Board Logo
« Drone Discussion #10 »

Welcome Guest. Please Login or Register.
Aug 17th, 2017, 12:54am


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 ... 80 81 82 83 84  ...  100 Notify Send Topic Print
 sticky  Author  Topic: Drone Discussion #10  (Read 50194 times)
masker33
Guest
xx Re: Drone Discussion #10
« Reply #1215 on: Dec 28th, 2009, 7:29pm »

Quote:
No...lets continue on with your assessment of photos and witnesses. You said this:

"The picture is now dead as evidence of anything. A witness, even a group, will be of little value."

You know as well as I do that that is not true but you wrote it anyway. Interesting how you mislead.


This is very much what I think and my assessment would now be of little value. That is because IMO the DRT has debunked the entire drone saga. Truly now seems a silly event at best. I still like the art, design and drama, but its likes will not further Ufology as I doubt anything will.
User IP Logged

Jeddyhi
Senior Member
ImageImageImageImage


member is offline

Avatar




PM

Gender: Male
Posts: 589
xx Re: Drone Discussion #10
« Reply #1216 on: Dec 28th, 2009, 7:48pm »

on Dec 28th, 2009, 7:10pm, tomi01uk wrote:
Well, it makes sense to me from my perspective as much as your theory makes sense to you from yours. What I'm implying here actually is let's not establish fact before knowledge. You assume that house not to factor in. I assume differently as I've implied in my posts.

Nobody would create this picture with his own house... lol tongue .. so it probably doesn't factor in.. but sometimes the tricky business of tricking tricks up.. dunno.. ?


And if the truck and trailor would have been in front of a public library then I suppose that would imply that the hoaxers were

1) in the library
2) use the library
3) work at the library
4) used the library computers to send emails

User Image
User IP Logged

"Nothing will ever claim ownership of the original Drone information, so copyright is not a question. Use it."- Masker33
Klatunictobarata
Guest
xx Re: Drone Discussion #10
« Reply #1217 on: Dec 28th, 2009, 8:23pm »

on Dec 28th, 2009, 7:29pm, Masker33 wrote:
That is because IMO the DRT has debunked the entire drone saga.




TA DAH!

"The DRT has debunked the entire drone saga."


Now can we PLEASE all go home and go to sleep? wink
User IP Logged

masker33
Guest
xx Re: Drone Discussion #10
« Reply #1218 on: Dec 28th, 2009, 8:26pm »

Yes by all means, and pleasant dreams.
User IP Logged

Katterfelto
Guest
xx Re: Drone Discussion #10
« Reply #1219 on: Dec 28th, 2009, 8:48pm »

Ah, what the heck. I'll bite. grin

From Nemo at DRT:

It seems to me that the open debate is totally missing the occasion to ask Lev/Maskers why he decided to forge a story, while he seemed to support the whole drone affair.

Some people may not realize that he is the guy living in Cochran, GA...
User IP Logged

Jeddyhi
Senior Member
ImageImageImageImage


member is offline

Avatar




PM

Gender: Male
Posts: 589
xx Re: Drone Discussion #10
« Reply #1220 on: Dec 28th, 2009, 9:02pm »

Lev has faked a drone photo before. Remember the thumper?

He pulled a fast one on the DRT and LMH with the Alabama drone but no big deal. Nobody in their right mind ever gave that sighting any credibility anyway.

Finding and questioning Lev/Masker might be worthwhile to see if he was/is a cheap unskilled copycat or just wanted to appear that way as he trolled forums for over two years.
User IP Logged

"Nothing will ever claim ownership of the original Drone information, so copyright is not a question. Use it."- Masker33
Jeddyhi
Senior Member
ImageImageImageImage


member is offline

Avatar




PM

Gender: Male
Posts: 589
xx Re: Drone Discussion #10
« Reply #1221 on: Dec 28th, 2009, 9:11pm »

on Dec 28th, 2009, 7:29pm, Masker33 wrote:
This is very much what I think and my assessment would now be of little value. That is because IMO the DRT has debunked the entire drone saga. Truly now seems a silly event at best. I still like the art, design and drama, but its likes will not further Ufology as I doubt anything will.


They only confirmed what people were trying to tell them from the beginning......it's all fake. But they investigated in hopes of finding evidence to the contrary. Thousands and thousands of dollars and man hours later, they finally get it.

They didn't debunk anything, they simply failed to find a drone reality. Big difference.
« Last Edit: Dec 28th, 2009, 11:06pm by Jeddyhi » User IP Logged

"Nothing will ever claim ownership of the original Drone information, so copyright is not a question. Use it."- Masker33
Leibowitz
Junior Member
ImageImage


member is offline

Avatar




PM


Posts: 17
xx Re: Drone Discussion #10
« Reply #1222 on: Dec 28th, 2009, 9:19pm »

Uh oh, those darn pesky IP addresses!

Finding and questioning Lev/Masker? Short of knocking on his/her door and asking them if they would like to answer a few question, you're out of luck. I don't think anybody broke any laws here, unless you count giving the UFO community a hissy fit, then I suppose he's/they're guilty.

Unless, of course, the information would come voluntarily? Does Lev/Masker have any connections to the Cali drone makers? Come on, lets have it out. What's the harm?

User IP Logged

murnut
Senior Member
ImageImageImageImage


member is offline

Avatar




Homepage PM

Gender: Male
Posts: 614
xx Re: Drone Discussion #10
« Reply #1223 on: Dec 28th, 2009, 9:21pm »

Good for Lev.

I'm glad he jerked Nemo around.

Couldn't have happen to a nicer guy.

If I had to choose between Nemo and Lev...well I guess you know my answer.

I don't even care if Lev is the ultimate ufer hoaxer ever.

Ufology brought it on itself.

Have a cigar Lev
User IP Logged

You want a revolution?
You've got to make a difference on your own
You want a revolution?
Stand up, stand out and make it known
Leibowitz
Junior Member
ImageImage


member is offline

Avatar




PM


Posts: 17
xx Re: Drone Discussion #10
« Reply #1224 on: Dec 28th, 2009, 9:35pm »

on Dec 28th, 2009, 9:11pm, Jeddyhi wrote:
The only confirmed what people were trying to tell them from the beginning......it's all fake. But they investigated in hopes of finding evidence to the contrary. Thousands and thousands of dollars and man hours later, they finally get it.

They didn't debunk anything, they simply failed to find a drone reality. Big difference.


I'm not sure why all the sour grapes. The DRT, as they became to be known, only tried to keep an open mind, and were dragged over the flames for "only" trying to prove a "drone reality". That certainly wasn't the case, but it's much easier to lump people together when one has already made up his/her mind.

It was their money to spend, so what's the big deal. Let's count up the boat loads of cash spent on the Roswell Myth, and any number of questionable sightings. 99% of them are bunk in my book, but it only takes one to be real, too bad it wasn't the "egg beaters to the stars".

Same bat channel, same bat time, and the same old game, just some new players.
« Last Edit: Dec 28th, 2009, 9:43pm by Leibowitz » User IP Logged

tommi01
Gold Member
ImageImageImageImageImage


member is offline

Avatar




PM


Posts: 3950
xx Re: Drone Discussion #10
« Reply #1225 on: Dec 28th, 2009, 10:52pm »

3) From: Mr. Smith
Subject: Birmingham, Alabama, "Drone" Above Power Line
Date: May 26, 2007
To: earthfiles@earthfiles.com

"Dear Ms. Howe,

I saw your info on your site and appreciate it. Now today I see we are back to fake, so can you get me a job in Hollywood? What I saw is what appears on my photo (Birmingham, Alabama). I do not have time to play. I will go over details again for the Photoshop doubters.

I work on a military base near the Alabama Georgia border and live on the Alabama side. I have a very small side-business of construction site clean-up and disposal. We usually have a small crew of part-timers
who clean up for contractors. Sometimes people recommend us for projects of various sizes. I go and look the site over and take pictures of the site to show to my crew to see what they think. This is why I was taking pictures that day. I realized that the site was too big for our small crew and for our experience. The poles were part of the site. Power poles that were to feed power to the site and building.

I heard a sound like a transformer and looked up. I saw something
that looked like a fancy street light that I thought was part of the pole, just like a light would be. I moved a little to get a shot of it to show the guys. When I did I noticed that the thing was not attached to the pole, but was maybe attached to the wires, it did not move at all. It was stationary.
I thought this is something new from Alabama Power. I'll take a picture and show the guys back at work when I see what they think about the job.

I then went to find someone to ask what the power company was up to. When I found nobody who had time to look, I came back and the
thing was gone. I thought, well, the power people got that out of here in a hurry. I figured they used a bucket, one was near, to move it. I thought that is weird and a little later I saw the trucks and trailers and thought that was weird again. I was impressed by the Dodge Rams and took a couple
of pictures from my car with my cell phone.

That is the end of the story until I saw a picture on the net that reminded me of the thing I saw. It might have been a balloon or kite or toy,
I don't know, but I saw it. I can't get involved with any crazy military stuff and there is plenty. I can understand why people just do not report things they see out here in the rural world because of the ignorant attacks. I do not even know what Photo Shopping is and do not want to know. My life is complicated enough.

This week I showed my info to a friend of mine who was in the U. S. Air Force and he said for me to shut up. This was a friendly suggestion. I got in touch with him about me talking with you and he said he would do a little checking. He did and got back to me. He said do not speak by any type of phone because this will fix them right on top of you. He said that e-mail was less of a threat to them because it could be dealt with!!?? By the way he has a fairly high rank and is retired so I guess he knows what he is talking about. Why would my friend say that 'they' had less problems with email and who are 'they'?"
User IP Logged

tommi01
Gold Member
ImageImageImageImageImage


member is offline

Avatar




PM


Posts: 3950
xx Re: Drone Discussion #10
« Reply #1226 on: Dec 28th, 2009, 11:26pm »

LMH received 2 witnesses just after this sighting was posted. To help establish this sighting? In concert with this event or are there copycat witnesses showing up?
Conspiracy or coincidence? ... you decide smiley
User IP Logged

Jeddyhi
Senior Member
ImageImageImageImage


member is offline

Avatar




PM

Gender: Male
Posts: 589
xx Re: Drone Discussion #10
« Reply #1227 on: Dec 28th, 2009, 11:27pm »

on Dec 28th, 2009, 9:35pm, Leibowitz wrote:
I'm not sure why all the sour grapes. The DRT, as they became to be known, only tried to keep an open mind, and were dragged over the flames for "only" trying to prove a "drone reality". That certainly wasn't the case, but it's much easier to lump people together when one has already made up his/her mind.

It was their money to spend, so what's the big deal. Let's count up the boat loads of cash spent on the Roswell Myth, and any number of questionable sightings. 99% of them are bunk in my book, but it only takes one to be real, too bad it wasn't the "egg beaters to the stars".

Same bat channel, same bat time, and the same old game, just some new players.


If your going to equate the Roswell incident with the drones, then excuse me while I laugh hysterically.

The difference, Leibowitz, is that the DRT refused to listen to anyone that had a pro hoax view. Even professional assessments from experts in the field of CGI were refuted.

They fell for the hoax the hardest because of some sharp daytime photos. They set out to prove everyone wrong. Of course we all knew where that would eventually lead them.....to a sudden realization that everyone else was right and they were wrong all along.

I personally will not credit the DRT with debunking anything because they did not. Rather they failed in proving a drone reality, which is what they wanted, believed in, and strived for.

You'll hear them say "we were looking for the truth" but yet that truth was exaggerated into a drone reality at every opportunity. Remember the 'dangerous' area around the Chad sighting? So scary, no hoaxer would ever go in there lol.

If you want to defend their honor, have at it. We all know the score.
User IP Logged

"Nothing will ever claim ownership of the original Drone information, so copyright is not a question. Use it."- Masker33
DrDil
Global Moderator
ImageImageImageImageImage


member is offline

Avatar

Fighting against truth decay!!


Homepage PM

Gender: Male
Posts: 4224
xx Re: Drone Discussion #10
« Reply #1228 on: Dec 29th, 2009, 03:25am »

on Dec 28th, 2009, 8:48pm, Katterfelto wrote:
Ah, what the heck. I'll bite. grin

From Nemo at DRT:

It seems to me that the open debate is totally missing the occasion to ask Lev/Maskers why he decided to forge a story, while he seemed to support the whole drone affair.

Some people may not realize that he is the guy living in Cochran, GA...


grin

Heh, heh and some people may not realise that Nemo *thinks* Masker is Lev…..

Some people may not realise that they *know* Lev posts there under his own name so why not simply ask Leviathan?

People may not realise that Nemo discounted the earlier hoax admitted by Lev and sent to UFOCasebook…..

People may not realise that the DRT segregated themselves…..

People may not realise Nemo, OTF, 11a, Lat etc. etc. are members here so can ask Masker is they want to, although he isn’t obliged to answer and I wouldn’t blame him.

People may not realise that the DRT refuses/refused to share information……

There's no reason Nemo can't ask himself if he wants any answers off Masker or anyone else here.

*Edit: Bah Humbug!! grin
« Last Edit: Dec 29th, 2009, 05:45am by DrDil » User IP Logged

Can't keep my eyes from the circling skies,
Tongue-tied & twisted, just an earth-bound misfit.
Katterfelto
Guest
xx Re: Drone Discussion #10
« Reply #1229 on: Dec 29th, 2009, 08:39am »

on Dec 28th, 2009, 10:52pm, tomi01uk wrote:
3) From: Mr. Smith
Subject: Birmingham, Alabama, "Drone" Above Power Line
Date: May 26, 2007
To: earthfiles@earthfiles.com

"Dear Ms. Howe,
........
I go and look the site over and take pictures of the site to show to my crew to see what they think. This is why I was taking pictures that day. I realized that the site was too big for our small crew and for our experience. The poles were part of the site. Power poles that were to feed power to the site and building.
.......

What big construction site? He has a small crew and has to go out taking pictures of it first - to bid? Makes no sense.
Not to mention (as by others) the poles are not near that truck. This was also described as a dusty site.
The wire (hose?), out the trailer window(?) if not photoshopped appears to be going around tree into house, not up a pole.
Why did he take picture from car of the truck? Was it before or after he walked away to find someone to ask what it was? It simply don't add up.
I love these ex-military types who know someone who tells them to keep quiet. Guy sounds like he has an atitude problem too - has no time to play. grin grin grin

May be worthwhile to review the discussions of 2 years + ago. Don't know if I got the stomach for it. tongue
User IP Logged

Pages: 1 ... 80 81 82 83 84  ...  100 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