UFO Online by dandare

UFO Updates, documents, archives, anything ufo related

Archive for the ‘california drones’ Category

Isaac/Chad/CARET/ California drones (some links + Videos)

Posted by dandare on May 3, 2008

 

Welcome to links + videos of the California drone subject……

I will start off with some links/articles to the drone discussions, and then follow this with some videos. This is just a quick links post….. (i was going to post this a while back, but it stayed in the unpublished posts category,  ooops).  

CGI Links  

http://www.newtek.com/lightwave/gallery/main.php on lightwave 3D

Another type of software  http://www.maxwellrender.com/ 

http://www.cgindia.org/ (many links to CG work/software)… also take a look at this feature on the same site http://cg-india.com/making_GalaxyExplorer_3d.html

http://design.osu.edu/carlson/history/ID797.html on the history of computer graphics and animation

http://www.reference.com/browse/wiki/3D_computer_graphics 
general information on the subject also, http://www.reference.com/browse/wiki/Computer-generated_imagery 

Lastly (obviously many links for this) http://www.sciencedaily.com/articles/c/computer-generated_imagery.htm a general link to other sites, effects and so on
Long articles on the Drones (worth reading) 
http://www.realityuncovered.com/memewars.shtml entitled “meme wars: we have an agenda” (part 1) by colin bennett

http://www.realityuncovered.com/memewars2.shtml entitled “meme wars: we have an agenda” (part2) by colin bennett

The black vault http://www.theblackvault.com/wiki/index.php/Drone_UFOs_(April_2007)

From American chronicle  http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/38368 

An Update from Isaac at (27th july,2007) http://ufo.whipnet.org/xdocs/caret.program/index3.html

Ufo drone analysis by keith Breazeal http://www.kbvp.com/ufo-drone-analysis and also http://www.kbvp.com/ufo-drone-analysis-anomaly 

ovnis USA (translated into english)  

http://www.paranormalfiles.co.uk/Chad_raj1977_drone.htm 

http://www.ufocasebook.com/critiquedronephotographs.html critique of the drone photographs

http://www.ufo-blog.com/2007drones/drone_timeline.htm excellent information..

 

Forum discussions 

Open forum Page 9 for stephen’s drones location….

Also at The Paracast on the location…..this was made in 2007, and LMH was e-mailed on the subject, but chose to ignore it? 

Printable version (very long…all posts on drones) on Unexplained-Mysteries forum alot of important issues raised… normal version of site here .

Generally…..

http://ufocasebook.conforums.com/index.cgi ufocasebook forum

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/ abovetopsecret.com forum (talks at length about the drones- first class coverage)  

http://www.forum.ufo-blog.com/ ufo-blog forum

http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/ unexplained-mysteries.com forum

http://lucianarchy.proboards21.com/index.c.cgi Open Minds Forum

http://ovnis-usa.com/SONS/LMH_Dreamland_040508_27mns.mp3 newest podcast on the cam sighting….. sorry but i’m not impressed………

OTHER DISCUSSIONS WORTH MENTIONING

http://www.theblackvault.com/wiki/index.php/Drone_UFOs_(April_2007) with photos

http://www.newscientist.com/blog/invention/2006/10/invisible-drone.html 

http://www.earthfiles.com/news.php?ID=1402&category=Environment

http://www.ufowatchdog.com/hall5.html 

http://uforeflections.blogspot.com/2006/06/maussan-hoax-and-howe.html 

http://uplink.space.com/printthread.php?Cat=&Board=phenomena&main=739837&type=post

http://io9.com/374831/cgi-artist-did-not-create-ufo-pics-++-who-did 

SOME US UNMANNED DRONE LINKS

http://www.navy.mil/navydata/fact_display.asp?cid=4300&tid=100&ct=4 

http://www.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?fsID=122 

http://www.defensetech.org/archives/003788.html 

http://veratech.aero/phantom.html 

VIDEOS (only some shown here;as there are quite a few out there)

by Kris Avery

Fox News (20th march,2008 )

brief history 2007 (with hawkwind music at the start)

Posted in california drones, science, UFO Documents/archives, ufo in north america, Useful ufo links | Tagged: | 3 Comments »

California ‘Droning’ …… T-shirts anyone? oh and a little discussion!

Posted by dandare on April 13, 2008

For last ‘critique’ of Issac/chad/CARET see http://dandare.wordpress.com/2008/04/10/the-ufo-drones-disinformation-hidden-agenda-see-the-evidence/

The headline is to make you aware that TK Davis investigations are now selling t-shirts on the california drones….. anyway, that was really to grab attention to the matter at hand….

Following from my last post, I’m afraid i keep asking these questions and more because i wish to understand! I admit that i believe them to be hoaxes….. so what. I also understand the believers, and that they have their own beliefs… 

But without proper analysis then this cannot go forward, and will just go round, and round in circles (for instance, you wouldn’t buy a house without analysing where you would like to live, the best places for your circumstances, ie facilities,schools for children and so on. Also you would look for crime figures in the area, ie cover all the data; maybe you would just move to an area without knowing about it, and with no data at hand ). Ok i know this is a strange example, but one maybe we should think about…  

Other questions :

Why is Isaac’s website still operational? if this is such sensative information.

If nothing else, and i would say the bear minimum, why have the photos not been sent out for analysis by LMH (sooner would hve been better, as now they are becoming something that many would consider a no-no now).

Why do we not know who the members of the DRT are; anon again…. not even one person? seems to be the theme for this whole episode.

Why is the DRT not comprised of A   belivers   B Hoaxers  C  those in between

Then a balance could have been reached when writing the FAQ’s…. each having their own input, and covering all the bases…. but no it seems like its part of an elite club…. fine we all know you are paying for it, doing your own research and getting your own conclusions, but to be honest you brought it back into the limelight, for everyone to see by yourselves (maybe you could have kept it quiet, but would this have been in your interest) and then you critise those who ask questions you do not like; why is that?

Some other things to dwell on: what was the weather like when the photos were taken? anyone know…

In this day and age, we have to be more critical and question everything not less: what would it say to the media, ect if it was a hoax, and no in-depth analysis had been done….. we would yet again be the laughing stock, and butt of everyone’s jokes/ridicule and so on…

I believe that this is damaging Ufology, the longer it goes on…… when would the interim report be expected…… in 2 years time?  

email glyth halo3

I am trying to initiate a response, if only to register that time……. is creating rifts, and is making us entrenched ( iagree, do DRT).  But then it does not seem to concern them, why i have no idea…….

This will be the last post i make on the matter…. until we have anything new to go on….. so see you in a year?

 

 

 

      

Posted in are we alone?, california drones, extraterrestials, news, science, ufo, UFO Documents/archives | Tagged: | 5 Comments »

The UFO drones? Disinformation? hidden agenda? see the evidence….

Posted by dandare on April 10, 2008

Ok….. i was not planning on writing this post for some time (definately not the way, i am writing it now however) …. i was going to put it on ice, and bury it..

I am starting to get annoyed at the way this whole affair is being treated; it is damaging ufology big time, and yes i do care about it.

SO, i hear you cry….. where is the evidence to back up your claim, that this is disinformation, and a hoax….

I begin with the brilliant post by  http://www.ufo-blog.com/2007drones/drone_timeline.htm many great points here for you to consider……they are excellent and well written  :)

I would like to also add my observations, of this drone affair (no thats not “dragon fly” or any other phrase you care to mention). 

The DRT (Drone Research Team), has “California drone UFO Investigation FAQ“. Now it starts off with

This document explains away the many claims of hoax against the drone case. Generally, hoax claimers are using fact-free opinions, and or ignorance of photography etc. Hundreds of people have devoted thousands of hours to the answers found in here 

So, straight from the start, it lays out its intentions for all to see….. I’ll fill in the gaps that seem to elude them shall i.

 Before i do go on, some might say that i am doing the reverse, to what they are doing in their FAQ’s, ie from a skeptic/hoaxers point of view…. in some ways i am, but i am mainly doing this as a response to what has been written, by the supposed DRT, (who are from the Open Minds forum). They are meant to write a well balanced report (which we have not seen yet, but if the FAQ’s are anything to go on, i will not be holding my breath)….. how can they, when their clear intent is to only have a one sided argument. Do not forget, the investigators evidence, will probably be ‘used’ in some way to promote their theory (especially when it seemed the “drone” effect was quietly dieing a death).  

So sorry, back to filling in the gaps for them…. (although i see they have recently attempted to put in a small pro-hoaxer argument at the end…mmm, but its still written in a style thats not very convincing). Below are just some of the first thoughts that pop into my head.

  1. FAQ’s is only backed up by theories and not fact… (can we say the witnesses of the photos even exist, for instance)… i will expand this later.
  2. No original photographs….. ie no raw image data from the photographs…. how do we know that the EXIF data, is in fact not from photoshop,ect. 
  3. Out of the 12 drone photos sent by Ty-B to LMH (quoted in ufo-blog’s article above; refers to 2nd Big basin drone sighting, reported on the 16th june, but claimed to have been seen on the same day as the previous sighting=5th june) only one hi res photo has been made available; this was done by Linda Moulton Howe, because she says they will be used by all sorts of viral programmes and hoaxers? However, it is nearly a year now, and no more are to be put on the internet for us to see, so far…. do you not think that she might be hiding something… (touched in much more detail by ufo-blog link above).
  4. Very clear photographs of the drone…. also, why, if it was going so slowly, was not the hyroglyths/writing not taken with clear clarity, and a close up at that, for all to see? and ponder.
  5. The drone seemed, with each sighting that came next,  to become more and more advanced…possibly, or is this my imagination…mmm.
  6. Stephen’s sighting was later found to not be in Big Basin, but just outside Saratoga… so even the places are debated… although some argue this is not to draw attention to the real area of the sighting? Also Chad’s Bakerfield photo….also proved to not be at this location.
  7. Even more suspect is, soon after the first sightings (may 2007), the CARET documents come out in june 2007… is that not amazing timing. Also, if he did have this excellent evidence to hand, would it not be better for him to come into the limelight, get more attention, more publicity, and not stay anon….being anon would possibly put him at a higher risk…not safer?   

     So these are just some of the immediate problems we are faced with……..

Photobucket

I have to dwell on the main figure of all this… and i am afraid this is Linda Moulton Howe….

Again, at the ufo-blog article above, it makes excellent points that seriously question Linda’s intentions i’m afraid… i will not cover the same points, as it has already been covered well, especially that both DRT and Linda both know each other (the DRT numbers 6 members, i believe).

Anyway, it seems Linda tends to “sensationalize” stories for her own benefit, rather than using her position as once-respected reporter, to make things better.

I’m not saying she’s a fraud, I’m just saying that her days of being a respected reporter of important issues are over, and she is unfortunately doing more harm than good with the subjects she chooses to champion. That is also unfortunate for the rest of us.

However, some have mentioned that LMH, Bill Birnes, George Noory (+others)… see a website subscription, TV/magazine role, in keeping this all in the eye of the paying public. I will leave this up to you, what that role could be? 

I might go into more details on the LMH effect some other time, but she, for whatever reason, seems to be determined not to question the sightings in a proper manner, keep hold of all the evidence, so we cannot analyse it properly, and persist in saying more witnesses are coming forward, and keeping a monopoly on these witnesses also…. 

Many believers in the photos and Isaac documents, claim that there is no proof that these are hoaxes… of course it depends where you look….. MUFON at    http://www.hyper.net/ufo/vs/m05-001.html   claims that these are hoaxes.

But here is the crux of the matter, i say it again, for those not wishing to listen…… if we are not given all the evidence… ie the photos in Hi-res, so we can look in proper detail, then how are we going to properly analyse the source…… reduced images are not sufficient to be 100% sure of anything….MUFON had their doubts and could see problems with the photos, and called it a hoax, due to other problems: they cannot be dismissed…. if nothing else alarm bells should be ringing. So basically, what i am saying is, we have no witnesses who are willing to come forward, to question, and no original photos… so what are we left with… theories?  where are the facts.. one would be nice.

I also had a little search for XPArc, and came up with Xerox Palo Alto Research Center…. also i found http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Xerox+parc+map+viewer , and http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Palo+Alto+Research+Center  . in the second link, have a look at the history and accomplishments…. However, this could have got the brain cells ticking don’t you think?   

If anyone wishes me to “drone” on, with some more evidence/controversy and so on, then i can do so in another post…however, i feel i have rumbled on for longer than i had intended….

I would just like to end here with a quote taken from http://www.uk-ufo.org/condign/casehoax.htm  (the website of Flying Saucery, by Dr David Clarke, Andy Roberts, Joe McGonagle and Gary Anthony) which was written a while ago, but is very apt here…. 

Hoaxes are rarely just standard UFO reports. They are invariably photographic or document based. This makes them an easily displayable, marketable media commodity. Whereas a single witness sighting of a brightly lit UFO may only get, at best, a few column inches in a newspaper, a UFO hoax photograph, such as that created by Gordon Faulkner during the 1965 Warminster flap, will receive national media coverage. In turn this sort of exposure can add a stamp of validity (however specious) on to a hitherto disparate collection of UFO reports, turning local a flap into a national phenomenon. And so the cycle continues.

(extract from Article)…. 

   

 

 

 

 

  

Posted in are we alone?, california drones, news, science, ufo, ufo cover up, UFO Documents/archives, ufo research | Tagged: , , | 8 Comments »

Isaac/Chad/CARET/california drones…what is going on? (part 2)

Posted by dandare on April 5, 2008

In part 2, i will try and discuss the drone sightings in much more detail…..(it looks like this will now be part 2 of 4…explained near end of post ).

I have tried to gain as much information, from forums such as Above top secret, and from blogs, and so on…as well as my own analysis. 

The drone photos and documents, have been creating alot more debate recently, mainly due to the hiring of 2 detectives ..    http://www.tkdavisinvestigations.com/_california_drone_investigation  . What i am not sure about, however, is why they are just looking for the location of these photos…should they not be following up on Internet information, and so on and cover all angles (maybe they are, but i am not aware of it).
fox news video below (with the 2 detectives)

Some of the immediate questions that spring to mind are:

  1. Was the whole thing a hoax (photos and documents)
  2. Was this  CGI photos?
  3. locations debate…..
  4. Was it an ARG viral campaign? did it get out of hand?
  5. Why no witnesses named/or identified?    

I would just like to add, what was first mentioned in (part 1)… which raises serious questions for points 1+2 above…… 

“At this point, i will add the link from MUFON, as it argues this is a fake  http://www.hyper.net/ufo/vs/m05-001.html  with an interesting argument; also analysis’s check the photos supplied. These were steve Neil (computer generated images for history channel) and Marc D’Antonio (owns and operates FX models)….both believe in ufos/extraterrestrials being real.

ufo online

 Of particular note in this, is the following:

“In one of the images, you can see that the faker used, something called “radiosity” to render the images. The technique allows for more realistic images and makes things look very good, as if lit by the sun in this case.  Well, in ONE of the radiosity images supposedly looking up at the ‘fake ship’ from directly below it is clear that the faker didn’t take care in setting his settings for the renderer and you can see classic “radiosity render artifacts” in the dark shadow areas of the CG craft. They show up as mottling in the shadows instead of smooth transitions.

It is what happens when you want the rendering to be finished quickly. If radiosity settings were used to make the image look absolutely real, each image could take tens of hours to render perhaps.In another shot where the craft ought to have been some distance away, it is sharp and clear as if there is suddenly no
atmospheric haze.
Finally, in one image the faker composited the craft to appear behind tree branches. This is easy to perform.

The faker used something called an Alpha map which affords you JUST this capability.Sooner or later, I will bet that a ‘video’ will emerge, and the faker is no doubt working on it but doesn’t like the results I guarantee because the radiosity renders take a long time to render per frame and in motion, he has to get all his Photoshop type filtering done on the fly within his rendering software and it isn’t as easy.When I saw this I winced at how obvious the fakery is and how utterly uneducated the coast to coast people are for falling for it.
The faker, named ‘Chad’ is a complete and total fabricator.”
I have still sent a request to the above witness Email address wishing a interview, following Mufon investigative proceedures.I plan to play this interview ‘dumb smart’ (if it ever occurs- but hope so) wishing to glean any further information if possible and post it here. It maybe possible these images submitted were hoaxed by someone else, rather than by the
witnesses themselves (names stated above).
I suspect the Coast to Coast web site appearance was a trial run before posting here in the Mufon CMS. The attached images files from Coast to Coast read in the image file text’ the name ‘McKinley’. The same witness name above in the witness report.I seriously doubt the ‘Coast to Coast’ people may even know about this authenticity issue.

As of May 16, 2007, I have not recieved any reply from these witnesses.Clearly a ‘HOAX’. Case completed, but will reopen should I recieve get a reply from the witness. (hopefully).

Very Respectfully, Steve Reichmuth” 

Obviously, no real video were forthcoming, and the e-mail was never replied too…. (for an idea of radiosity see http://freespace.virgin.net/hugo.elias/radiosity/radiosity.htm , and also here).

  Also, there has been a comparison made, with the Chad photos, to an incident in Devon (england) in 1967 (26th october, in South Devon)….did ‘Chad’ get some of his ideas from this?….. see below for video.


For a report on the incident see http://www.ufologie.net/htm/dorset67.htm and http://www.project1947.com/shg/hennessey/ufoinv4-4.htm (with diagrams)…thanks to http://www.hyper.net/ufo.html for making this information aware to me, on the website.

So there is straight away, a question as to the validity of the photos as being real… however we need more debate than this…..

On above top secret there is a mention that:  

“Within the 3D modeling software, you can actually take real life pictures and include them into the render. So If I made a 3D model of a jet, I could easily take a real picture of an airport, and place the jet at the right angle and position, and then, I can even move the lighting node placed in the 3D scene to match the picture, and when I render it, it will look almost realistic.

You can play with the render until you get it just right. So trying to debunk these drone pictures because of “lighting” can be difficult, because all the 3D artist has to do is position the light node anywhere he believes the background images light source is. Then they can simply change the settings of that light node, like brightness and contrast and color. So the object will have all the shading in the right places” (extract from above top secret forum…unfortunately lost the link to the exact post). An interesting point…..

We will come back to this later on, but moving on to point 2

Was this A CGI effects photograph

What is CGI : (Computer Generated Imagery)….as you can see from Reference.com it covers many areas (also here for basics)….. in the computer software department, for example there is lightwave 3D   maya , maxwell render  software.

….. there were some who believed that Kris Avery, a highly talented CG/3D expert, and who created the drone video, might have been involved in the photos…. but he heavily denies this.


His site is at http://www.kaptive.co.uk/index.cfm I will add a range of videos at the end of this post……. At http://io9.com/374831/cgi-artist-did-not-create-ufo-pics-++-who-did

the blogger e-mailed Kris, who confirmed that he did this to prove that it could be done, but was not the maker of the initial photos. At Open Minds Forum it mentions:

In my exchange of emails with Kris, Kris believes that some (at least… if not all) of the drone photos are CGI and explained to me why he thinks so. If Kris is the creator of the drones (which he has already denied), I am not sure why he would fight so hard to say they are fake (which would expose himself)… if he was the one behind the hoax. Just my thoughts.
There is no doubt that Kris is a very talented artist, and if anyone has the knowledge on how do this, he would be one of those people. Also, he is very aware of the limitations in the current CGI software. Exposing those limitations exposes photos that are CGI
” (extract from post in forum). 

At ufocasebook, they take a look at the photos and take another viewpoint: 

http://www.ufocasebook.com/unmannedprobeanalysis.html (done by james vinyard and Frank Valentyn).

At http://www.theparanormalreport.com/home.html  in “debunking the drones” it mentions that:

We live in the post-Photoshop world, which has proven painful for the UFO field. Anyone can hoax a UFO photograph with knowledge of Photoshop, basic camera work and editing, or CGI movie making abilities. It is imperative in light of these techniques to keep an objective viewpoint when analyzing photographs and video footage of UFO’s. At the Paranormal report, we certainly believe that some UFO’s appear to represent a superior intelligence of unknown, perhaps extraterrestrial origin, but this does not seem to be the case with the drone UFO’s” (extract from article). It also question the pixel density of the UFO compared to the rest of the picture, among other things.

At this point, i will add http://ovnis-usa.com/drone_investigation_FAQ.pdf  It is basically saying ,there is no proper proof to say that it is a hoax….. it also has a go at Above top secret for those that say it is for ‘real’ (ie posters back stab,ect) .. However, it can also be said that the other end of the spectrum can be said for Open Minds forum, that seems to have a negative response from those who believe it to be a hoax (although both moderators attempt to keep everything fair, but this can be an almost impossible task).    

Point 3…. (locations debate)….

From the Open minds forum, there is a debate about where certain drone photos were taken from….

   stephen\'s originalsee stephen\’s location photographs for an indepth disscusion on this…..this is in reference to stephen’s photos taken on the 5th june 2007: it is stated as being from the Big Basin, but it is argued that it comes from Saratoga; there are alot of photos, maps and so on to support this theory.

stephen location

 Point 4 … was it an ARG viral campaign? To start with ARG=Alternative Reality Game; see http://www.reference.com/browse/wiki/Alternate_reality_game for a definition of this. In fact, The Blair witch project (1999) was similar to ARG, but started out as almost an urban legend and ultimately a hoax, which became a movie (at the time no ARG existed of course); for viral marketing please also see  http://www.reference.com/browse/wiki/Viral_marketing .

 I mention this because quite a few believed (including myself) that it was a viral campaign… it still could be, that ultimately went wrong, or not, as the case may be. I point you to 2 links these being http://www.perplexorum.com/showthread.php?t=1725 (read both pages) and http://www.bungie.net/Forums/posts.aspx?postID=11299627&postRepeater1-p=3 for a heated debate on this.

society of the ancientsemail glyth halo3Also please see  http://hushedcasket.com/node/2060 for why “society of the ancients” is possibly significant. 

 

Many have tried to translate the writing on the photographs…. many to begin with thought it might be japanese, but that proved wrong; others believe that It’s no language…

 

It’s just fancy standard english font put into italics and made to look like an otherworldy language. You can read “Ay07+” and “+cxa+X+” on the wing. However, at the open minds forumthey have devised this…for the symbols

 Many thought it might be Klingon language, but no matches, some=font from the Matrix, but that seems not to work either.

I have decided that as this has become a rather long post, i will do 2 more posts to help with the overall drone EFFECT (as it were). The next post will be solely links to relevant forum posts/articles/ and videos to the drones. The second post will be on the document itself……and an overall conclusion.

I am not totally happy with this post, and might redo in more detail, certain parts of it….. unfortunately i am short on time and wish to get something out…. so hope this will be good enough for now. 

 

 

 

 

  

 

 

Posted in california drones, news, newspapers, science, ufo, UFO Documents/archives, ufo in north america, ufo research, UFO SITES, ufo video | 4 Comments »

Isaac/Chad/CARET/california drones…what is going on? (part 1)

Posted by dandare on March 29, 2008

I admit, that at first, i just brushed all this under the carpet (although my thoughts on what they are, has not changed), and did not really take much notice of it all. Now with the recent La times article, of 2 detectives searching for answers, i thought i would attempt to look at it myself, in more detail.

I would like to thank these forums for interesting information, and thoughts on the matter…. these are: abovetopsecret.com, unexplained-mysteries.com, unifiction.com, open minds forum… For websites: i have consulted many for more information,ect (i will try and add all of them at the end of this post).

 The first reports of the drone, was in may 2007; it appeared first, On the coast to coast website, the report appeared here—–> http://www.coasttocoastam.com/gen/page2022.html?theme=light . Also witness account there too.

Submitted May 1oth, 2007

Location, central valley of California. Later found to be Bakersfield? california.

Report date: (from camera) May 6th

But Chad reported it as being seen as early as April 2007 (on numerous occassions). See below for the photos:

  craft050607a.jpg

craft050607b.jpg

craft050607c.jpg

craft050607e.jpg

craft050607x1.jpg

craft050607x2.jpg

craft050607x5.jpg

I will just comment here, my first reaction to these photos…..

  1. we get a full array of profiles…close, distant (at slightely different angles)
  2. All very sharp, almost too good
  3. What are those black marks around (and close to) the drone, you can see in most of them? to me it looks suspiscious?

At this point, i will add the link from MUFON, as it argues this is a fake  http://www.hyper.net/ufo/vs/m05-001.html  with an interesting argument; also analyists check the photos supplied.

  These photos were scans of the original…..

Also, there has been a comparison made, with the Chad photos, to an incident in Devon (england) in 1967 (26th october, in South Devon)….did ‘Chad’ get some of his ideas from this?….. see below for video.


For a report on the incident see http://www.ufologie.net/htm/dorset67.htm and   http://www.project1947.com/shg/hennessey/ufoinv4-4.htm (with diagrams)…thanks to http://www.hyper.net/ufo.html for making this information aware to me, on the website.

 Second sighting:

Location: Lake Tahoe, nevada

Posted by MUFON 7013

Date of event: 5th may, 2007

Images taken on cell phone

2 photos were placed on MUFON, on 12nd May,2008 and then slightly later at UFO casebook.com at http://www.ufocasebook.com/strangecraftlaketahoe.html (see link for details).

7013a.jpg

7013b.jpg

The first time Rajinder Satyanarayana (Rajman 1977) is mentioned is on craigslist, on the 20th may, 2007. He writes “Bizarre thing in the sky in capitola, CA ….WTF is this (capitola)”. He gives us 6 photos to look at; his name is quickly removed from craigslist, so he adds his name as Rajman1977, on a flickr account, with the photos from before….. account soon hacked though.

He alleged the event took place on the 16th may, 2007

Camera used: Konica Minolta DiMAGE X

The one we are most interested with here, is the one below (again we have near and very close shots as well). 

36878534.jpg

One of the photos (seen above), is the one that the two detectives are now (in 2008) trying to trace, ie the telegraph poles location….. what i do not understand is why only the one photo…. if these draw a blank, should they not look for other clues, in the other photos, from ‘chad’ and others?

spf33_observationsufo-casebook-forum.jpg

 (the photo illustration above, is one of several noted in the ufocasebook forum; it brings up some interesting problems with the photo). This, and many more problems/discussions will be written about much more fully in (part 2).

Next we have the big basin sighting, (california) 

Submitted on the 6th june 2007 ….. by Jenna L (a freelance photographer) on behalf of Stephen… although again much later, there is a debate to suggest this is not the true location at all.

Report date: 5th june 2007

Camera: Cannon Rebel XT

There were 3 photographs….. see http://ufocasebook.com/bigbasin.html for more details

1

 bigbasin1small.jpg

2

bigbasin2small.jpg

3

bigbasin3mall.jpg

Slightly later reported, but with the same reported sighting date: Big basin, california

Submitted on 16th june 2007 by someone called TY

Reported date: june 5th, 2007 (same as one above)

Sent to earthfiles.com ……. unfortunately as this is subscription based (for the archive), and i am not a member, i cannot access it.

I know there are 12 photographs, and i do have a link/photos to this but have misplaced it…. will add when found.

Isaac + the CARET documents  (posted on the internet in june 2007)

CARET = Commercial Applications Research for Extraterrastrial Report   pacl-q486-report-cover-fullsize.jpg

The CARET laboratory is in Palo Alto, CA (Isaac there from 1984-1987)

He was recruited for the CARET program.

Both an engineer  + computer scientist

the drone  

  • uses invisibility
  • Interference (not from humans) caused invisibilty to become inoperative
  • Technology= antigravity
  • symbols = software programs that self executed as a functional blueprint

Before Isaac resigned and became a ‘whistleblower’ - he managed to take out documents; these were

Q3 – 85 inventory review pacl-q385-inventory-review-fullsizes.jpg

Q4 – 86 Research report 180px-pacl-q486-photo-4-fullsize.jpg  180px-pacl-q486-photo-3-fullsize.jpg 

800px-pacl-q486-photo-1-fullsize.jpg

photo scans

linguistic Analysis Primer 180px-pacl-lang-analysis-p122-fullsize.jpg  180px-pacl-lang-analysis-p120-fullsize.jpg 180px-pacl-lang-analysis-p119-fullsize.jpg

He was concerned about safety if who he was, was known

He made it common knowledge that main source of information was to be spread through coast to coast website

This is just a rough outline of CARET and ‘Isaac’. His website can still be seen at http://isaaccaret.fortunecity.com 

So a quick recap to the 5 main sightings:

  1. chad – may 10th 2007    Bakersfield, california
  2. MUFON submitter 7013 wife - may 12th 2007   Lake Tahoe, Nevada
  3. Rajinder Satyanarayana (Flickr acccount name Rajman 1977) - may 20th 2007   Capitola, california
  4. Jenna L on behalf of Stephen – june 6th   Big Basin, california
  5. Ty – june 16th big basin, california

Actual sightings occurred on

  1. may 6th 2007
  2. may 5th 2007
  3. may 16th 2007
  4. june 5th 2007
  5. june 5th 2007

There are also allegedly other sightings going as far back as 1995? but i have not referred to them for this analysis… this can be seen at earthfiles.com

This covers part 0ne……. and is really a quick outline about the drone sightings, without going into too much detail. In part 2, i will be covering the problems/analysis/discussing the drones sightings/photos/CARET documents in more detail…. 

Websites invaluable for sources of information are:

 http://www.ufocasebook.com/

http://www.theblackvault.com/wiki/index.php/Main_Page 

http://www.earthfiles.com/news.php?ID=1403&category=Environment 

http://aliencasebook.blogspot.com/2008/03/ufo-search-is-on-for-raj-capitola-drone.html 

http://www.ufo-blog.com/ufo-blog/ 

http://www.squidoo.com/anomalyman 

ufo-online3.jpg

Posted in california drones, extraterrestials, news, newspapers, science, ufo, ufo cover up, UFO Documents/archives, ufo in north america, ufo photographs, ufo research | Tagged: , , | 33 Comments »

 
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,010 other followers