

Mufon field investigator, Eddie Middleton talks about an older , “Drone-like” UFO report with ‘jellyfish' like properties:



Giant jellyfish/drone-like object sails across backyard in mid-town Memphis.

In June 2005 Linda Howe received from a lady in Memphis, Tennessee one of the strangest UFO reports I have ever read. Kathleen Deaton who lived at the time on Harbert Street in Mid-town Memphis said that on that hot Summer afternoon she was sitting on her back porch when she suddenly noticed at the far end of her yard about three or four feet over her garden an incredibly bizarre-looking, airborne object that was moving slowly towards her. She described it as an enormous, elongated jellyfish-like thing, somewhat helicopterish in structure, approximately five or six feet in length with a large, spherical-shaped head (or control cockpit) in the front and a body that tapered to what looked like some kind of tail or rudder. It was silvery in color and somewhat diaphanous in appearance. [It's hard to describe something like you ain't ever seen before!] The thing made no noise that she could detect. As it moved closer to her, following a smooth level path above the ground , she noticed more details. It seemed to have some kind of antennae on top of it. When it got at close range, not more than three or four feet away from her, it appeared like it could possibly be some kind of hybrid---artificial UAV and living creature combined---the real stuff of science fiction!

Kathleen was absolutely frozen in awe watching this thing. When it stopped at the foot of her porch stairs, she had the strong impression that it was taking cognizance of her and going through some kind of decision process what to do next. This extremely uneasy moment lasted only a few seconds. Then it slowly rose up just enough to clear the top of her roof and passed on over. Kathleen immediately ran through her house to get another view of this thing as it flew over her front yard, across the street, and then over the roof of the house on that side before disappearing into the distance to the North. She reported this to the police who didn't quite know what to make of it except to guess she had seen some kind of balloon. And so concludes the essential details of Kathleen's report.

And now to the main point of my article. As a MUFON Field Investigator, I was utterly fascinated when I read this account and wanted to do a full investigatrion of it. I was also somewhat appalled as this sighting had occurred just a few blocks from where I lived! I tried to contact the witness, but to no avail. She was not even listed in the phone directory. I called Linda Howe, and she didn't even know how to get back in touch with Mrs. Deaton. MUFON FI's sometimes have to deal with this kind of frustration. I was, however, absolutely determined to still investigate, as far as I possibly could, this extremely weird sighting that had practically happened in my own backyard.

I talked to an expert on weather balloons at the National Weather Bureau in Memphis. She looked at the artist's depiction on Linda Howe's website of what Kathleen claimed to have seen . This spokesperson said it could well have been a weather balloon because its size, shape, and color pretty well matched-up with what weather balloons in general looked like. She went on to tell me that every day at least one weather balloon was released between 4am and 6am from three different locations within striking distance of Memphis : Nashville, Little Rock, and Paducah, Kentucky. She said one of these balloons could easily have strayed as far as Memphis. She DID say, however, that for this thing to have been that low to the ground and coming across Mrs. Daton's backyard in the fashion she had described would have been very unusual but certainly within the realm of possibility. Another spokesperson I talked to at the Weather Bureau said that usually weather balloons when they run out of Helium , explode in the upper atmosphere. One thing the expert told me was that there would have been some kind of package hanging underneath the balloon. And this was not mentioned in Mrs. Deaton's account of what she said she saw.

Being as thorough as I could in my MUFON detective work, I also checked out the possibility that Kathy had seen some kind of Helium balloon that had strayed from Liberty Land which is in Mid-town at the Fair Grounds not far from her neighborhood. Liberty Land would have been in full swing in June of 2005 though it was permanently shut down in October of 2005. Robert Charles who was operating a Magic Shop at Liberty Land at that time told me that they were celebrating their 30th anniversity that month and had all kinds of Helium balloons out there.

So, using Occam's Razor, the most "logical," mundane, down-to-earth weather balloon explanation seems possibly plausible enough. It would certainly have been the "explanation" that a skeptic like Michael Shermer or Phillip Klass would have given and been quite comfortable with. As a MUFON Field Investigator, I would have had to have classified Kathy's sighitng as an IFO (Identifed Flying Object) ; that's because it is the scientific protocol at MUFON to always opt for the natural explanation of strange sighting reports whenever possible. That keeps the skeptical scientists happy and MUFON's reputation as a scientifically respectable research organization intact, but as for me personally, I cannot escape the feeling of strangness from this report. Who knows? This might have been one of those Sky Cirtters (living UFOs) that Trevor James Constable photographed in the late 50's and early 60's or possibly one of those darn drones that were being photographed with cell phones a few years ago. And, of course, one cannot rule out the possibility that Kathy was just telling a tall tale. But I will say this : if she was, I would still like to locate her so I could get her to enter a liers' contest and share some of her winnings with me.

Source: Nashville Examiner

Labels: , , , , , ,

Thursday, 12 March 2009

The UK Spy-Drones (& The Thought Police…..)

Way back in May 2007 I made a post detailing the specifics of our quickly diminishing personal rights in the UK, also foretelling of a truly Orwellian Britain that wasn't just hearsay but which was based entirely on fact, it made for quite disturbing reading (the original post can be viewed here).

I referenced many facets of these pending encroachments of civil liberties and also spoke of the unveiling of the “MicroDrone” and the fact that the UK police were going to commence trial runs utilising it in a civilian environment and capacity. I very rarely speak of such things and admittedly I used a somewhat tenuous premise by comparing the, “MicroDrone” to a UFO, which to be fair was due in most to the recent Californian Drone Hoax which was (at the time) mid-flap and was taking up most of my time.

Well roll on February 2009 and the following article posted by the Daily Mail (online):



Big Brother spy planes that track the Taliban
may soon hover over your home.

Pilotless planes used to track the Taliban could soon be hovering over our streets, it has emerged. Remote-controlled drones are already used widely by the military. Now ministers believe they are likely to become 'increasingly useful' for police work. Armed with heat-seeking cameras, the Unmanned Aerial Vehicles would hover hundreds of feet in the air, gathering intelligence and watching suspects.


The Microdrone has been trialled by Merseyside police. The white top features GPS technology, which allows officers to navigate it. It contains a memory card to store recordings from several flights.

In theory, their advantages are clear. They are cheaper and quieter than conventional helicopters, can circle their target for hours without refuelling - and they don't get bored on long surveillance missions.

However, their use is likely to further fuel concerns about our march towards a Big Brother state. Britain already has more CCTV cameras than the rest of Europe put together. More than four million closed-circuit TV cameras cover the streets; cars are monitored using cameras that check registration plates and a new law will see footage taken of shoppers buying alcohol. The plan to deploy 'spy in the sky' planes is outlined in the Home Office's latest Science and Innovation Strategy.

It says: 'Unmanned Aerial Vehicles are likely to be an increasingly useful tool for police in the future, potentially reducing the number of dangerous situations the police may have to enter and also providing evidence for prosecutions and support police operations in "real time".'

Two years ago, Tony McNulty, then a Home Office minister, acknowledged that scientists were exploring the use of UAV technology for a 'range of policing and security applications' .

They could be used by MI5 to watch a suspect's address for long periods or track a car for miles. The drones could also help officers plan raids in locations that are hard to reach, to record and monitor accidents or to spot speeding offences or reckless or uninsured drivers.

Goggles enable officers to see exactly what the drone is filming:

Ministers are liaising with the Civil Aviation Authority about the introduction of UAVs, some of which measure as little as 2ft across. But the document cautions:

'We need to investigate how such vehicles could be used, and their ability to provide high-quality evidence for convictions.'

There are also safety concerns surrounding the planes. Those used by the military are prone to crashes on takeoff and landing. Many have been lost over battlefields. A trial by Merseyside police, of £30,000 remote-controlled miniature helicopters with still, video or infra-red cameras, highlighted more mundane problems related to battery life and the effects of bad weather on flights.

Mark Wallace, of the Taxpayers' Alliance, said: 'I think a lot of people would be concerned at the Home Office looking to use technology more generally associated with the tribal borders of Pakistan and the fight against terror over British towns to watch the British public…..It is not necessarily as glamorous or as high-tech, but a bobby snapping cuffs on a criminal is the most productive approach.'

Source: Daily Mail



Also posted on February 24th (2009) by the Daily Mail was the following article titled:

I fear a Big Brother state ( reveals David Blunkett)

David Blunkett will today warn of the dangers of allowing an 'oppressive' and 'eventually self-destructive' Big Brother state to develop. The former Home Secretary has concerns about plans for mass data sharing by public bodies and the Home Office's proposal for a giant database holding records of every phone call and internet click. In a speech today, Mr Blunkett will also suggest one solution to the identity cards row would be to make passports compulsory for everyone, with ID cards only being issued to those who want one.

Mr Blunkett will tell the 21st annual law lecture at Essex University: 'We need principles on which we can base actions which may otherwise, in the name of protecting freedom and decency, become oppressive, intolerant of difference and eventually self-destructive.'

Mr Blunkett, who had many run-ins with the civil liberties lobby when Home Secretary between 2001 and 2004, will say there must be 'very clear rules' to protect the public from intrusion by the state and private businesses.

Source: Daily Mail



Remember, this is the person widely heralded as the architect of the ID cards speaking, one of the loudest and most influential voices on the subject back in the day when he was Home Secretary, anyway...... Finally and on a much lighter note, check out this San Francisco Chronicle Mp3 from an unfathomably irate reader and his overly verbose rant on the etymology of the word, “Drone” (drone, drone, drone).

Labels: , , , , , ,

Monday, 25 August 2008

Psychology Of The (Drone) Hoax

A, “Playful” account of one persons rather insightful perception of the Drone hoax was posted on Fortunecity a couple of months ago. *Dronies* may recall that Fortunecity is the same website where Isaac first unleashed his pseudo-scientific psycho-babble driven drivel onto a (suspecting) world.

It wasn't publicised or heavily linked to but rather was a testament of one persons feelings about all things Drone-related and more precisely why it was obviously a hoax.

Well a couple of weeks ago the web-hosts Fortunecity received a takedown notice threatening legal action if it remained, of course a brief exchange of emails ensued so the specifics of the claim could be learned. It quickly transpired that the claim was regarding actions that occurred prior to the article being posted and actually wasn't a direct consequence of what was actually contained in the article itself.

That's not really the interesting part; the more interesting part was what was contained in one of the emails that were sent by Fortunecity regarding the takedown, which read as follows:



We did not see what could be considered defamatory either, but we were threatened with legal action if we did [not] remove the content.

Regards

The FortuneCity Team

P.S. it is *definitely* a hoax, and Linda Moulton Howe has made a fool of herself again.



It appears that people with no real interest in the Drone Hoax are still well aware of the finer details along with the implications and the main, “Players.” And of course more importantly that the entire debacle was nothing but an orchestrated hoax, one which is STILL being perpetuated by people who SHOULD know better.

"Those who cannot remember the past are destined to repeat it...."

Anyway, I've hosted the text for a while now, so the “Psychology Of A Hoax” article may be viewed here.



"The discovery of truth is prevented more effectively not by the false appearance of things present and which mislead into error, not directly by weakness of the reasoning powers, but by preconceived opinion, by prejudice." - Schopenhauer


Labels: , , , , , , , ,

Sunday, 15 June 2008

The Dreamland Drones & New Chances?

The Dreamland Drones

After being out of the ‘Drone scene' for a few months Whitley Strieber has rekindled his involvement by attempting to resuscitate the Drone subject which has itself been in remission for a couple of months now. Whitley made a couple or so posts regarding the Drones last June (2007) when the Drone images and witnesses were coming thick and fast. In fact to the best of my knowledge Whitley has only made a few posts in total regarding the California Drones, here's an extract from his previous Drone revelation back in December last year:



A Most Complex Encounter - (Dec 11, 2007)

So this experience actually crossed waking and dream. The first time I got out of bed and walked into the living room and saw the trees, I was wide awake and actually moving across realities physically. Then, when I slept and dreamed, the realities unfolded around me. When I saw the drone, I was possibly in yet another universe, different from this one.

So the logical question, at least to me, is this: how could anyone even write such far-fetched nonsense, let alone believe that it really happened?



It seems Whitley Strieber adheres to the philosophy of Friedrich Nietzsche in that, “There are no facts, only interpretations,” or perhaps a more fitting axiom would be that of Democritus and, “Nothing exists except atoms and empty space; everything else is opinion.

Anyway, fast forward six months to a couple of days ago and June 13th, 2008 Whitley posted another Drone related Blog post, an extract follows:



New Chance – (June 13, 2008)

Last summer, the so called "drones" appeared. Linda Moulton Howe and I soon confirmed that the photographs were real, both by what photo analysis could done, and by numerous interviews with witnesses, many of whom were willing to go on the record with their names.

Then there were the Carat documents. These were furiously rebutted on the internet, but when I suggested that somebody create similar images, nobody responded. The reason that they did not respond is contained in a comment made by an engineer, Michael A. Reed of Reed Development Associates, who recently looked at them at Linda Howe's request. He commented, "the things are so complex, they are a little mind boggling!"

This is why none of the people claiming both expertise as draftsmen and that the Carat images were frauds came forward to produce similar but differently constructed images. There were a few knockoffs of the Carat images, but that proves nothing. Anybody can recopy images and make a few changes with a simple drafting program.

Last summer, when I read in the Carat documents the amazing concept of "self-activating software," I knew immediately that this is exactly what the crop circles are. They are activating something in our earth, and, fortunately, there is nothing that the forces of evil, largely embodied in government, its lying shills in the media, and farmers who destroy the circles as fast as possible, can do about this. This is because the effect is instantaneous, and by the time the destroyers reach a given circle, it's already too late.”



RE: The photographs were real, both by what photo analysis could done, and by numerous interviews with witnesses, many of whom were willing to go on the record with their names.”

In the same sentence as, “Photographs were real” he ascertains this by, "Both by what photo analysis could done, and by numerous interviews with witnesses.”

It seems as if Whitley has been studying at the Linda Moulton Howe School of Investigative Journalism!!

Firstly we have the ambiguous error of, “could done,” is this, “was done” or, “could be done?” (More importantly where is this analysis and has it been subjected to peer review?)

And secondly which photo witnesses have been interviewed or for that matter which photo witnesses have been proven to disclose their real name/s?

ALL of the original photo witnesses disappeared without a trace, well all except Rajman1977 who posted twice on the OM forums before promptly disappearing into cyberspace. Also all of the witnesses have stopped answered any follow-up emails which were sent to the addresses from where their emails originated.

“Then there were the Carat documents. These were furiously rebutted on the internet, but when I suggested that somebody create similar images, nobody responded.”

Hold on a minute, I've seen many, many replications of the CARET documents. But this is of course easily dismissed by Whitley saying that:

There were a few knockoffs of the Carat images, but that proves nothing. Anybody can recopy images and make a few changes with a simple drafting program.”

Apparently not everybody can recopy text in the same fashion as I think we can safely assume that the "Carat" Whitley speaks of is actually "CARET". You may think that's an easy mistake to make, but not when you consider it's an acronym of:

"Commercial Applications Research For Extraterrestrial Technology".

And Whitley repeatedly misspells this simple acronym -never once spelling it correctly- suggesting to me that perhaps Whitley isn't quite as knowledgeable about the Drone phenomenon as he would like us to believe.

But back to the question and what is it exactly Whitley is asking of people? He suggested someone create similar images and when this was done it was simply dismissed as copying the originals!! The fact of the matter is that the originals are fairly unique in their design, well they're unique enough so that anyone attempting to replicate them would have to copy the overall design if any kind of comparison were to be made, otherwise how could you distinguish that they were in fact similar images?

This seems to me like it's no more than moving the goalposts…..

When do facts stop being the issue?

Is it a conscious decision or a genuine mistake?

Perhaps it's no more than a genuine mistake, an objective reality that once squeezed through the prism of belief and filtered through personal values becomes fact, but as John Burroughs wrote:

To treat your facts with imagination is one thing,
But to imagine your facts is another.

RE: “Last summer, when I read in the Carat documents the amazing concept of "self-activating software," I knew immediately that this is exactly what the crop circles are.”

Whitley is talking About the, “Functional blueprint” which Isaac specifically states is geometric forms and patterns which fit together to form diagrams,” and that, Once they are drawn, so to speak, on a suitable surface made of a suitable material and in the presence of a certain type of field.”

A suitable surface being that of the face of the earth and a certain type of field being that of a farmers field is a bit of a stretch, don't you think? (And that's regardless of which dimension it allegedly appeared in!! Oh and of course Isaac never refers to it as software).



Can you recall Whitley's opening gambit? “Linda Moulton Howe and I soon confirmed that the photographs were real”

On June 8th of last year in his Blog entry titled, “The Mystery of the Drones” Whitley writes:

Throughout the process, I have obtained analysis of the pictures offered, with little success because of the generally low resolution and the proliferation of effects programs more sophisticated than Photoshop that can make virtually undetectable inclusions in still images……The only thing that prevents me from declaring that they are real is that special effects are just so sophisticate d…..Understand, please, this does NOT mean that I'm endorsing these images . I believe Sylvia , Chad and Mr. Smith, but I cannot endorse the images because I cannot, personally and beyond doubt, prove that they are authentic.”

And on June 29th in his Blog post, “The Drones: Are They Real, and What Do We Do?” Whitley wrote:

“Now, it is VERY important to realize something before I go on, and to take it into your mind and heart: EVEN IF the entire Isaac production is proven beyond a shadow of a doubt to be a hoax, and that may happen.”



Okay, who put a "Stop Payment" on Whitley's reality check?

I hope it's not his personal sighting which transcended several dimensions that Whitley is touting as the proof of the existence of the Drones, as just because he personally fails to accept our *reality* then it doesn't nullify it for the rest of us, or even make it go away for Whitley himself as it'll always be there waiting for him every time when he wakes up, whether it's accepted as such is another matter entirely.



Can you remember the CGI video created by Kris Avery that was claimed to be real by Linda Moulton Howe last May? (Full details here). Well it'll surely come as no surprise to learn that Whitley apparently made the same mistake. On May 25 th last year Unknown Country made a Blog post called, “'Drone' Almost Certainly Real” that contained the following text:

“Both Linda Howe and Unknowncountry have resources in various engineering disciplines. An Unknowncountry source at NASA has said that the object is far from any known technology. "If it is using electrostatic lift, then it would have to be extremely light, perhaps on the order of a few pounds, but then where would the energy come from? Electrostatic lift is a laboratory phenomenon, as far as I know."

We asked him to comment on this statement by an engineer queried by Linda Howe. The engineer said, "The design strategy of charged ion shaped plasma 'buoyancy' devices does bear some relevancy here. For instance, the circular array of curved 'antennae' coming out of the center of the device is very similar to a form of wave guide shaping mechanism for a charged plasma ion field."

This was quickly changed to: “Drone Appears on You Tube” with the claims that it was real removed, then witin hours it changed again to, “Drone Appears on You Tube--But Original Photos Still Stand Up ” with the text completely changed to:

"Super-clear photos of a bizarre UFO have caused an international sensation, and now CGI experts are showing just how perfect fakes can be, but so far there is no evidence at all that the 'Chad' photos posted on Flikr, and the 'Alabama' photo posted on Earthfiles.com are fakes. Headers on the Chad photos indicate that they were taken with a Konica Minolta DiMAGE X at an ISO Speed of 100 and a resolution of 72dpi on May 6 at 5:43 PM. In addition, Linda Moulton Howe leads off Dreamland today with a convincing interview with a witness who saw the 'drone' two years ago. So the evidence still favors the original photos being real. BUT the drone is now being reproduced perfectly using CGI technology. It is virtually impossible to tell whether or not the original photographs are real, but the depth of evidence Linda Howe is presenting remains compelling. To see an expert video that has been created of the 'drone,' click here. This is probably CGI work, but it, also, could be a real video of such a drone in testing.”

This is all documented by a user who left several comments on Mac Tonnies Blog, “Posthuman Blues” the poster also wrote that:

So, the first unknown country (UC) article on the CGI fake, endorsing it as "almost certainly real" was replaced by the second, which reversed course to suggest belatedly the "craft" just might be a fake, and now a _third_ version of the article appears, changing course again, rewritten and now including a note that Strieber will be interviewing Howe on the UC "Dreamland" radio program about the "craft" perhaps _still_ being real, based on the original "Chad" and secondary "Alabama" photos (which are different, and also fakes), but that _now_ other CGI fakes may be surfacing from other sources from elsewhere, including a YouTube video using CGI of the "craft" taking off from the ground at a location that appears to have a large white building, on the left, which may be an aircraft hanger.”

Mac replied that:

I'm not the least bit surprised. Strieber probably realized how lame the story was and decided to pretend it never happened. He's done it before.”

And finally, I'll leave you with a Whitley Strieber quote that sums the entire debacle up better than I ever could…..


“So the logical question, at least to me, is this: how could anyone even write such far-fetched nonsense, let alone believe that it really happened?”

Labels: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Saturday, 3 May 2008

Heavyweight Digital Image Expert Weighs In On Drones, Calling Hoax (Again!!)

Back in May last year (2007) The Paracast broadcast their regular podcast with Gene Steinberg & David Biedny, on it they covered the California Drone Flap. This was a fairly discreet offering and passed under the radar of a lot of people who are interested in the Drones. Proponents of the Drones are quick to shout that no known professional digital image analysts are willing to go on record with any kind of judgement regarding the images, well enter David Biedny, as far as expert analysts go they don't come with credentials much more impeccable than Biedny's!!

David Biedny has been interested in the hard science aspects of the paranormal world since youth, and especially due to his formative years spent in Caracas, Venezuela . He has personally witnessed the range of the absurd to the truly unexplainable in the realm of paranormal phenomenon, and these experiences have forged the foundation of his curiosity and desire to uncover the truth of the limitations of our knowledge of the wondrous possibilities of nature and the Universe.

Listen to the relevant section of the Paracast.

David Biedny on why he thinks the Californian Drones are hoax.



"David Biedny is the President & Technical Director of IDIG, Inc. he is a leading digital effects, graphics and multimedia expert. His writing, educational efforts, multimedia and special effects work have enjoyed global exposure. He is considered by many longtime industry players to be one of the technical and creative pioneers of personal computer-based multimedia.

Biedny was formerly President and Technical Director of Incredible Interactivity Inc., a pioneering New York based firm which created multimedia projects and products for companies such as General Motors, Knoll International, Apple Computer, HBO, American Express, The American International Group and AT&T, among others. In recent years, he has participated as a project director/interface designer/consultant for a variety of CD-ROM/software projects, including BeInfinite Infinite FX(TM) for Adobe Illustrator (special effects plug-in product, first commercially shipping plug-in for Illustrator in the U.S.), Penthouse Interactive (Project Director), The Haight-Ashbury in the Sixties! CD-ROM (Biedny is a technical advisor for Rockument, Inc ., the publisher) and Quantum Gate I and II (Biedny is on the advisory board of Hyperbole Studios ).

Biedny has also been a key interface/feature consultant/beta tester for many of the major multimedia tools currently on the market. His involvement with computer graphics includes participating as a feature and interface consultant for key applications such as ImageStudio (the first mass market digital retouching software for the Macintosh platform), PixelPaint, ColorStudio (Biedny conceived the Shapes vector graphics capabilities unique to that product), Altamira Composer (which was acquired by Microsoft) and Photoshop (David was user #4, spec'd many of the key features of the product, and was included in the credits for Photoshop 1.0). Most recently, David conceived of the name for Eric Wenger's ArtMatic texture generation and animation software. David was also a seed site for the original Power Macintosh computer, and has been credited with helping conceive of the "Power Macintosh" name. David is an Adobe Certified Expert in Photoshop, and IDIG is an Adobe Authorized Training Provider.

Other technology consulting clients also include Landor Associates, LucasArts Entertainment, Microsoft, Broderbund Software, Ressmeyer Starlight (Roger Ressmeyer is the world's leading space photographer) and Kraft Robot. IDIG is also involved in designing graphics for a variety of WWW pages, including the infamous Surfing Monkey site and Chuck Farnham's Weird World (both recently taken offline), among others. IDIG has also recently produced graphics and processed digital imagery for the McGuire Real Estate web site, one of the larger real estate agents in the Bay area.

Biedny was a founding editor of MacUser and Macintosh Today, formerly a Contributing Editor for MacWorld , New Media and the Macromedia User Journal and, and has written for Windows Sources, ID, MacUser, MacWeek, The New Media Showcase, Morph's Outpost on the Digital Frontier and Computer Graphics World, among others. He co-authored, with Bert Monroy, the award winning, best selling Official Adobe Photoshop Handbook , published by Bantam/Random House, as well as Adobe Photoshop: A Visual Guide (published by Addison-Wesley). His newest book, Photoshop Channel Chops (co-authored with collaborators Bert Monroy and Nathan Moody), is published by New Riders Publishing. He is currently producing a leading Photoshop video series, Photoshop Inside & Out™ , and is hosting the definitive Photoshop web portal, Photoshop Central .

He has taught Interactive Multimedia Design and Advanced Imaging for the MFA program of the School of Visual Arts in Manhattan, and rejoined the faculty in the spring of 1993 as an ISDN-based TeleTeacher from his Marin home. Recently a faculty member of the San Francisco State University Multimedia Studies Program, Biedny has been a top-rated lecturer and speaker at the Kodak Center for Creative Imaging, Seybold Seminars, Stanford University, UCSC Multimedia Extensions Program, Pratt, MacWorld and NCGA, among others."[1]

After reading the above I'm sure you can appreciate that David Biedny is possibly one of the most qualified people around today regarding digital imaging and so his opinion undoubtedly carries more weight than your average hobbyist and indeed more than the vast majority of professionals.

Just recently he posted a comment at the ATS forum (3rd May 2008) on the Drone thread stating that:

I'm one of the people who instantly saw that these images were fakes, CG elements composited onto photographic background plates. Jeff Ritzmann & I could immediately tell that the first image was a total fake, and the silly story from "Chad" made if painfully clear that this was all nonsense, perhaps perpetrated by C2C & LMH in order to drum up some traffic and interest. Subsequent images were increasingly more ridiculous. From the fact that these images don't match up to any morphology we've seen in over 60 years of publicly reported UFO sightings, to the childish typefaces, the obvious rendered look of the "craft", the lighting mismatch between the CG element and the background plates, what more do you need?”[2]

So now we have David Biedny & Jeff Ritzman to add to the list of at least another five professionals in the digital imagery/analysis field who say that these images are obvious fakes.

Mr Steve Reichmuth (Mufon - Northern California, SSD - Alameda / Contra Costa Co.) announced in May of last year that Mufon had contacted two outside specialists to undertake an evaluation of these images, these are Mr Steve Neil who has and continues to do computer generated images for the History channels television program 'UFO Files'.

And a Mr. Marc D'Antonio, who owns and operates a business in Connecticut named FX Models. Also, I personally exchanged several emails with Mr D'Antonio last year and as well as the original images, Mr. D'Antonio was also convinced that all of the subsequent images as well as those of the antigrav device which was included in the Isaac documentation were obvious fakes.

Steve Reichmuth wrote, “Marc is a former MUFON Field investigator, and has taught Astronomy for a number of years at a local area east coast college. Both Marc & Steve I would consider well grounded and I would consider them both 'non-skeptics' related to 'UFO's. They think UFO's are 'real' and likely 'extraterrestrial' in origin. Marc works with computer generated images every day. Both experts state all images of this object are clearly fakes. Mr. D' Antonio is one of my valued expert contacts I network with in studying UFO photographs. He has volunteered to assist in future cases.

Marc examined the Coast to Coast images days earlier week (May 10) earlier. I contacted Marc again when this latest witness report was posted on CMS shortly later (May 12, 2007). Attached images have been studied by these two friends in the Special visual computer effects industry. They both independently state this object is clearly a CG fake.”[3]

Again by way of Mufon and Steve Reichmuth we have been told that that Dr Bruce Maccabee (optical physicist employed by the U.S. Navy and leading UFO researcher) and Mr. Jeff Sainio also believed that the images were faked, Steve Reichmuth wrote:

Later with permission from Mufon, our own Mufon photo consultants, Dr. Bruce Maccabee, and Mr. Jeff Sainio. It was felt important for MUFON experts to also verify the other experts to either confirm or dispute everyone's findings. The result was unanimous the images were fakes. Interestingly, peer review brought out new different reasons among the main reasons they were regarded as hoaxes. So apparently, there are a number of 'red flags' as to why the images are untruthful being claimed to be authentic. The analysis was objective, knowing all these experts opinions lean toward that UFO's being likely alien craft. Two of the outside experts are even possible abductees, so their 'slant' if anything is pre-existing.... it is towards UFO's being extraterrestrial in a very personal way. Still, the outside Mufon experts emphatically stated they were most definitely bogus.”[4]

Again I've personally contacted Dr. Maccabee myself and as recently as the 16 th April 2008 he confirmed that he's highly suspicious of the authenticity of the images, and James Carrion (Director of Mufon) also confirmed to me personally that Dr Maccabee and Mr. Jeff Sainio were in fact consulted by Mufon in their capacity as digital imaging experts to offer an analysis of the Drone images.

And lastly we have Kris Avery who has stated his belief that the Drone images were faked since they first appeared, you will probably recognise the name as he's the person who along with fellow forum member, “DroneOnline” created the Drone music video which was such a success that it led to many people who were unfamiliar with the Drone case claiming that he was actually the original hoaxer. Kris is a CGI artist based in the UK and his business website, “Kaptive Studios” may be viewed here.

I guess the question is how much expert analysis will suffice before it is accepted?

Sources:
[1]
IDIG - Personnel (David Biedny)
[2] ATS Forums
[3] Steve Reichmuth email to UFOUpdates
[4]
UFOResearcher.com

Labels: , , , , , , , , , , , ,