Call me suspicious something is going on here (Drone)

I have just logged onto ATS tonight to see if there were any developments on the recent drone story.

Bear with me.

I commented on Ghostravens thread when we found out it was a hoax some time ago, and i thought that there was some kind of link to Ghostraven and the new Isaac thread that is at the forefront of people's minds at this time.

When i made this assumption there was a certain member here that jumped down my throat pretty quickly, name submitted:

Member posts: "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".

Me: I took that one on the chin as other members saw and a couple of U2U's were sent to me from this person assuring me and telling me all was ok, sorry to offend etc etc.

He/she was quick to knock my thinking but i just said what i thought was right and i thought that was the end of it.

I was away for a couple of days and i have only come back tonight and realised that this person (The same person) posted this, the very thing the poster derided me for:

Member posts: "Once again I wish to point out that I am making no accusations at all and I may be achieving nothing more than wasting your time with a humorous coincidence. But, having read GhostRaven’s posts a number of times I remembered that upon reading the Hoax admission that the word “patently” stood out and kept popping into my thoughts; so much so that I was compelled to investigate further.

I believe the reason this word stood out to me is that due to my previous profession as a journalist and Deputy Editor I am sensitive to words that are uncommon, or more so, sentences that use uncommon words to convey a meaning.

The reason for this is simple; professional writers are a nightmare. Massively inflated egos and one-up-man-ship is a very real problem and part of the role of an Editor is to maintain the “tone” of the publication. The reality is that the language of an article has to be able to be accessible to the demographic of your publication because the readership are paying for information and entertainment, not to be made to feel inferior because they have to keep looking up words in a dictionary, or worse, not being able to keep up with the document, losing interest in the publication and subsequently affecting sales.

For days now I have been unable to shake an observation that there was something odd about the tone (meaning word use) of GR’s admission and after a little bit of research the answer was staring me, darest I say, patently in the face.

From the disclaimer on page 1 Link

The following "story" is the produce of an unethical, patently flawed attempt at a study that exudes the lowest form of deceit.


And then from the first paragraph of GR’s admission:

Heck, I even picked a storyline that would be patently absurd.


Uncommon word usage is akin to a type of written fingerprint because it takes repeated use for it to enter into one’s vocabulary. Now if that word is not “commonly” accessible to the general population, who get most of their adult vocabulary through conventional media, then the word requires an environment where it can be used regularly to become established.

Curiously, the “tone” of GhostRaven’s posts indicates a vocabulary that is reinforced by general media and although his writings are professionally written and well structured you aren’t going to expand your vocabulary from it.

And yet this word appears in very close proximity from the hoax admission warning to the admission email itself. Yet, the number of times that GR uses this word in his writings is zero, which is …patently odd.

Please understand though, this is not an accusation, nothing of the sort. It is just information that I felt should be shared. I certainly do not wish to cast aspersions on Springer and certainly don’t wish to feel his wrath. I’m hoping that if I am in error he will get a chuckle out of a coincidental connection.

Although I have no means of establishing the author of the hoax warning on the False Flag thread, were we to assume that the author was_______________

Me: "journalist and Deputy Editor" There are hints here that he is pointing to Springer, forgive me if you think i'm out of order.


This is from the person that gave me hell for even suggesting that GR and Isaac were in kahootz.

A few hours later and i am seeing two posts from this person with fairly fantastical claims entailing seeing things from outside, no pics, no video because he/she doesn't know how to use the equipment, my question is what is this person doing?

I want to apologise in advance if i have broken any ATS rules by elaborating too much but something about this poster stinks,

I would be more than happy to provide information from my U2Us's if any moderators wish to see them.

October








[edit on 2/7/07 by October]

[edit on 2/7/07 by October]

[edit on 2/7/07 by October]

[edit on 2/7/07 by October]

Hi Suspicious.


EDIT: This joke isn't quite so hilarious (and it was hilarious!) now the OP has changed his title





[edit on 2-7-2007 by triplesod]

Damm Triplesod you beat me too it

Seriously though, I understand little of what the OP is trying to express here.

Pokey was banned while you were typing, I think! So, October, consider yourself exonerated of Pokey's attacks, not that anyone else took Pokey's Posturings seriously. (And, for the record, bad editors are worse than bad writers.)