New Drone, similar to the C2C one

Sorry, regardless of their recognized INDUSTRY EXPERT status . . .

as a PhD expert in clinical psychology . . . I know first hand how easy it is for us EX SPURTS (EX drips under pressure) to get things wrong.

Our own confidence in our own brilliance can be an almost sure fire route to being clueless much more frequently than we dare admit.

Having listened to the lady's narrative who stopped at the ranger station--I'm 100% convinced of the authenticity of her story.

Time will tell.

In the mean time . . . pontifications about the papal infallibility of technical experts will continue to fail to greatly impress me.

OK, after reading many pages of this and paying reasonbly close atention to this case since it broke a few weeks ago it seems, a few things come to mind.

If these pictures are not fake then,

A. Mabye the varations are due to the diffrent intruments that these craft have, we have diffrent instiments to measure all kinds of things on our missions to the moon, and mars and such.

B. This would possilbly be a new Race of Aliens. Due to the very unique design of the ship it is sunlike any other ive seen, mabye with a technologly that is greater then that of some of our other visitors.

C. How these thing just kind of appear out of nowhere and are down near the surface of earth. What if, the top of the craft were the metal rods go up, at that point it looks that it is "streched" through and across space-time and droppedright onto our planet.

D. The text is very strange, it would not be unreasonable to think that another inteligent would have a visual codeing system.

E. That REALY bad pic that popped up a few pages ago. It was the first picture which was presented as real that i thought that i could do a better job then.


In all, if this i for real then we sould start seeing these things in a lot of more places around the surrounding area and then the globe, and if its really real, then might drop in, and if then have this technology it could happen at any moment.

*Now its 2am and i will listen tto the C2C re-broadcast and see what LMH has said, looking and keeping in mind the info that i have learned.


*****

LMH had alot of stuff to stay, while a great chunk of it seems to be good evidence, she however does make that one terrible mistake of calling the CG animation on Youtube, to be, sercert photeage, and at a military base or something. But, other then that, she had a good 2 hours of information to report on, with only about 20 to this topic though.


[edit on 5/26/2007 by TKainZero]

[edit on 5/26/2007 by TKainZero]

Is there an mp3 or podcast, stream of the C2C interview?

You have to be a stream link member*

But on the west coast the show is re-airing right now


*edit- But there are numrous sites around on the net that have streaming of teh show for free.


I just dont know them,


[edit on 5/26/2007 by TKainZero]

Originally posted by Flatwoods
It makes me wonder: if this isn't some kind of propeller-driven hovercraft, could it instead utilize superconding ceramic technology and electromagnetic repulsion as a means of keeping it airborne? Maybe from the power lines?


[edit on 26-5-2007 by Flatwoods]

It takes *ALOT* of power to generate something that'd work. Lemme quote a good discussion:

To levitate a frog it takes a 20 Tesla Bitter Solenoid.

Such a magnet requires 6 megawatts to run (20,000 amps at 300 volts).
It also requires 22 gallons per second of chilled cooling water.

A human is about 3,000 times heavier, so I suspect 19 gigawatts would do.
I live in California, where 55.5 gigawatts of electricity could be available
if all the power plants were running at full capacity.

So figure how many times more that things weighs to a human, and multiply that by 20 odd gigawatts. Unless they've discovered some ungodly new laws of physics or power generation, we can safely rule out electromagnetic repulsion.

Originally posted by OverlordQ
Unless they've discovered some ungodly new laws of physics or power generation, we can safely rule out electromagnetic repulsion.

Lets see now this thing if real is flying with no sign of any known propulsion or lift...SO yes they probably do have a little bit more know how than the average joe...

On another note it looks like Raj the poster of this set of images will shortly be joining the discussion on another forum( I think most can guess which one) I will keep you posted here of what comes to light...

The poster of the YouTube footage,saladfingers123456 has added a more detailed explanation in the comments section of the YouTube page, saying in his first post,

"Hello everyone... This isn't real. I did it as part of an investigation as to the legitimacy of the original images supplied by 'Chad'. I'm trying to see at what point can we be convinced by CG images, and what are the things to look for when disseminating an image that could be 3D in origin."

And then in his second post,

" I'd send you a link to the discussion, but youtube wont let me. pfff typical

p.s. Linda, I think you should tell everyone it isnt real.. and the reason I created it.

BTW where can I hear this radio show? Thanks!"

Those are his two posts in full.

Linda Moulton Howe's performance on this case is a great disappointment to me. I've always tuned into her broadcasts on Coast to Coast AM and on Whitley Streiber's Dreamland radio show, and I'm pretty sure I've listed to every single report of hers on C2C since I've been listening to Art Bell and George Noory over the past six years. Her statement that this Youtube footage was real could have been easily avoided. A thorough reporter would not have made such an obvious mistake. Now I have to wonder about everything she has said and reported. I have to wonder if she completely disregarded "saladfingers123456" intial remarks of the footage being "CG". Since, I've always approached paranormal topics with great caution, it is especially disappointing to witness such a terrible performance from someone who usually offers convincing investigative reporting. This is the only time I've ever been able to independently verify anything that the Linda has reported, and it does not stand up to scrutiny.

And it further deepens the mystery as to why she has yet to consult any CGI/imaging professionals to give commentary and analysis of the available evidence of this increasingly frustrating case. With her connections to George Noory and Noory's connections in Hollywood, CA, she could very easily find some of the best in the CGI/imaging business to go on the record, as many of them have in the past in relation to paranormal phenomena, with commentary and analysis. Why has this road been studiously avoided by Linda Mouton Howe and George Noory to this point is as real a mystery as any other. It does not make any sense. No one, zero witnesses, have attached their real names to this case. Now contrast that with farmers associated with crop circle formations. The comparison doesn't mean much but it does show that some people have the guts to stand by their experiences, and to allow intrusion as the price to pay for their willingness to reach an understandable conclusion.

The standard reporting on paranormal phenomena should be raised higher. Extraordinary claims should be backed by extraordinary people in addition to extraordinary evidence. If someone claims to experience something "all of the time" then those who would be in charge of investigating those claims should be allowed to draw a comprehensive profile of the person(s) making those claims. Much more comprehensive than "Chad" or "Susan". It's one thing to protect identity, and it's another to protect identity at a distance. If someone like, Linda Moulton Howe, cannot travel to the location of where the extraordinary claims have been made, then the story should not be reported. If she is not allowed to handle original photos supporting extraordinary claims, the story should not be reported on. If the original photos are not allowed to to undergo professional analysis, the story should not be reported. If Linda Moulton Howe or others like her fail to verify sources and the evidence that they present as being bona fide, the story should not be reported on. If any of this criteria is not met, the story should not be believed. That's my take on it.

[edit on 26-5-2007 by Areal51]

Originally posted by jon_1983
Is there an mp3 or podcast, stream of the C2C interview?

This link will stream the episodes hour when Linda Moulton Howe starts talking about all the CHAD-LIKE Crafts... The interview she did with a witness I have to admit (as much as I don't want to) sounds extremely sincere and honest..

www.cjob.com...

This would be the Coast 2 Coast AM May 25th radio program..

The next hour of open lines is:
www.cjob.com...

But the first episode has the most information

Originally posted by spf33

Maybe she simply made a mistake. No need to throw the baby out with the bath water.

made a mistake? what mistake?
to water down this current northern california mystery with 2 year old witness account, and a 1 year old witness account with a very questionable image?
i think the addition of the alabama photo and tale and the sequoia tale dramatically reduces the impact of what is happening right now.
why not focus the attention, while the issue is being presented to a huge audience on c2c, on the current norcal issue with the absolute strongest evidence first - chad\tahoe\rajman?
still waiting for the interview to start...so, my opinion may change.

Spf33,
I agree with you completely of your assessment of Linda. She proved last night that she is no scientist. She's a cheap tabloid reporter. From our perspective, she screwed up bad. She's the bath water I was speaking of. This entire probe/drone case is the baby. Don't let Linda ruin your interest in this case.

Earthfiles
And view this brief video clip from unknown source at youtube. As of May 26, I am told this is someone's CGI creation from the "dragonfly drone" photos. If so, it is valuable to see as an education about what can be done in computers, but this brief clip does not contradict in any way the two solid eyewitness reports in this Earthfiles and Chad's photos. Whitley Strieber has had a professional image expert in Los Angeles examine the Chad photos and conclude the frames were made on a digital camera, not Photoshop. See: www.unknowncountry.com... ]

www.youtube.com...

Finally..They have posted a correction on the youtube video. But in the same paragraph have confirmed that Chad's photo's were taken on a digital camera..I thought it was confirmed they were taken on a 35mm??

Originally posted by BO XIAN
After listening to Linda Moulon Howe on this evening's C2C . . . I'm more convinced than ever that the photos of the different craft versions are authentic and not photoshopped.

Well, Doctor, you must have been particularly impressed with Linda Howe's endorsement of the YouTube video showing such an authentic, non-photoshopped vehicle taking off from a British military base. In fact, that video is on this very thread a couple of pages back. It's very impressive.

Oh, wait....

Originally posted by Flatwoods
It makes me wonder: if this isn't some kind of propeller-driven hovercraft, could it instead utilize superconding ceramic technology and electromagnetic repulsion as a means of keeping it airborne? Maybe from the power lines?

[edit on 26-5-2007 by Flatwoods]

I was thinking the exact same thing, Flatwoods. Although I still believe this to be a hoax (though if somehow proved wrong I would be entirely okay with that), I'm playing devil's advocate here and noticing that a majority of the pictures that have appeared have placed these crafts near power lines, curiously. And I thought perhaps they were somehow generating some sort of repulsion system utilizing the current.

Two things:

The "expert" Whitley is talking about claims it's from a digital camera based on the exif data. We all know the exif data can be added to ANY image and edited using freeware easily found with a Google search.

I am shocked there is an "expert" out there who would make such a ridiculous declaration, if the exif data is all (s)he's basing his/her opinion on.

Secondly, Linda did NOT say she thought video was real. She said it looked like it could be real to her.

I'll grant you that she dropped the ball by not reading the post associated with the video that indicated it was created from "Chad's" images BUT we here at ATS don't do character assassination on someone who has given so much to the field of "ufology" and paranormal in general.

Linda screwed up on this one, so be it. Her record has been outstanding for 20 plus years and this rude "name calling" is NOT a decent way to act and ends now.

Springer...


[edit on 5-26-2007 by Springer]

Originally posted by Springer

Secondly, Linda did NOT say she thought video was real. She said it looked like it could be real to her.

Isn't that just two ways to say the same thing? Reminds me of Clinton trying to talk his way out of getting caught lieing. "That all depends on what the definition of "is" is.

I have met Linda Moulton Howe in person at the Aztec conference a year ago. I found her quite authentic, earnest, diligent, serious . . .

She told my friend and I some vague heavily serious warning thing about 2012 and later denied it to another friend. My take on that is that she either didn't remember well or more likely, she was warned about saying such things publicly. I don't know.

I don't mind giving her the freedom to fail, to be wrong on occasion. I happen to be human myself. More power to you, if you don't have that problem.

I don't recall what she said on the program about the constructed video. If the thought it was authentic--she goofed.

IIRC, the gal Linda interviewed in California insisted that the craft moved like a dragon fly in terms of it's flight characteristics. The constructed video is not like that.

I'm still convinced that typically Linda is a rather thorough researcher and has demonstrated a lot of integrity in the lengths she goes to verify facts. I don't know what happened with her and the constructed video. Doesn't make me throw out the baby with the bath.

I still assert that the woman she interviewed in Calif was an authentic observer relating her experiences truly as she perceived and remembered them. I'm thankful Linda bothered to talk to the lady for 2-3 hours on the phone and get as much detail as possible from her.

I also believe that the different versions of the craft are a type of verification, to a point . . . as are the sightings at different locations.

But, hey, we all see through the glass darkly as Scripture says. We shall see what the morrow holds.

So is there any conclusion on this or is everyone just running around in circles?

3 different photos, from supposedly 3 different people, in supposedly 3 different locations. A lot of personal time by ATS members spent on replicating this in CG and have made some good attempts but as far as I'm concerned, not even close to the quality of all 3 different photo releases.

So where are we at folks? 24 Pages of speculation, which I'll assume jump to 25 here shortly, some articles, blogs, a talk show..... I'm curious, will any more photos of this thing make any difference? Is that what you all are waiting for?

Let's assume there's more photos, then what? More speculation, more time spent on debating what people think about it? Is there any point?

Originally posted by promomag
So where are we at folks? 24 Pages of speculation, which I'll assume jump to 25 here shortly, some articles, blogs, a talk show..... I'm curious, will any more photos of this thing make any difference? Is that what you all are waiting for?

Let's assume there's more photos, then what? More speculation, more time spent on debating what people think about it? Is there any point?

Ummm, this is a discussion board promomag.

Unless and until the hoaxer comes forth, it is admitted to be a viral marketing campaign for the Transformers Movie or several people catch this in a video there's little else we can do but speculate and discuss.

Springer...

So many people want to lynch LMH right now, jus tbecause she made one, albeit large, mistake. She was on for about 2 hours, and said mabbye only one or two sentences about the CG video that was made, she embarresed herself, and i am sure that C2C, and LMH will make a note of it and say something about the misreport. People make mistakes, even the big magazines, you just don't hear about them til the next month, and by then everyone has forgetten.

I'm going back and forth on these, weeks ago i thought for sure it was fake, now i not sure, and with LMH witnesses, esspicialy the one that had a confrentaion with a "park" ranger, that happen 2 years ago, if this is the case, then it becomes VERY likely that this is a MAN-made craft, that is in testing phase, if these things have been sighted over the last few, i belive its very lilkly to be ET.

I took this picture from a few pages back and blew it up using windows picture and fax viewer. The shadows match the shadows on the power pole. The detail of UO is nothing short of remarkable. I would think it would take an effort by someone at "dreamworks" in Hollywood to do this. I am leaning more towards real at the moment. We have all seen the NASA shuttle videos of numerous objects in space going in every direction. I have to wonder if this has something to do with HAARP and total control of society. Will this be the watchers eyes/monitoring system? If its Alien whats its purpose? Lots of questions still and not very many answers.

i45.photobucket.com...

[edit on 26-5-2007 by aceace]

For the record here is the complete statement made by Linda Moulton Howe on Coast to Coast AM with George Noory last night May 25, 2007 regarding the YouTube video posted by "saladfingers123456":

"I also embedded in this report, this Earthfiles report with this new Birmingham image, or images, a YouTube link that was sent to me. It is a very brief video. This is not animation. This is clearly, it looks like, a military base environment. You can see what seems to be an aircraft hanger in the background. And briefly a small object that looks exactly like the– we'll call it "the drone"–in Chad's photos, it rises from the ground while it spins, but the tape doesn't last very long. I think it's fascinating that somehow this ended up in YouTube, and it looks like some kind of an experiment."