It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by pjslug
But like I said in the previous post, it was probably re-typed. How many e-mail programs do you know of that say where you are from, such as Albuquerque, New Mexico?
Originally posted by agent violet
Originally posted by agent violet
ok so if PACL existed we will now know where it was/is at
as quoted by the 'professional' on LMH's website: "...Given that CARET was next door to XPARC I see nothing unusual in the quality or layout of the documents and any skepticism raised on that account should be declared completely invalid..."
and here is where XPARC was in the late 70-80's
as quoted from the website link i posted above:
"...PARC's current site at 3333 Coyote Hill Road in Palo Alto, California is completed in February at a size of 100,000 square feet..."
therefore PACL must have been located within the vicinity of coyote hill road in palo alto, so instead of giving up lets get to the bottom of this.
alevar so as you can see, in my first post i did read what LMH stated.
but never mind i really dont want to go back-and-forth with you.
i just wanted to show you i did read what she had to say, and that i know it was a 'professional' as i obviously stated in my first (above) post.
Originally posted by Springer
Several people have brushed up against but not concisely discuss the fact it is IMPOSSIBLE for him to have responded to these "issues" or critiques of his presentation in one day. The issues had not been typed up yet, nobody had time to present their issues with his documents and images in that short amount of time.
WAY TOO MANY bizarre circumstances here.
Springer...
Originally posted by alevar
I agree, but this raises a very interesting question-- does this mean that LMH is somehow complicit with this whole thing?
Originally posted by alevar
3) While there's some interesting stuff in his response, there are still ZERO facts that actually corroborate ANYTHING. Like others have pointed out, why hasn't he told us what the name of the fake company was? Or where it was located? What about some kind of genuinely verifiable scientific commentary? ANYTHING.
My point this whole time has been that, while the things he and the witnesses have said often sound plausible and reasonably consistent, there's still no way to separate them from something that could have just been made up by someone with adequate imagination and knowledge. I'm still waiting for ANYONE involved in this case to make ANY comment that actually COULDN'T have simply been made up by a hoaxer. Even the slightest detail would make me happy if it were simply the kind of detail that would REQUIRE this to be real. Again, like pointing out a real company facade that really did exist in Palo Alto during the specified years at a certian address. Or some kind of scientific or mathematical data that someone in academia or industry could back up as something truly significant. ANYTHING.
Originally posted by alevar
O'Hare and the UK incident are major events, but they're not half as detailed as Isaac/CARET. And yet still, they manage to easily escape the hoax stigma, because the people involved and forthcoming and visible. They face honest scrutiny and don't appear to be hiding anything. Meanwhile, the drone case is OVERFLOWING with details, and yet somehow, after alllllllllll this time, none of the people who have PROVIDED these amazing details have come anywhere near the same level of public openness as these other two cases.
Listen, I'm happy to go back and forth with the believers and explain my position, but I'm tired of being made out to be a debunker every time I post something. I try to post a lot of detail and be very verbose in my explanations, because most debunkers tend to just state their point like gospel and then skip town. But I really think you guys aren't reading what I'm saying, at least not entirely, because while I don't expect you to agree, I do expect you to understand that my position on this matter is very sincere and has a lot of sound reasoning behind it.
So just give me some credit here and stop assuming I'm out to get everyone.
[edit on 28-7-2007 by alevar]
Originally posted by klatunictobarata
I know that researchers have criticized LMH for backing unfounded UFO theory reports but I also acknowledge her reporting and journalistic accomplishments to date.
That said, I have some observations and questions about LMH and EARTHFILES:
#1. IF she has ISAAC's URL and email address: has she investigated it for any confirming details or to help verify its source?
#2. Did ISAAC and the various DRONE photographers sign over their copyright authority to either LMH/EARTHFILES or NOORY/C2C? How can LMH post a copyright notice protecting all of these documents if she was not legally granted permission? If so, can't this trail be examined and traced? Or are these all in public domain?
Originally posted by Springer
Several people have brushed up against but not concisely discuss the fact it is IMPOSSIBLE for him to have responded to these "issues" or critiques of his presentation in one day. The issues had not been typed up yet, nobody had time to present their issues with his documents and images in that short amount of time.
WAY TOO MANY bizarre circumstances here.
Springer...