Board Logo
« #7 The Drone Enigma A Global Search For The Truth »

Welcome Guest. Please Login or Register.
Dec 14th, 2017, 1:02pm


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 ... 47 48 49 50 51  ...  99 Notify Send Topic Print
 sticky  Author  Topic: #7 The Drone Enigma A Global Search For The Truth  (Read 25958 times)
GForce
Mod Director
Global Moderator
ImageImageImageImageImage


member is offline

Avatar

You'll never find happiness until you find yourself!


PM

Gender: Male
Posts: 6396
xx Re: #7 The Drone Enigma A Global Search For The Tr
« Reply #720 on: Jan 2nd, 2009, 1:42pm »

on Jan 1st, 2009, 10:18pm, ABCStore wrote:
I wonder, if moderators really enjoy seeing all these off-topic posts and personal attacks going on here?..

ABC


Actually NO we don't! Of course most of the posts in here lately sound like an old married couple arguing. Besides I was TOO busy watching BOWL GAMES and stuffing my face yesterday to catch the personal attacks. You would think New Years would be a nice time to call a truce! I GUESS NOT!!!

Now please leave the personal attacks out of the debate! I'd hate to make anyone write I WILL LEARN TO PLAY NICE! On the blackboard 100 times! rolleyes

*Edit*
BTW some of the off topic posts ARE FUNNY!
« Last Edit: Jan 2nd, 2009, 1:48pm by GForce » User IP Logged

Archangel
Full Member
ImageImageImage


member is offline

Avatar




PM


Posts: 68
xx Re: #7 The Drone Enigma A Global Search For The Tr
« Reply #721 on: Jan 2nd, 2009, 1:46pm »

heh heh GForce... yer missin' tha Texas Tech game right now!! laugh
User IP Logged

Archangel
Full Member
ImageImageImage


member is offline

Avatar




PM


Posts: 68
xx Re: #7 The Drone Enigma A Global Search For The Tr
« Reply #722 on: Jan 2nd, 2009, 1:52pm »

I would also like to say that I left the drones section a long time ago because of the drama... and to think some of you consider the conspiracy section heated rolleyes

Personally, I still do not know quite what to think about the drones. I think it was probably a hoax.

I am more curious about why there are so many posts about this drone issue, in comparison to the countless ufo sightings being seen all the time.

The drone issue is strange on many levels!
User IP Logged

GForce
Mod Director
Global Moderator
ImageImageImageImageImage


member is offline

Avatar

You'll never find happiness until you find yourself!


PM

Gender: Male
Posts: 6396
xx Re: #7 The Drone Enigma A Global Search For The Tr
« Reply #723 on: Jan 2nd, 2009, 1:54pm »

on Jan 2nd, 2009, 1:46pm, Archangel wrote:
heh heh GForce... yer missin' tha Texas Tech game right now!! laugh


No I'm multi-tasking! Watching the game, eating Dorito's, drinking a cold beverage, surfing the web and ignoring the Mrs! IT'S CALLED TALENT!!!
User IP Logged

Marvin
Gold Member
ImageImageImageImageImage


member is offline

Avatar

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


PM

Gender: Male
Posts: 1119
xx Re: #7 The Drone Enigma A Global Search For The Tr
« Reply #724 on: Jan 2nd, 2009, 2:07pm »

on Jan 2nd, 2009, 1:54pm, GForce wrote:
No I'm multi-tasking! Watching the game, eating Dorito's, drinking a cold beverage, surfing the web and ignoring the Mrs! IT'S CALLED TALENT!!!



That is beyond talent... that is GREATNESS!

Where do I sign up for lessons (especially on the ignore the Mrs part). My ear are square from being “boxed” so many times. grin
User IP Logged

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

User Image

"You naughty earth specimens!"
elevenaugust
Senior Member
ImageImageImageImage


member is offline

Avatar

APPONO ASTOS


PM

Gender: Male
Posts: 286
xx Re: #7 The Drone Enigma A Global Search For The Tr
« Reply #725 on: Jan 2nd, 2009, 2:07pm »

on Jan 2nd, 2009, 08:11am, Marvin wrote:
There is nothing different about Raj than the other BB Drones. They were all anonymously submitted… most with a form of anonymous post submittal communication (by email, forum or telephone).

The fact that we haven't found yet any photo witnesses doesn't mean that they doesn't exist at all.... You know that.
Moreover, are you sure that the drone events are the only one UFO event where testimonies are only made by email, telephone, forum.....?
And of course, you forget to mention Brent, Shirley, Cam, Melody and Jane (and some others that you're not aware of)..... All liars, of course rolleyes

on Jan 2nd, 2009, 08:11am, Marvin wrote:
Any of the stories that can be followed up (verified), have been found to be misleading or more likely, disinformation with the intent of being misleading (especially, the location of the sighting).

"Any of....", I know only possibly one:
The only possible problem is with Chad location. I still believe possible either Chad owned two properties or he really live(d?) in Bakersfield and then could have lied about his photo location for lots of very good reasons, other than being a pathological liar.
Maybe you have more infos about Stephen, Ty or Raj's misleading or disinformation story??

on Jan 2nd, 2009, 08:11am, Marvin wrote:
In some cases, the story given does not agree with the photos submitted.

Precisions, please?

on Jan 2nd, 2009, 08:11am, Marvin wrote:
There are no witnesses to interview (I wonder why). Because it all boils down to intent.

You conveniently left out Shirley, Brent, etc....
And what about a hoaxer interview??cheesy

on Jan 2nd, 2009, 08:11am, Marvin wrote:
Your opinion is the other photos are okay. [...] I have covered Ty’s issues. I have no problem with you disagreeing with this… but if you were serious about that, you would produce a professional’s forensics that would demonstrate there are no issues with the photos. But after a year of coaxing for this, it still has not been done.

Not opinion, facts that have been proved several times here and here and conclude that your analysis of Ty's alleged inconsistencies has zero relevance.
Seems like your don't read DRT forum, what a pity!!grin

Quote:
But I see the same CGI shadowing on Chad’s (look in the torus)

You are speaking like 1111.... Strange wink

I have the same theory about these two following pictures:

I would like to discuss the probability of a specific shadow occurring in these two following images:

Mi8
User Image

Mi17
User Image

I outlined the specific shadow in question. Upon looking closely at these shadows, I see that they are almost perfectly the same.

Two different images.
Two different helicopters.
Two different cameras.
Two different "witnesses".
Two different locations.
Two different times of day.
Two different lighting enviornments.
Two different angles.
...and much more...

BUT THE SAME SHADOW?

I believe the probability of this happening is very very very low.
Anyone want to do the exact calculations?


Even though these images are supposed to be from completely different places, they both have the same exact fake shadow that seem to be made from the same exact light rendering software. This alone kills the helicopters, IMHO.

grin JK
User IP Logged

IPACO, the new tool for photo and video analysis is on-line ! www.ipaco.fr
Archangel
Full Member
ImageImageImage


member is offline

Avatar




PM


Posts: 68
xx Re: #7 The Drone Enigma A Global Search For The Tr
« Reply #726 on: Jan 2nd, 2009, 2:12pm »

heh

Alabama [12-1]... tonight! versus undefeated Utah [12-0]

BE THERE!

grin

I was hoping Alabama would have beaten Florida! It would then be my OU Sooners vs Alabama in the National Title... a re-match from the older days cool
User IP Logged

elevenaugust
Senior Member
ImageImageImageImage


member is offline

Avatar

APPONO ASTOS


PM

Gender: Male
Posts: 286
xx Re: #7 The Drone Enigma A Global Search For The Tr
« Reply #727 on: Jan 2nd, 2009, 2:39pm »

on Jan 2nd, 2009, 09:51am, Jeddyhi wrote:
As far as witnesses without photos, it then becomes entirely important to gauge the veracity of the claim based strictly on the testimony given. Unlike the O'Hare case, non-photo drone witnesses are not backed up by a mass sighting viewed by many at the same time. They are alone in that their testimony and their claim cannot be checked out or verified has having actually happened. In the same way that we cannot confirm that any of the drone photo witness sightings actually occured, we cannot confirm any of the non photo sightings as well.

We confirmed the non photos sightings, by the PIs and ourselves. (Some of us personally met these witnesses).
According to you, what is the standard to confirm a non-photo witness?
How many important UFO sightings was made by only one or two witnesses?
It reminds me the incredible Michalak UFO event. In spite of the fact that he claimed to had an incredible close encounter (with physical evidences), the Condon Committee, in the voice of Mr Roy CRAIG, made this conclusion:
If Mr. A's reported experience were physically real, it would show the existence of alien flying vehicles in our environment. Attempts to establish the reality of the event revealed many inconsistencies and incongruities in the case, a number of which are described in this report. Developments subsequent to the field investigation have not altered the initial conclusion that this case does not offer probative information regarding unconventional craft.
I'll bet that this conclusion could be yours about the drone case!!
So what is the standard for ufology to be able to conclude an UFO event (with a single witness) is 100% real?

on Jan 2nd, 2009, 09:51am, Jeddyhi wrote:
If I remember correctly, Capitola had an event going on outdoors the day of Raj's photos. I could be mistaken as to the timing but the Police Chief or a Capitola Detective stated that if the sightings were real, he would have expected a large number of witnesses experiencing a mass sighting. That would have added much credibility to the claim of the photo and non-photo witnesses. The law enforcement agent even claimed that Capitola is a close knit community where everyone knows everything about everyone. A cat stuck in a tree is news and probably travels fast in Capitola.

The only event in Capitola at this period was The Capitola Car Show:
The Capitola Police Department and the Capitola Public Safety and Community Service Foundation are proud to announce the Second Annual Rod and Custom Classic Car Show to be held in Capitola's Village on Saturday and Sunday, June 9 - 10, 2007
SOURCE

on Jan 2nd, 2009, 09:51am, Jeddyhi wrote:
We, or rather I, cannot take unsubstanciated testimony from a witness with no photo concerning a sighting from years before and use that to verify another unsubstanciated claim with a photo years later.

Unfortunatly (or fortunatly, it depends cheesy) lots of UFO testimonies are made years after, most of time because of the fear of ridicule, but sometimes also because witnesses was afraid about what they saw.
In the 90's, I made an investigation about an incredible RR3 in France: two old ladies saw a sphere landing in the middle of the road in front of them, then two small entities appears and walked for almost five minutes all around this sphere.
These ladies were petrified and terrified.
This happened in 1981 and the testimony was made in 1995. And they decided to talked because they saw an article on a local newspaper about another sighting in the same area.

on Jan 2nd, 2009, 09:51am, Jeddyhi wrote:
If a drone ever appears before numerous witnesses
(ie; Ty BB drone case, but in that instance every supposed witness conveniently saw no need to report or document their sighting) in a fashion similiar to Stephensville, Texas, it would vindicate the drone case as having a basis in reality. Until then, the case mysteriously has all the ear marks of an internet hoax with the occasional witness that wants on the band wagon.

You're maybe right, however, and it's only a subjective opinion, I'll maybe make the same conclusion as yours when our investigations will end.
User IP Logged

IPACO, the new tool for photo and video analysis is on-line ! www.ipaco.fr
DrDil
Global Moderator
ImageImageImageImageImage


member is offline

Avatar

Fighting against truth decay!!


Homepage PM

Gender: Male
Posts: 4224
xx Re: #7 The Drone Enigma A Global Search For The Tr
« Reply #728 on: Jan 2nd, 2009, 3:13pm »

on Jan 2nd, 2009, 2:07pm, elevenaugust wrote:
<snip>

"Any of....", I know only possibly one:
The only possible problem is with Chad location. I still believe possible either Chad owned two properties or he really live(d?) in Bakersfield and then could have lied about his photo location for lots of very good reasons, other than being a pathological liar.

<snip>

Hi 11, regarding, "Chad owned two properties".

On March 25, 2008 Linda Moulton-Howe sent James Carrion an email stating that she had Chad’s full name and also that in a further and unpublished email Chad had wrote that:

Quote:
“His pregnant wife was so upset he was concerned about her health and they were leaving their house to stay with relatives.”

Coupled with Chad’s OWN words:

Quote:
  • Then we tried again the next day, and we found it within like 30 minutes and followed it for a while.
  • Most of the time I see it out of windows in my house, in the distance.
  • But I would say almost half of the hikes I have gone on in my area, I have seen it very close.
  • It is very easy to photograph.
  • Many neighbors aside from my friend have also seen it.


All of which suggests that it was for a FACT Chad's house, unless he's lying, which (either way) also means that he could have lied about quite a bit (if not all) of the surrounding details, (the ‘back-story’ if you like) of his encounter/s with the Drone.

Quote:
“His pregnant wife was so upset he was concerned about her health and they were leaving their house to stay with relatives.”

Leaving THEIR house to stay with relatives” so obviously the danger is at THEIR house.

If Chad told LMH Bakersfield (which we know he did) then he lied, do you dispute this?
User IP Logged

Can't keep my eyes from the circling skies,
Tongue-tied & twisted, just an earth-bound misfit.
Marvin
Gold Member
ImageImageImageImageImage


member is offline

Avatar

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


PM

Gender: Male
Posts: 1119
xx Re: #7 The Drone Enigma A Global Search For The Tr
« Reply #729 on: Jan 2nd, 2009, 3:21pm »

You must be bored today 11,

on Jan 2nd, 2009, 2:07pm, elevenaugust wrote:
The fact that we haven't found yet any photo witnesses doesn't mean that they doesn't exist at all.... You know that.


Yep, they “could” be individual, real witnesses… and they are all hanging out over at Raj’s house. wink


on Jan 2nd, 2009, 2:07pm, elevenaugust wrote:
Moreover, are you sure that the drone events are the only one UFO event where testimonies are only made by email, telephone, forum.....?
And of course, you forget to mention Brent, Shirley, Cam, Melody and Jane (and some others that you're not aware of)..... All liars, of course rolleyes


Actually, if you have been trying to understand my posts, I have been specific about the hoax being the BB (Big Basin) Drones.

Each case has to be looked at independently.


on Jan 2nd, 2009, 2:07pm, elevenaugust wrote:
"Any of....", I know only possibly one:
The only possible problem is with Chad location. I still believe possible either Chad owned two properties or he really live(d?) in Bakersfield and then could have lied about his photo location for lots of very good reasons, other than being a pathological liar.
Maybe you have more infos about Stephen, Ty or Raj's misleading or disinformation story??


Precisions, please?


You conveniently left out Shirley, Brent, etc....
And what about a hoaxer interview??cheesy


Imagination and fantasy is good thing, but not where facts are needed. Just because you invent the idea and believe it, does not make it so.

We need objective evidence, facts and let’s hear from the witnesses (and specifically, the BB Drone witnesses).


on Jan 2nd, 2009, 2:07pm, elevenaugust wrote:
Not opinion, facts that have been proved several times here and here and conclude that your analysis of Ty's alleged inconsistencies has zero relevance.
Seems like your don't read DRT forum, what a pity!!grin


The above examples seems to be your facts… and I guess my imagination is just not good enough.

I rarely read the DRT… as a research tool, it is impractical to use and just a bit on the biased side.

The first "here" was shown/demonstrated here. The second "here" is debated in that thread, where I corrected you example.


on Jan 2nd, 2009, 2:07pm, elevenaugust wrote:
You are speaking like 1111.... Strange wink


Now you went and burst my bubble… I though you said you know how I think. I guess we will have to start all over again, but don’t go all mushy on me. embarassed


on Jan 2nd, 2009, 2:07pm, elevenaugust wrote:
I have the same theory about these two following pictures:

I would like to discuss the probability of a specific shadow occurring in these two following images:

Mi8
User Image

Mi17
User Image

I outlined the specific shadow in question. Upon looking closely at these shadows, I see that they are almost perfectly the same.

Two different images.
Two different helicopters.
Two different cameras.
Two different "witnesses".
Two different locations.
Two different times of day.
Two different lighting enviornments.
Two different angles.
...and much more...

BUT THE SAME SHADOW?

I believe the probability of this happening is very very very low.
Anyone want to do the exact calculations?


Even though these images are supposed to be from completely different places, they both have the same exact fake shadow that seem to be made from the same exact light rendering software. This alone kills the helicopters, IMHO.

grin JK



Ah… Okay.

So you found photos of two Russian helicopters that have similar shadows cast on the body from the blades. This is an argument that is related to what? Are these photos taken in sequence (as in “back to back”)? The odds will not be as high as you may think on this one… take the arc of the shadow on the body and divide it by the width of the blade's shadow (it will a good approximation) as to the odds of the shadows appearing the way they do in these two photos (I would guess it would be as high as 1 chance in 65… assuming the same solar angle)... since the shadows are not exact... just the same thing but different.

But I bet, you can talk to the folks that took those photos (and they are nowhere near Raj's house). wink

If you don’t have any objective evidence to prove the BB Drones are real, I do not understand why you are trying to debate this stuff. But I guess its all good.
User IP Logged

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

User Image

"You naughty earth specimens!"
TeachersPet
Guest
xx Re: #7 The Drone Enigma A Global Search For The Tr
« Reply #730 on: Jan 2nd, 2009, 3:40pm »

on Jan 2nd, 2009, 05:28am, elevenaugust wrote:
Since DRT work still going on and that all the possibilities haven't been explored yet, this new topic is useless...

Anyway, welcome SEARCHER, and please take a look at the Drone Research Team forum, the only place where real investigations still going on.
wink


How can you possibly say Useless..You have explored possibilities, surely all this time at least one.
Are you saying that without the Pis, you have no possibilities you have done on your own?
What possibilities are you then looking at because it seems all your time is spent fighting other peoples own conclusion it is hoax, but not submit your own work for critique..thats not a very openminded way to do things.
And since Frank dixon said he could not find the pole in capitola. just what is there to give a visitor pause to say ..gee, there might be something to this story.

Well if you have nothing, somethin, anything, then I can see you saying that, but when you get something that can be looked at by everyone you can post it there. I am sure we all find it extremely useful then. It worked well at OMF, and it can work well Here. Especially here as I made it soley for your point of view, and with every protection in place.
This is quite disturbing.





« Last Edit: Jan 2nd, 2009, 4:01pm by TeachersPet » User IP Logged

elevenaugust
Senior Member
ImageImageImageImage


member is offline

Avatar

APPONO ASTOS


PM

Gender: Male
Posts: 286
xx Re: #7 The Drone Enigma A Global Search For The Tr
« Reply #731 on: Jan 2nd, 2009, 3:49pm »

on Jan 2nd, 2009, 3:13pm, DrDil wrote:
Hi 11, regarding, "Chad owned two properties".

On March 25, 2008 Linda Moulton-Howe sent James Carrion an email stating that she had Chad’s full name and also that in a further and unpublished email Chad had wrote that:


Coupled with Chad’s OWN words:


All of which suggests that it was for a FACT Chad's house, unless he's lying, which (either way) also means that he could have lied about quite a bit (if not all) of the surrounding details, (the ‘back-story’ if you like) of his encounter/s with the Drone.


Leaving THEIR house to stay with relatives” so obviously the danger is at THEIR house.

If Chad told LMH Bakersfield (which we know he did) then he lied, do you dispute this?

Hi DrDil!
I know all of that, but that doesn't dismissed the possibility of Chad be the owner of two properties.
Not necessarily a lie.
He could have said to LMH that he really lives in Bakersfield (Not proved to be a lie yet), but didn't say a word about his sighting location, which is different. Why?
- To protect his family and himself.
- Chad said that he lives in Bakersfield, so that might be the relatives house that he lives at now after being scared from the Summit area.
Only speculation of course, but I still let to Chad the benefit of the doubts.
User IP Logged

IPACO, the new tool for photo and video analysis is on-line ! www.ipaco.fr
TeachersPet
Guest
xx Re: #7 The Drone Enigma A Global Search For The Tr
« Reply #732 on: Jan 2nd, 2009, 4:13pm »

Well since Nemo said Linda spoke to Chad at least a dozen times by email..I am sure more than about the weather, and so Surely Linda would know yes?
Why would one have to speculate he lied to protect one of his houses, or he may have stopped because headaches were bad, or government threatened, and disregard he may have lied period.
Has Linda cooperated at all, especially after you and the PI'ssupplied Brent and the Scotts Valley case to her? She certainly got a little mileage from that .
What efforts can be shown that she was pressed at all by DRT for that information, other than what Nemo said.
Certainly you must have something on that, or is that a secret too.
smiley
« Last Edit: Jan 2nd, 2009, 4:22pm by TeachersPet » User IP Logged

elevenaugust
Senior Member
ImageImageImageImage


member is offline

Avatar

APPONO ASTOS


PM

Gender: Male
Posts: 286
xx Re: #7 The Drone Enigma A Global Search For The Tr
« Reply #733 on: Jan 2nd, 2009, 4:21pm »

on Jan 2nd, 2009, 3:21pm, Marvin wrote:
You must be bored today 11,

No, I just like to discuss with openminds.smiley


on Jan 2nd, 2009, 3:21pm, Marvin wrote:
Yep, they “could” be individual, real witnesses… and they are all hanging out over at Raj’s house. wink
No, at Chad's Bakersfield house.cheesy

[quote author=Marvin link=board=drone&num=1223123924&start=729#48 date=1230931276]
Actually, if you have been trying to understand my posts, I have been specific about the hoax being the BB (Big Basin) Drones.
Each case has to be looked at independently.

So you think that the no-photos witnesses could be genuine?
Let's see each case independently:
- Raj: "Experts" analysis showed shadows inconsistencies in pict16 confirmed by at least three DRT members, but not as "definite proof".
- Chad: "Experts" analysis said "it looks like CGI" and "torus shadows that looks like the same as Raj's torus shadows"
- Ty: "Experts" said...... nothing
- Stephen: "Experts" said....... nothing
- Tahoe: "Experts" said....... nothing
- Brent, Shirley, Cam, etc.....: "Experts" said..... They are single witnesses so the testimony is useless or they all are liars.

on Jan 2nd, 2009, 3:21pm, Marvin wrote:
Imagination and fantasy is good thing, but not where facts are needed. Just because you invent the idea and believe it, does not make it so.

I'd rather say "possibilities" that haven't been explored yet.
Anyway, you didn't answer to my questions about your sentence: "In some cases, the story given does not agree with the photos submitted."

on Jan 2nd, 2009, 3:21pm, Marvin wrote:
We need objective evidence, facts and let’s hear from the witnesses (and specifically, the BB Drone witnesses).

We are still working on it, as well on a hoax-side POV as a real-side POV, believe it or not!
You already have non-photo witnesses testimonies.

on Jan 2nd, 2009, 3:21pm, Marvin wrote:
The above examples seems to be your facts… and I guess my imagination is just not good enough.

Yes, facts that pop up from a scientific approach, so maybe not so much my own facts....

on Jan 2nd, 2009, 3:21pm, Marvin wrote:
I rarely read the DRT… as a research tool, it is impractical to use and just a bit on the biased side.

As it's the only real info source, it's a pity you don't read it more!!

on Jan 2nd, 2009, 3:21pm, Marvin wrote:
The first "here" was shown/demonstrated here. The second "here" is debated in that thread, where I corrected you example.

You haven't corrected anything and conveniently rehash your old KK-LL analysis that have been proved many time to be false, as well as the "moving leaves" thingy.....
Here and here

on Jan 2nd, 2009, 3:21pm, Marvin wrote:
So you found photos of two Russian helicopters that have similar shadows cast on the body from the blades. This is an argument that is related to what? Are these photos taken in sequence (as in “back to back”)? The odds will not be as high as you may think on this one… take the arc of the shadow on the body and divide it by the width of the blade's shadow (it will a good approximation) as to the odds of the shadows appearing the way they do in these two photos (I would guess it would be as high as 1 chance in 65… assuming the same solar angle)... since the shadows are not exact... just the same thing but different.

Demonstration, please?? We would like to work on it at the DRT forum!

on Jan 2nd, 2009, 3:21pm, Marvin wrote:
But I bet, you can talk to the folks that took those photos (and they are nowhere near Raj's house). wink

Yeah! I know him personally; he's a very smart guy that own a house near Bakersfield. cheesy

on Jan 2nd, 2009, 3:21pm, Marvin wrote:
If you don’t have any objective evidence to prove the BB Drones are real, I do not understand why you are trying to debate this stuff. But I guess its all good.

To prove a real UFO event, you need to dismissed of the fakery possibilities (and have much more time), like I explained it dozen times here and over there. So asking to me to prove the drone to be real is an unfair question.

Maybe one day we will understand each other, who knows?? grin
User IP Logged

IPACO, the new tool for photo and video analysis is on-line ! www.ipaco.fr
Jeddyhi
Senior Member
ImageImageImageImage


member is offline

Avatar




PM

Gender: Male
Posts: 589
xx Re: #7 The Drone Enigma A Global Search For The Tr
« Reply #734 on: Jan 2nd, 2009, 4:23pm »

on Jan 2nd, 2009, 2:39pm, elevenaugust wrote:
We confirmed the non photos sightings, by the PIs and ourselves. (Some of us personally met these witnesses).
According to you, what is the standard to confirm a non-photo witness?


Hi 11, Thanks for responding. You may have confirmed the non-photo witness, but you can't confirm they had a sighting. There is no way to do that. You have to take the witness at there word. That can be risky. With a non photo sighting, when you have multiple witnesses all confirming each others testimony, then the probability of a sighting is high.


Quote:
How many important UFO sightings was made by only one or two witnesses?
It reminds me the incredible Michalak UFO event. In spite of the fact that he claimed to had an incredible close encounter (with physical evidences), the Condon Committee, in the voice of Mr Roy CRAIG, made this conclusion:
If Mr. A's reported experience were physically real, it would show the existence of alien flying vehicles in our environment. Attempts to establish the reality of the event revealed many inconsistencies and incongruities in the case, a number of which are described in this report. Developments subsequent to the field investigation have not altered the initial conclusion that this case does not offer probative information regarding unconventional craft.
I'll bet that this conclusion could be yours about the drone case!!
So what is the standard for ufology to be able to conclude an UFO event (with a single witness) is 100% real?


Basically, with a single witness you need a lot of corroborating evidence, secondary to any intitial evidence associated with the sighting itself. In the case you refer to above, which I am familiar with, the Condone Committee also had this to say:

<snip>
According to Conservation Officer Jim Bill, the fire lookout towers were manned on this date after 9 a.m. A ranger with Officer Bell indicated that the forest was dry at this time. Both rangers felt that a fire capable of burning a man would have started the forest burning. They commented that watchmen in the towers generally notice smoke immediately from even a small campfire, and felt that a small fire in lichen and moss, such as Mr. A said he tramped out when he threw his burning shirts to the ground, would have been seen by the watchman.

They also believed objects as described by Mr. A would have been seen by the tower watchman, had they been present for even a fraction of the time Mr. A claimed. Watchtowers are 8' x 8'. About six other towers are visible in the distance from the tower near the alleged landing site. Although a 35-40 ft. metallic saucer only 1/2-2 mi. away should have attracted the watchman's attention, nothing unusual was noted from the watchtower


The flight direction Mr. A gave for the UFOs would have brought them within about a mile of the golf course at Beach X, at an altitude of 4,000 ft. The course attendant said that there were hundreds of golfers on the course on this date, none of whom reported seeing an object such as Mr. A described.

The undershirt which Mr. A presented had been ripped apart in front, where it was burned. It also carried a patterned burn centered high on the back, the pattern matching, according to Mr. A, the pattern of the UFO's exhaust openings from which the burning vapors had spurted. Mr. A had been burned only on the abdomen, with slight singeing of the forehead. The reason for the presence of a patterned burn on the back of the undershirt was not obvious.
<snip>
---------------------------------------------------------

So there were problems and inconsistencies that accompanied the physical evidence. The Condon Committee was wise to conclude as they did, based on the evidence presented. Stephen Michalak may or may not have had a sighting.

Quote:
The only event in Capitola at this period was The Capitola Car Show:
The Capitola Police Department and the Capitola Public Safety and Community Service Foundation are proud to announce the Second Annual Rod and Custom Classic Car Show to be held in Capitola's Village on Saturday and Sunday, June 9 - 10, 2007
SOURCE


I may have confused the words of Detective Gonzalez. He was very positive that something like a drone sighting would have been reported by most of the townspeople. Here are his words to Admin at OMF:

I am a Detective here at Capitola Police Department. We have not had any reports from citizens regarding a UFO sighting. This internet story is the first I have ever heard of the UFO.

Capitola is 2.2 square miles and our citizens call on anything and everything. We even get calls from cat feces on lawns to sick seagull birds. Our citizens are very watchful and notify police on any strange event. From my experience with this community, I believe we would have at least one hundred callers notifying our dispatch center of the sighting. With that said, we have a centralized dispatch center who take all calls for the entire county. Therefore, even if the sighting was just outside of our city limits, I would know about it.

Let's assume the sighting is true and correct. We as a police department need to investigate. I have sent a few emails to websites stating my name, position and interest in contacting the eye witnesses. At this time, I have nothing other than Rajman1977 and "chad". If you have any emails for these people, please let me know so I can interview them and determine if this is a hoax or for real.

Take care,
Mark Gonzalez
Detective Capitola Police



Quote:
Unfortunatly (or fortunatly, it depends cheesy) lots of UFO testimonies are made years after, most of time because of the fear of ridicule, but sometimes also because witnesses was afraid about what they saw.
In the 90's, I made an investigation about an incredible RR3 in France: two old ladies saw a sphere landing in the middle of the road in front of them, then two small entities appears and walked for almost five minutes all around this sphere.
These ladies were petrified and terrified.
This happened in 1981 and the testimony was made in 1995. And they decided to talked because they saw an article on a local newspaper about another sighting in the same area.


But again we are left with only their testimony and no way to confirm. Remember, some people do like attention. I'm not saying the ladies from 1981 are liars or attention seekers, just that some people do seek publicity.


Quote:
You're maybe right, however, and it's only a subjective opinion, I'll maybe make the same conclusion as yours when our investigations will end.


If the long thorough road you are on takes you to where I have been, I'll buy you a beer and show you the shortcuts that logical deduction can create in such a long and winded journey! wink
User IP Logged

"Nothing will ever claim ownership of the original Drone information, so copyright is not a question. Use it."- Masker33
Pages: 1 ... 47 48 49 50 51  ...  99 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