Board Logo
« #5 THE DRONE ENIGMA A GLOBAL SEARCH FOR THE TRUTH »

Welcome Guest. Please Login or Register.
Oct 20th, 2017, 03:51am


Visit the UFO Casebook Web Site

*Totally FREE 24/7 Access *Your Nickname and Avatar *Private Messages

*Join today and be a part of one of the largest UFO sites on the Net.


« Previous Topic | Next Topic »
Pages: 1 ... 70 71 72 73 74  ...  103 Notify Send Topic Print
 sticky  Author  Topic: #5 THE DRONE ENIGMA A GLOBAL SEARCH FOR THE TRUTH  (Read 3897 times)
wreckage
Junior Member
ImageImage


member is offline

Avatar

Everything is inevitable.


Homepage PM

Gender: Male
Posts: 40
xx Re: #5 THE DRONE ENIGMA A GLOBAL SEARCH FOR THE TR
« Reply #1065 on: Sep 28th, 2007, 05:29am »

At the risk of being off-topic, John Humphreys, the guy who made the 'Alen Autopsy' dummy says;

"It had to look like an alien. But I suppose it was in the detail of the anatomy that made it look real. In the end, it didn’t look like anything before.
and;

"But the problem was the film was in very poor condition, it was disintegrating. So they asked me if I could interpret what I could see and help them to restore it. "

My question is (and shame on me for not doing my own research, but hoping that some of you may already know), where are these remnants of the original, disintegrating film Santilli allegedly bought, and Humphreys and his crew worked from? Does anybody know of any other mentions of this apart from Humphrey's above comments?

If enough of the 'original' footage was in good enough condition that an entire, fake reproduction movie could be made, where is it? Is it available for testing? What happened to it?

Cheers.



User IP Logged

Wherever you go, there you are.
Marvin
Gold Member
ImageImageImageImageImage


member is offline

Avatar

Mmm, yes, very curious, very interesting....


PM

Gender: Male
Posts: 1119
xx Re: #5 THE DRONE ENIGMA A GLOBAL SEARCH FOR THE TR
« Reply #1066 on: Sep 28th, 2007, 07:15am »

on Sep 27th, 2007, 9:52pm, hope4mil wrote:
After reading all of Isaac's information, it seamed to me that the idea of anit gravity controlling the movements of the drones was very logical. Think of it, if we can control the gravity of each tiny xy axis, then it would be simple to have the craft move up or down. or to have the rings stay in a certain position (like the cut broom handle that he mentions). What is harder for me to get my brain around, is the forward and backward movement. But I think it is possible. If the front of the drone is a tiny bit lower than the rear, and then that reverses, I think that could cause it to propel forward. And the same for all directions. Which could explain the "darting like a dragonfly" movement. It would almost be like a fish swimming in water. Anyway, that was my thoughts after first reading the Isaac material back in July.
Hope
Also, the control of gravity would definitely explain the crop circles, how the stalks are bent over without breaking. If a drone was overhead and changing the gravity, to sort of push off, the circle could be the results.


on Sep 28th, 2007, 01:26am, newtothis wrote:
Great theory... I definitely believe that the drone is tilted slightly forward. Check out the 2nd to last pic here: http://www.ufocasebook.com/strangecraftphotos.html



If you closely examine the Capitola photos, you will notice that it appears to "bank" like a conventional aircraft.

http://www.ufocasebook.com/strangecraft3.html
User IP Logged

Oh Goody! My Illudiom Pu-36 Explosive Space Modulator!

User Image

"You naughty earth specimens!"
Marvin
Gold Member
ImageImageImageImageImage


member is offline

Avatar

Mmm, yes, very curious, very interesting....


PM

Gender: Male
Posts: 1119
xx Re: #5 THE DRONE ENIGMA A GLOBAL SEARCH FOR THE TR
« Reply #1067 on: Sep 28th, 2007, 07:56am »

on Sep 27th, 2007, 8:58pm, interocitor wrote:
As I said the segments of the film that show the instrument panels and the curved pieces are real.


What about the dude in uniform holding these components? Oddly, there is no rank insignia, no branch insignia. He is a bit out of uniform, even for 1947, isn’t he? Like the rest of the film, we do not see a face. I was also surprised that the back of the "instrument panels" with the hand prints were not shown (that is, documented on film... wouldn't that be important?). For the size of the reported debris field, all that was shown was a small table (or so) with a hand full of debris (none of the “aluminum foil” like material that made up the bulk of the debris)?

I found that whole sequence very odd, not because of what was shown, but because of what was not shown. I believe Jesse Marcel Jr. gave this debris a thumbs down when he saw it. If you recall, all of the metallic debris the Marcels saw looked dull and Titanium like. The panels and I-beams in the autopsy film are bright and shiny like they were coated with an aluminum paint.

This is an easy one to prove if it is the real deal (or not). But Ray refuses to do it. It really is worse than that, he has strung people along with false promises and lies. He most certainly has everything to gain by proving it to be real, both for history's sake and financially. He claims the original film is damaged so that it can no longer be viewed, then that part film should be available for testing. I have to assume the reason he has not done this, is because he can not do it, he has nothing that will past the test. His whole motivation has been for the sole purpose of financial gain, not the truth. When the producers of the “autopsy” washed their hands of it and “spilled the beans” that it was a hoax, that was good enough for me.
« Last Edit: Sep 28th, 2007, 08:19am by Marvin » User IP Logged

Oh Goody! My Illudiom Pu-36 Explosive Space Modulator!

User Image

"You naughty earth specimens!"
Gort
New Member
Image


member is offline

Avatar




PM


Posts: 0
xx Re: #5 THE DRONE ENIGMA A GLOBAL SEARCH FOR THE TR
« Reply #1068 on: Sep 28th, 2007, 08:27am »

on Sep 27th, 2007, 11:20pm, notafulldeck wrote:
Roswell Glyph info...


http://www.rkdn.org/alternative/roswell.asp



I read the information. The question that immediately comes to me, is if this is some kind of important message why would it be on a structural component. I would think an important message would be contained in something more portable rather than a structural component of the ship. It could be graffiti I suppose. I'm more likely to believe the markings were something like, Freedom Inc. or made in Freedom, assuming the message is Freedom?
User IP Logged

urantia606
Senior Member
ImageImageImageImage


member is offline

Avatar




PM

Gender: Male
Posts: 354
xx Re: #5 THE DRONE ENIGMA A GLOBAL SEARCH FOR THE TR
« Reply #1069 on: Sep 28th, 2007, 08:35am »

on Sep 28th, 2007, 05:29am, wreckage wrote:
At the risk of being off-topic, John Humphreys, the guy who made the 'Alen Autopsy' dummy says;

"It had to look like an alien. But I suppose it was in the detail of the anatomy that made it look real. In the end, it didn?t look like anything before.
and;

"But the problem was the film was in very poor condition, it was disintegrating. So they asked me if I could interpret what I could see and help them to restore it. "

My question is (and shame on me for not doing my own research, but hoping that some of you may already know), where are these remnants of the original, disintegrating film Santilli allegedly bought, and Humphreys and his crew worked from? Does anybody know of any other mentions of this apart from Humphrey's above comments?

If enough of the 'original' footage was in good enough condition that an entire, fake reproduction movie could be made, where is it? Is it available for testing? What happened to it?

Cheers.





Read my last post for answers to your questions.

Mr. Humphreys is telling us lies. He had nothing to do with the 1947 16mm film of the alien autopsy.
User IP Logged

urantia606
Senior Member
ImageImageImageImage


member is offline

Avatar




PM

Gender: Male
Posts: 354
xx Re: #5 THE DRONE ENIGMA A GLOBAL SEARCH FOR THE TR
« Reply #1070 on: Sep 28th, 2007, 08:39am »

Marvin writes:

What about the dude in uniform holding these components? Oddly, there is no rank insignia, no branch insignia. He is a bit out of uniform, even for 1947, isn?t he? Like the rest of the film, we do not see a face.

Urantia replies:

Marine Corps privates do not wear rank insignia. It's good to read up on these matters before you post. The man in the photo is a U. S. Marine. No face is shown for obvious reasons.
User IP Logged

Gort
New Member
Image


member is offline

Avatar




PM


Posts: 0
xx Re: #5 THE DRONE ENIGMA A GLOBAL SEARCH FOR THE TR
« Reply #1071 on: Sep 28th, 2007, 08:40am »

on Sep 28th, 2007, 05:09am, RoH wrote:
Looks like you all missed my post rolleyes

User Image

This is something I learned from a photoshop expert
with 19 years of expirience in Photoshop, this is the
first test they do, it looks easy but it's not! But in the
Rajman pictures it is very clear that this is the same
picture. It's all about how JPG compression is working,
when a picture is saved with jpg, the compression
builds up a structure/pattern with different size
of "blocks" and color value.

I've used Saladfingers CG photo replication image of
the Raj drone to show the differents between a real
object and a fake object in this picture.

Hope this helps
RoH


Trying to understand. Your illustration is showing how a real object differs from a CGI rendition. You've chosen as an example of your real object one of the drone pictures. You are making the assumption that it is real to begin with. What if it too were a CGI rendition? An additional comparison would help. Say for an example use an Apple. Do the same comparison with a real Apple and a CGI rendered Apple. Include the apple comparison. The apple comparison would then be the control.
« Last Edit: Sep 28th, 2007, 08:53am by Gort » User IP Logged

Raf
Gold Member
ImageImageImageImageImage


member is offline

Avatar




PM

Gender: Male
Posts: 1402
xx Re: #5 THE DRONE ENIGMA A GLOBAL SEARCH FOR THE TR
« Reply #1072 on: Sep 28th, 2007, 09:23am »

Quote:
If you closely examine the Capitola photos, you will notice that it appears to "bank" like a conventional aircraft.


Why wouldn’t it bank though? Even if it has “anti-gravity” it still must propel itself by directional application of that field or by something else. But why not make use of the most basic of steering principles. Basically the deflection of atmosphere against its control planes. That has to be the use for that long and apparently rotatable tail.

Raf
User IP Logged

The boldness of asking deep questions may require unforeseen flexibility if we are to accept the answers. ~ Brian Greene
Gort
New Member
Image


member is offline

Avatar




PM


Posts: 0
xx Re: #5 THE DRONE ENIGMA A GLOBAL SEARCH FOR THE TR
« Reply #1073 on: Sep 28th, 2007, 09:42am »

on Sep 28th, 2007, 09:23am, Raf wrote:
Why wouldn’t it bank though? Even if it has “anti-gravity” it still must propel itself by directional application of that field or by something else. But why not make use of the most basic of steering principles. Basically the deflection of atmosphere against its control planes. That has to be the use for that long and apparently rotatable tail.

Raf





There is a tendency in trying to understand something unknown to compare it to known or understandable principles. It's very easy to assume aerodynamics or the principles of aerodynamics affecting these things. Antigravity may be an explanation for stationery positioning and even motion but I think there's more to it than just antigravity. Considering for example the tremendous speeds both in the atmosphere and underwater (by these UFOs) suggests an ability to travel through a medium irrespective of aerodynamics or hydro-dynamics. Whether the same capabilities apply to the drones I don't believe have been stated or witnessed? Aerodynamic principles may apply or they may not.
« Last Edit: Sep 28th, 2007, 09:43am by Gort » User IP Logged

Marvin
Gold Member
ImageImageImageImageImage


member is offline

Avatar

Mmm, yes, very curious, very interesting....


PM

Gender: Male
Posts: 1119
xx Re: #5 THE DRONE ENIGMA A GLOBAL SEARCH FOR THE TR
« Reply #1074 on: Sep 28th, 2007, 09:45am »

on Sep 28th, 2007, 08:39am, urantia606 wrote:
Marvin writes:

What about the dude in uniform holding these components? Oddly, there is no rank insignia, no branch insignia. He is a bit out of uniform, even for 1947, isn?t he? Like the rest of the film, we do not see a face.

Urantia replies:

Marine Corps privates do not wear rank insignia. It's good to read up on these matters before you post. The man in the photo is a U. S. Marine. No face is shown for obvious reasons.



Interesting that a Marine would be there, since the Army Air Force supplied the field personal out of RAAF.

There is no obvious reason for the "Marine" to be camera shy on a classified film. The whole purpose of the film is to document everything. You are only camera shy if you are planing to release this highly secret film… rolleyes

The belt is what bothered me, it seems officer“ish” to me (if it is even correct for the time period):

User Image

This is an Marine NCO (wearing a belt) from that time frame, and it is probably what a private would wear. The uniform in the film just does not seem to be correct to me. Maybe we have some late 40s Vets that can resolve this issue?

User IP Logged

Oh Goody! My Illudiom Pu-36 Explosive Space Modulator!

User Image

"You naughty earth specimens!"
Latitude
Gold Member
ImageImageImageImageImage


member is offline

Avatar




PM

Gender: Male
Posts: 1024
xx Re: #5 THE DRONE ENIGMA A GLOBAL SEARCH FOR THE TR
« Reply #1075 on: Sep 28th, 2007, 09:50am »

on Sep 28th, 2007, 01:04am, hjdelight wrote:
Ok Lat...then nothing is provable and nothing is disprovable because no one can prove anything according to your rules. I agree that you should check out your sources and I did by checking UFOwatchdog.com. I found only one detractor who is so passionate I dismissed him immediately. Who knows really but I won't go to battle over it. It seems likely that the "alien in the freezer" was a hoax though. There seems to be a ton of corroboration and names are named. If you want to believe, more power to you then. smiley

HJ


Hey HJ,

It's very likely the drones will also go down in history as a hoax. I can list several websites right now that say it is. Does that make it so? Nope. They are distorting the facts and some are out and out lying. But we know the truth.

All I'm saying is this one website says Reed is a fraud. Are we going to take their word for it? If you really scrutinize what evidence they have you see it's all subjective and anecdotal. It smells like a ptb smear campaign to me.

But once again, I'm not saying the frozen alien story is true. We probably never will know the truth. But this is exactly the way the ptb make it. They induce just enough disinformation and confusion to render the subject harmless.
« Last Edit: Sep 28th, 2007, 09:52am by Latitude » User IP Logged

My Drone Video
3rdman
Full Member
ImageImageImage


member is offline

Avatar




PM


Posts: 123
xx Re: #5 THE DRONE ENIGMA A GLOBAL SEARCH FOR THE TR
« Reply #1076 on: Sep 28th, 2007, 09:56am »

Hello again everybody: I appreciate the comparisons within the Photoshop program. I am curious as to what John Knoll the creator of Photoshop and the CG movie software Shake would have to say about all of this. Our 3D artists ere on the side of a more muscular program like Maya if any of these photos were created from the ground up. Again, I would be helpful if the original camera negative and the uncompressed raw files were available for analysis. A pixel by pixel comparison between foreground and background images would go a long way to determining the authenticity of some of these photos. Such an analysis would include color temperature, compression differences (if any) grain structure, focus depth, chromatic aberration, digital noise, etc. etc. At this point I've become interested in the MUFON report done last May. Not that I trust MUFON's handling of this case, but have they ever posted their findings? And yes, I know they have their own CG posse. So that's why I am forever calling for independent analysis of all the data to date.
In response to earlier postings as to the cost and effort by someone to have hired their own CG team of artists to create some of the Drone imagery. Yes, it could be expensive, but not necessarily prohibitive. Our 3D artists filled a 30,000 seat stadium with digital crowds using Massive software in about 7 weeks. Shots like these run into the tens of thousands of dollars for as little as 20 seconds of footage. That doesn't include the set-up costs on the set to shoot the stadium. That's not stills, but moving images for theatrical release. 2D work like rig removal or set enhancement in the hands of a good artist can be done fairly cheaply; perhaps less than 2K. But remember, in Hollywood we charge by the frame! It all depends on what you want and need to do. Anyway, just wanted to throw in my 2-cents today. Would love to know if anybody has seen that MUFON report. If I've missed it let me know.
Thanks gang and all the best! -- 3rdman

p.s. as far as Jimmy Durante is concerned my favorite quote of his is: "Dis club is open from 8:00 till unconscious
User IP Logged

hjdelight
Gold Member
ImageImageImageImageImage


member is offline

Avatar




PM

Gender: Male
Posts: 1653
xx Re: #5 THE DRONE ENIGMA A GLOBAL SEARCH FOR THE TR
« Reply #1077 on: Sep 28th, 2007, 10:24am »

Fair enough Lat. But in the end I guess we all make our subjective decision to believe something or not. This actually brings up an interesting question. We here mostly believe in the drones and you are right that there are those that have dismissed them as hoaxes so what is the difference? Why do we, I like to think, intelligent discerning adults believe and other intelligent discerning adults not believe? If you believe or not believe, what was the pivotal point that won you?

Two things really won me. The clarity of almost all of the photos. After all, why make fakes so good? It would just give more leverage to people trying to uncover your hoax. A good cloudy or blurred photo resists analysis much better. And then there is Isaac. His story is really a complexity that's introduced, if it's a hoax or real, to verify the photos. This is, by my way of thinking, complete overkill. It exposes the hoax to much more analysis by adding another layer of complexity. In other words, why reach so far? The photos alone would have been fine.

So, those are the two points that sold me. How about you guys and girls. Wether you believe it's real or a hoax, what turned you?

HJ

Thanks 3rdman. Your expertise is invaluable here. Don't go anywhere!

« Last Edit: Sep 28th, 2007, 10:28am by hjdelight » User IP Logged

Arrogance is a fragile springboard from which to jump to conclusions says I.
castles4me
Guest
xx Re: #5 THE DRONE ENIGMA A GLOBAL SEARCH FOR THE TR
« Reply #1078 on: Sep 28th, 2007, 10:39am »

on Sep 27th, 2007, 7:52pm, alien_contactee wrote:
And of course the common denominator with solar panels is just that panels - connected panels rather and not one piece. Well here's a good set of connected panels below.



Beautiful post ATO -- very good connection -- true, the fin tail panels do appear to be similar in design to our solar panels. very good!
User IP Logged

Latitude
Gold Member
ImageImageImageImageImage


member is offline

Avatar




PM

Gender: Male
Posts: 1024
xx Re: #5 THE DRONE ENIGMA A GLOBAL SEARCH FOR THE TR
« Reply #1079 on: Sep 28th, 2007, 10:46am »

on Sep 28th, 2007, 10:24am, hjdelight wrote:
Two things really won me. The clarity of almost all of the photos. After all, why make fakes so good? It would just give more leverage to people trying to uncover your hoax. A good cloudy or blurred photo resists analysis much better. And then there is Isaac. His story is really a complexity that's introduced, if it's a hoax or real, to verify the photos. This is, by my way of thinking, complete overkill. It exposes the hoax to much more analysis by adding another layer of complexity. In other words, why reach so far? The photos alone would have been fine.


I agree totally. But it was not only the obvious stuff, it was the tiny details like Raj posting his sighting to craigslist. Craigslist? What hoaxer posts it to craigslist? Then there's Isaac talking about Tixo in grad school then coming back in his email talking about a tablet type interface. Go look it up. It's all true and puts Isaac into a certain perspective as a real guy. Then there's Steven who's BB photos match exactly with what he describes as he is taking a picture of flowers and catches a glimpse of some odd in the background. He quickly snaps another shot. Then the "gravity" of the situation begins to sink in and he stumbles while taking the third pic.

Everything fits down to the minor details. The only time something does not fit is when the story is being attacked and lied about. Steven from Mufon is a prime example and he has shown himself to be either a ptb agent or an operative.
User IP Logged

My Drone Video
Pages: 1 ... 70 71 72 73 74  ...  103 Notify Send Topic Print
« Previous Topic | Next Topic »

Become a member of the UFO Casebook Forum today and join our more than 19,000 members.

Visit the UFO Casebook Web Site

Donate $6.99 for 50,000 Ad-Free Pageviews!

| |

This forum powered for FREE by Conforums ©
Sign up for your own Free Message Board today!
Terms of Service | Privacy Policy | Conforums Support | Parental Controls