Ghostraven and Isaac drone man one and the same..

Hooray!!

After reading so many "debunks" from computer graphic experts and other professionals I can finally post to a thread sharing what I know from my own professional experience.

Having been a journalist for eight years, of which I was a Deputy Editor for two, I can quite soundly inform you that you have not established any connection at all between the two writers.

All you have been able to establish is that GhostRaven and Isaac understand the concepts of English Grammar and document structure.

From this, it could at best be hypothesized that both posters are at least over the age of 22, have experience writing documents that are required to conform to professional writing standards and have written enough professional documents that grammatical structure has become autonomic.

By the "evidence" you provided I could be accused of being either user because of sentence structure and paragraphing. However, the journalistic nature of my writing and the environment I was in (Publishing House of many magazines) has affected me in terms of verbosity and particular autonomic traits such as consistently structuring paragraphs where a point is first raised and then a counter-point offered. Amusingly, this paragraph is an example of that very point.

As far as his motives are concerned i would say that attention seeking is his main driver. I think that GR/Isaac started the entire Chad drone right from the beginning and this is the next chapter.

And that would be a baseless assumption. Were you able to effectively analyze writing you would see that it is the personality behind the order of words that allows for a connection to be made. For example, in the above quote from you I can establish that you are rather self-assured in your opinions and mildly narcissistic.

The evidence of self-assuredness is that although your statement was subjective ("I think..., "...I would say...") the information offered is categorical (definition: Being without exception or qualification; absolute) and such self-assuredness of opinion is narcissistic.

I would in fact encourage that my evidence be tested by accessing October's profile and reading through the posts he has made. What you will find are numerous examples of categorical statements with a subjective disclaimer (I think etc.) and very few posts where October actually states the reason or evidence behind why he believes the opinions he strongly expresses.

GR says:

"Would a series of photos/documents really 'prove' my story? No, because a hoaxer, in this day and age, can easily generate tons of fake material"

This is exactly what GR/Isaac has done.

AND THE ULTIMATE SLIP UP, GR SAYS:

"I am not going to mail the mods a chunk of space ship parts"

Actually October, this is far from an ULTIMATE SLIP UP. All you have been able to establish is that the authors of those threads are unprepared to provide/post tangible evidence.

The reason that author 1 gives for not sending in photos or documents is the valid argument that publicly available image generation/manipulation technology exists that is so capable that real evidence could still be deemed "Photoshopped".

Author 2 does not give a reason for providing tangible evidence and instead makes a direct statement that they won't provide any.

I would have to argue that the only ULTIMATE SLIP UP evident in this thread is you offering up two quotes from two user ids stating that they will not provide evidence of extraordinary claims as evidence that the two user ids are the same person.

Perhaps it is worth asking yourself what the difference is between flawed evidence and no evidence and if you are behaving in the same way as the very people you hold derision for.

Pokey Oats


[edit on 27-6-2007 by Pokey Oats]

Thanks Pokey,

You shot me down in flames there with your post. I feel gratified from your expertise. I was not trying to cause a stir here, i merely looked at the two posters and IN MY EYES saw similarities between the two.

I don't have your outstanding credentials but now that i have received your solid views regarding me as a person, a person who is simply inquisitive and excited as to what has been happening in the last 3 days and very happy to be here involved in the continuing developments, i feel humbled and I am very grateful to you for bringing me down to earth.

You have a lot to be proud about.

Quashing my general interest in a subject close to my heart, and digging into my past posts to dissect me even further for all the members to see is truly a noble achievement on your behalf, i applaude you.

Constructive critisicm is good Pokey, but your Journalistic flare has shown me the way.

"narcissistic" Definition:

"Characteristic of those having an inflated idea of their own importance"

I have NEVER posted anything on ATS that would reflect what you think of me as being narcissistic.

I'll tell you they way I work here on ATS.

I go to the office in the morning and after checking my e-mails and actioning them in the appropriate manner i check the news for any developments that may be of interest to the people here on ATS.

I post them and give a very brief view as to WHAT I THINK. I don't claim to know anything more about a given topic that i post, i feel it is in the interest of the ATS community to see what is happening in terms of news reports etc etc.

Your very comments Pokey:

"Having been a journalist for eight years, of which I was a Deputy Editor for two"

"However, the journalistic nature of my writing and the environment I was in (Publishing House of many magazines)"

Somebody outright claiming me to be narcissistic should take a VERY close look at their post making that very claim, someone "Characteristic of those having an inflated idea of their own importance". I think you have demonstrated that definition incredibly well. Hat's off to you.

[edit on 27/6/07 by October]

okie dokey folks, let's stick to the topic at hand and not sidetrack into the merits of who's qualified as a journalist and who's not.

thanks.

Well, yup, I'm jest one ov dem danged old hillbillies, and I ain't got much edumercation, so ya'll jest overlook me.

But, I did see whar thet feller Isaac done used a bunch of idears right out'en thet air GRs post over heah.

See, is ol' boy Isaac is plumb clean prouder than a settin' hen cause he sees what all them folks at C2C done got wrong, and what they done got right. He says so bigger'en Dallas right thar in his letter.

And I recollect as how that thar GR feller said almost the same words his own self. Now I ain't real smart, Mr. Magazine Man, but 'at air shore do sound like the same coon hound a bayin' in the woods.

Originally posted by NGC2736
And I recollect as how that thar GR feller said almost the same words his own self. Now I ain't real smart, Mr. Magazine Man, but 'at air shore do sound like the same coon hound a bayin' in the woods.

Yeah either that, or two unrelated people who know how to use the English language.

I would recommend that when presenting a definition as evidence that you might want to broaden the scope of your research. Your dictionary definition is indeed correct, however, I would suggest further research for complete understanding of what I was saying.

Wikipedia for example is an excellent source of information and I would advise reading this Link

Wikipedia Extract
The term narcissism means love of oneself, and refers to the set of character traits concerned with self-admiration, self-centeredness and self-regard.

In my previous post I stated that "... such self-assuredness of opinion is narcissistic" and that statement remains accurate because you formulated an opinion about GR and Isaac being the same person and then provided flawed evidence based on an assumption that you knew enough about the written word to establish a link between the two.

To use your own words:

I just want this to go on record that I firmly believe that Isaac and Ghostraven are one and the same. He is double bluffing us, he used the GR thread to deflect interest from the Drone thread and now people are moving on to the new thread. You might think i'm nuts but all i ask you to do is set up two tabs on the bottom of your screen, one with GR's letter and one with Isaacs, there are too many similarites for anyone to ignore.

And yet I have been able to capably demonstrate with the evidence you provided as the "ULTIMATE SLIP UP" that the similarities you believe can't be ignored in actuality can.

In short you formulated an opinion and then used flawed evidence based on your own limited understanding of writing analysis and expressed it as a categorical truth. The narcissistic aspect is that you have such a high regard of your self that you believed that no one could possibly refute what you found, after all it was you who said that there are too many similarities for anyone to ignore.

This is not an insult, it is nothing more than cold, hard, impersonal analysis. Furthermore, narcissism should never be perceived as a terrible character flaw but instead should simply be diluted with a touch of humility.

Again from Wikipedia: Link

Andrew Morrison claims that, in adults, a reasonable amount of healthy narcissism allows the individual's perception of his needs to be balanced in relation to others

However,

Link

"People who have a narcissistic personality style rather than narcissistic personality disorder are relatively psychologically healthy, but may at times be arrogant, proud, shrewd, confident, self-centered and determined to be at the top. They may not, however, have an unrealistic image of their skills and worth and are not so strongly dependent on praise to sustain a healthy self-esteem."

Now, based on that last quote I would have to agree with you that I display some narcissistic aspects myself, and that is something about my writing that you could most certainly use to deduce whether I might be posting as multiple users.

Pokey Oats

Originally posted by Implosion

Originally posted by NGC2736
And I recollect as how that thar GR feller said almost the same words his own self. Now I ain't real smart, Mr. Magazine Man, but 'at air shore do sound like the same coon hound a bayin' in the woods.

Yeah either that, or two unrelated people who know how to use the English language.

Now jus a dad gun minute, my boy billy jus had him thar a lil bit to much to drink meow! I found that feller, oh was his name, Isaac, there it goes, to be a fine youngin intellectual wit a record ya couldn't beat with a board! But with this here, evidance that has done been presented fur me, I dunt think I can make a lick a since outta this mess.

I'm seconds away from slapping warns for not sticking to the topic and shutting this thread down so let me remind you for a second time to stick to the topic.

this means all of you.

I'm really sorry Crakeur i will make this my final, if it get's this thread booted i understand.

Pokey you keep on mentioning Evidence that i have submitted, i haven't submitted any evidence to anything. I have strong beliefs in myself that i feel are related to GR and Isaac, that's it plain and simple, if you want to continue this discussion maybe it's better to communicate through U2U and not clog this thread with mixed opinions on a subject matter not relevant to the subject at hand.

Respectfully

October

You know them edermucations shure do come in handy. Here, I'll use mine:

Originally posted by NGC2736
But, I did see whar thet feller Isaac done used a bunch of idears right out'en thet air GRs post over heah.

Could you possibly explain to me then how an expression of similar ideas is categorical proof that two user ids are the same person and not, say, two people in cahoots with each other that are working an agenda towards a common goal?

And I recollect as how that thar GR feller said almost the same words his own self. Now I ain't real smart, Mr. Magazine Man, but 'at air shore do sound like the same coon hound a bayin' in the woods.

I take it the Hillbilly speak is intended to "bring me down a notch" because you believe your expressed observation is so profound that it be irrefutable.

However you have achieved little more than to present an opinion without evidence that is easily refuted by the two person hypothesis.

Pokey Oats

The fact that there are writing skills shared by both individuals is not conclusive proof, I agree. Nor is the fact that both claimed to have been 'lurking' at the respective site for some time. Even the phrasing of the "Knowing what was gotten right and what was gotten wrong" entries could be mere coincidences.

Yet, just as in a court of law, one also weighs the preponderance of evidence. As the facts seem to mount towards a conclusion in another thread that the 'Isaac Papers' are also a hoax, one cannot but feel that there are too many points of convergence to lightly dismiss the possibility of both GR and Isaac being one and the same.

Due to the amount of planning, time, effort, and maybe substantial money involved in such a broad spectrum hoaxing effort, it would be out of character for us here at ATS to simply dismiss this out of hand.

And Crackuer, with all due respect, I fail to see the rational for shutting down this thread. Beneficial information is being exchanged, ignorance is being held at bay, and progress is still to be made. If a warning is in order for me, by all means do you duty, but I trust you will not let irritation lead you to act in hast.

The Hillbilly speech is nothing to do with me, i wouldn't have a clue how to speak like that.

If you want to discuss this further U2U me and i will give you my hotmail, i REALLY think you are trying to disrupt my thread, i'm posting you my hotmail, now stop posting in this thread please.

There has been a spate of hoaxers around of late.... all sounding slightly similar and seemingly sticking to a similar script/method.

COULD it be that this is some kind of experiment not from government but from some type of social studies class?? assignment: to study the publics reaction to a such subject matter.

could be that all these people MIGHT be different people trying to gague our reaction??

either that or military govt types gagueing our reaction for similar research type reasons?


[edit on 27-6-2007 by srsen]

srsen, These hoaxes seem too aggressive to be a normal study, and the target audience is too small to afford much usable information. When coupled with the amount of time and effort that have went into these hoaxes, it would be self defeating.

And if this is a government operation, it is unlikely that it is for study purposes, for it is assured by their very nature that they have studied us for some time right here at such places as ATS. Such hoaxing by the government would have more gainful reason.

Now these are just my opinions and observations, and in life anything is possible.

this could be one of the weakest threads i have seen here at ATS, & ive seen a few lately.

i think youre clutching at straws, sorry.

[edit on 27-6-2007 by from downunder]

[edit on 27-6-2007 by from downunder]

For those who dont know, Isaac is now posted on Coast to Coast website.

C2C tries to weed out lies according to George and Art, so i dont know what to make of this

www.coasttocoastam.com...

djtempe, they haven't had the ball too long. Give them some time. I'm waiting to see how it pans out over there.

I'm wondering if 'Isaac' will 'fess up if they don't catch him out soon. My bet is that if they haven't caught him in a week, he'll get really sloppy, so he is caught, and by two weeks, he'll surrender.

Just a guess, but it fits a pattern that's forming in my mind for this thing.

Pokey I think you're being all too academic in the analysis of Octobers suspicions and hunches and feelings. Regardless of whether he is right or wrong (I don't hold an opinion on that as I'm not up to speed on the Isaac thread) there are more factors to consider than simply the writing style such as Octobers references to similarity of presentation, Human factor etc.

I think it was a little over the top and unworthy to try and rubbish October like that and also a somewhat distorted summary of the members post history behaviour.

Ive been checking this site for about 3 months now...I like it, enjoy the discussions, but something that troubles me is how much faith is put into Wikipedia.com....that site is garbage...anyone can post anything on that site....right?