The UFO drones? Disinformation? hidden agenda? see the evidence….
Posted by dandare on April 10, 2008
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 :)
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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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).
- 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.
- The drone seemed, with each sighting that came next, to become more and more advanced…possibly, or is this my imagination…mmm.
- 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.
- 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?
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)….