Board Logo
« Drone Discussion #10 »

Welcome Guest. Please Login or Register.
Jun 26th, 2017, 2:09pm


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 ... 49 50 51 52 53  ...  100 Notify Send Topic Print
 sticky  Author  Topic: Drone Discussion #10  (Read 36472 times)
Jeddyhi
Senior Member
ImageImageImageImage


member is offline

Avatar




PM

Gender: Male
Posts: 589
xx Re: Drone Discussion #10
« Reply #750 on: Oct 16th, 2009, 9:23pm »

on Oct 16th, 2009, 5:58pm, Albert wrote:
There are certain researchers that believe that there are more than 3 dimensions, the best way to describe it is as follows:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uDaKzQNlMFw

Ofcourse this is not the answer only, this theory affects the drones:

If we assume there are multiple other "3d" worlds adjacent to our own world, and only accessible
from the 4th dimension, some of these worlds may have developed slightly differently than our world,
and here I especially think about the development of the language Katakana:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katakana

Now, if these Japanese ethnics in another world have found a way to venture into the 4th dimension,
by sending off probes, maybe the Drones are of that nature. And the writing on them, including the
writing on the LAP, therefore are Katakana, only slight different from "our" evolvement of the same
language.

This actually fits all, even the appearances of the Drones, and why there is text written on the side
that faces Earth, so that it can be seen by humans. If this is true, they are still alien to our world, but still made by humans, only the creators are from a different 3d world, one of the many that lays side by side to our 3d world. It also fits the philosophy that the "language" of the Drones not only are some form of maschine code, it also have properties of a spoken/written language, only slightly different from what is known here in our 3d world. The LAP schematics may infact show how to enter the
4th dimension. Or, is it hidden in the "Barcode"?

But, this ofcourse can only happen, if the "Japanese" (that are slightly different from "our" Japanese)
that live in an adjacent 3d world, have developed access to the 4th dimension. That we cannot prove as of today, unless we take the Drones as evidence.

Additional material:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/horizon/2001/paralleluni.shtml

Scientists now believe there may really be a parallel universe - in fact, there may be an infinite number of parallel universes, and we just happen to live in one of them. These other universes contain space, time and strange forms of exotic matter. Some of them may even contain you, in a slightly different form

--o0o--

http://courses.washington.edu/phys55x/Many%20Universes%2C%20Several%20Theories.htm

--o0o--

http://www.astro.umd.edu/~immler/Lecture_17.pdf





Okay, I understand where you are coming from but let me address a few issues I have. First of all, I understand that quantum physics allows for multiple universes or rather parallel universes. Quantum physics states that for every decision we make that a different universe exists where we made a different decision.

If one parallel universe formed a way to breach another, and even if their Katakana was slightly different, it doesn't account for the symbol's proclaimed ability to be self executing software that Isaac describes in his narrative.

The thing about the drones is if you begin to give them a glimmer of believability, then Isaac's tale is correct. You can't have drones without Isaac and you can't have Isaac without the drones. The two factors are intertwined.

So whether the Katakana is slightly different or not, it better have the ability to be the self executing symbols that Isaac describes. And according to him, it is not Katana, but of an Alien source.
« Last Edit: Oct 16th, 2009, 9:27pm by Jeddyhi » User IP Logged

"Nothing will ever claim ownership of the original Drone information, so copyright is not a question. Use it."- Masker33
Double Nought Spy
Gold Member
ImageImageImageImageImage


member is offline

Avatar




PM


Posts: 1429
xx Re: Drone Discussion #10
« Reply #751 on: Oct 16th, 2009, 9:43pm »

My god! They are just like cockroaches! tongue
User IP Logged


All sane people detest noise. --Mark Twain

YourWorstNightmare
Guest
xx Re: Drone Discussion #10
« Reply #752 on: Oct 17th, 2009, 01:28am »

I almost miss Robert..Yes Double I think those and
if albert is correct..thanthere are Japanese, and even Sci-fi channels and even..arghh LMHs and hoaxers.. in the other multiverses as well..
and occasionally one leaks into the other..it seems Hoaxers ( why does it always have to be craft )from the other planes have been filtering thru after all..
We should continue our best to send them back..thru whatevr Port Hole they dropped from.

Has Albert with this profusion of insight written Daniel Sheehan about his writing..who allegedly has the real mcoy. or Corresponded even with any of the science links physicists or even editors..he and and the link monster iam miami lovest to shower but never detail.. .And which Levs group via Atto tried to make a connection with their Gibberish like Isaacs.. Rather than disputing us here in a forum one would think with that wealth of information .it would be more than excercises in quantum mechanicss and saying over and over look what they are talking about somewhere else, but none have Caret as part of any thesis, let alone their abstract theoretical topics conversation..Why taking the premise thru, Caret would based on that be proof of their own work..yet not one has come foward despite the TV and press..The answer should be obvious why not..Its possible in Alberts head.in universes or alternate reality number 666, .but basd on what has been uncovered..for caret at least..improbable, being generous and polite.

Every post for has in fact taken down farther and farther fomm remotely..possible to definitely something possible on another plane of reality..
As Double is fond of saying..At least he can get lunch or a turkey sandwich in this reality....I dont know how nourishing eating a picture of one is..Thats what we are being asked to do..

Let them eat it..they cooked it up...I caution..it looks overdone..
« Last Edit: Oct 17th, 2009, 03:56am by YourWorstNightmare » User IP Logged

Albert
Guest
xx Re: Drone Discussion #10
« Reply #753 on: Oct 17th, 2009, 03:51am »

on Oct 16th, 2009, 9:23pm, Jeddyhi wrote:
Okay, I understand where you are coming from but let me address a few issues I have. First of all, I understand that quantum physics allows for multiple universes or rather parallel universes. Quantum physics states that for every decision we make that a different universe exists where we made a different decision.

If one parallel universe formed a way to breach another, and even if their Katakana was slightly different, it doesn't account for the symbol's proclaimed ability to be self executing software that Isaac describes in his narrative.

The thing about the drones is if you begin to give them a glimmer of believability, then Isaac's tale is correct. You can't have drones without Isaac and you can't have Isaac without the drones. The two factors are intertwined.

So whether the Katakana is slightly different or not, it better have the ability to be the self executing symbols that Isaac describes. And according to him, it is not Katana, but of an Alien source.


I see absolutely no problem about the drones being equipped with antigravity, cloaking device etc. and the language might still have a self executing function. And ofcourse the language have an alien source, as other worlds maschinery would be alien to our world.

In fact, it might be some standard tools, and/or what is needed to travel in the way the drone(s) do.

About the Isaac testimony, who says the workers at CARET were told the full truth? I'm quite sure they wouldn't find out by themselves, and if this should happen there are ways of controlling that too. (See the video I posted earlier regarding the Art Bell show phonecall).

And, about reality - I think this is as good an explanation as any other, including the hoax theory. This forum deals with UFO sightings and the like, despite what many would say, there are very little reality in that topic too. Not that it matters, ofcourse.

Now, I certainly do not want to convince you, that what I present are the god forsaken truth, I was merely pointing out that the subject was not discussed much in here, nothing more.

I hereby apologize for wasting your time, please continue with what you were doing....
« Last Edit: Oct 17th, 2009, 03:59am by Albert » User IP Logged

YourWorstNightmare
Guest
xx Re: Drone Discussion #10
« Reply #754 on: Oct 17th, 2009, 04:08am »

the science was never an issue..only to bring up theories of propulsion..and lets not forget the substrates and nanotech..all trigger words for anyone current in science..if I recall..I am sure we can do the very same for any image of something shot floating in the air..moving as was explained by the phony witnesses like a bug..much like they , like bugs..did when attempts to locate them ..fairly moot issues because they were faked too.. by now..academic I think..Numbesr had very very detailed explainations..have you asked him?

We are ferreting out hoaxters..as whats left to complete the topic of the thread..the Truth..and I can assure an interesting discussion on Quantum physics, not to impugn you or your thoughts Albert, will not help us do that..

g'day
« Last Edit: Oct 17th, 2009, 04:16am by YourWorstNightmare » User IP Logged

Radi
Full Member
ImageImageImage


member is offline

Avatar




Homepage PM


Posts: 176
xx Re: Drone Discussion #10
« Reply #755 on: Oct 17th, 2009, 04:50am »

on Oct 17th, 2009, 03:51am, Albert wrote:
And, about reality - I think this is as good an explanation as any other, including the hoax theory. ...


Did you know that the Hoax theroy is based on REAL FACTS and not conjecture and unproven statements...
User IP Logged

Klatunictobarata
Guest
xx Re: !
« Reply #756 on: Oct 17th, 2009, 05:06am »

on Oct 16th, 2009, 6:58pm, Albert wrote:
Why buy the cow.....you know cheesy

About the drone hoaxters...I think it's up your alley.. smiley

As mentioned above, you get what you go for

Cheers


"Why buy the cow.....you get what you go for"

Interesting choice of words.

Could it possibly be that English is NOT Albert's primary language?

Perhaps ALBERT is correctly phonetically pronounced:

'ALL BEAR?'
User IP Logged

Radi
Full Member
ImageImageImage


member is offline

Avatar




Homepage PM


Posts: 176
xx Re: !
« Reply #757 on: Oct 17th, 2009, 05:16am »

on Oct 17th, 2009, 05:06am, Klatunictobarata wrote:
"Why buy the cow.....you get what you go for"

Interesting choice of words.

Could it possibly be that English is NOT Albert's primary language?

Perhaps ALBERT is correctly phonetically pronounced:

'ALL BEAR?'


Shouldn't that have been "You get what you pay for"
grin
So I guess nothing was paid so we get nothing.. smiley
« Last Edit: Oct 17th, 2009, 05:17am by Radi » User IP Logged

Klatunictobarata
Guest
xx Re: !
« Reply #758 on: Oct 17th, 2009, 05:22am »

on Oct 17th, 2009, 05:16am, Radi wrote:
Shouldn't that have been "You get what you pay for"
grin
So I guess nothing was paid so we get nothing.. smiley


Oui!
User IP Logged

Klatunictobarata
Guest
xx Re: Drone Discussion #10
« Reply #759 on: Oct 17th, 2009, 05:42am »

on Oct 16th, 2009, 5:58pm, Albert wrote:
This actually fits all, even the appearances of the Drones, and why there is text written on the side
that faces Earth, so that it can be seen by humans.


"why there is text written on the side
that faces Earth, so that it can be seen by humans."




With all due respects Albert, might I ask this question:

How do we know that there was no writing at all on the top of the drone arms and superstructure or on the sides not facing the camera on the ground?

How do we know that?
User IP Logged

Klatunictobarata
Guest
xx Re: Drone Discussion #10
« Reply #760 on: Oct 17th, 2009, 05:51am »

This is for Albert and for Falcon and a big one for Tomi!

The 5th Dimension - Up, Up and Away (in my Beautiful Balloon)








User IP Logged

tommi01
Gold Member
ImageImageImageImageImage


member is offline

Avatar




PM


Posts: 3940
xx Re: Drone Discussion #10
« Reply #761 on: Oct 17th, 2009, 07:04am »

Who the hell is falcon now... rolleyes

User IP Logged

DrDil
Global Moderator
ImageImageImageImageImage


member is offline

Avatar

Fighting against truth decay!!


Homepage PM

Gender: Male
Posts: 4224
xx Re: Drone Discussion #10
« Reply #762 on: Oct 17th, 2009, 07:11am »

on Oct 14th, 2009, 6:45pm, tomi01uk wrote:
I can answer those, but I do not want to have to go through a major grilling of my opinions, which have changed as much as time has changed the circumstances involved in this.

Everything I'm saying about the persuit of a copyright infringement case by the creator(s) of the LAP would be because of what I have seen recently and please don't ask me to draw up which months this covers up to now.


Hi Tomi, smiley

Allow me to offer a reply to your last questions then I think we’re just going to have to agree to disagree on this one as it seems neither one of us is content with the scenario presented by the other (nothing new there then!! grin)

I’m not saying it’s intentional on your behalf but your consistent omission of my text immediately prior to my sentences you quote raise some suspicion as every time so far it has been framed in such a way that my intent is no longer obvious (so it’s a good job I’m not the suspicious type!!)

I knew for a fact that you’d state the change in circumstances regarding displaying what appear to be sections of the LAP on their new case designs and this is why I pre-empted it with the statements that you have omitted, you posted the following:

User Image


And if you have a look at what I actually wrote you’ll see that I was quoting someone else’s “take” on copyright law and asking if you agreed:

User Image


But not only that it’s also apparent that I asked four questions and I was pleasantly surprised you offered a point-by-point reply, however….. Since you omitted the third question completely and it was the only one that really mattered then I feel I should elaborate. The only reason I asked the first two were as an overly obvious lead-in to the one you ignored, or a better way of phrasing it is they were the frame for the question you ignored regarding whether or not the LAP was public domain.

Because as well as providing a quote regarding the public domain aspect (as above) I also followed it up with one of your quotes regarding this exact aspect:

User Image


So perhaps you can see that the question you answered, or the reasoning you gave (and I thought I’d pre-empted) wasn’t what I was driving at Tomi. What I was driving at was the fact that once something is put in the public domain then all bets are off!! Or more importantly NOT because as you stated:

on Oct 14th, 2009, 7:14pm, tomi01uk wrote:
It was put into the public domain by not being defended. There is still time to defend it if the creator(s) get off the stick................

But purely because Isaac stated the following:

User Image


And consequently what I was suggesting by the, ‘little bit pregnant’ quip was there’s no halfway-house with public domain, it either is or it isn’t as if you can’t state that it’s ‘not for profit’ then how could you state it is not to be used unless in its entirety?

I should also mention that all of my questions are solely inspired by points that you yourself have raised and also applying the logic of your own statements to them.

A more succinct way of looking at it is when you say:

“It was put into the public domain by not being defended” (Tomi_2009)

Yet as already shown Tomi_2007 unequivocally stated that:

“It is in the public domain”

User Image


Also this was stated in November 2007 and as I hope you can appreciate there is no wriggle-room available here, one of the Tomi’s is wrong, there can be no escaping it as you earlier stated the reasoning that Alienware’s lawyers gave it the go ahead was because it was in the public domain (your words).

This compounds the error as it now appears you’re saying that it’s public domain because no defence has been offered? I also hope you can appreciate that the only reason this is an issue is because of your personal involvement in similar cases and subsequently the personal experience that you are drawing on which is indeed first-hand experience.

As surely if first-hand experience dictates to you two completely opposite conclusions regarding something as fundamental to copyright law as what constitutes, “Public domain” at different points in time then frankly it doesn’t even seem reliable to me, much less beyond reproach?

Don’t worry about it though (as I don’t wink) and I learned my lesson with your refusal to accept you were wrong over the Fortunecity logo, well more precisely after I explained perfectly clearly why you were in error with your assertions it seemed that every other member grasped it straight away and you point blankly refused to even acknowledge it. kiss

Cheers. grin
User IP Logged

Can't keep my eyes from the circling skies,
Tongue-tied & twisted, just an earth-bound misfit.
tommi01
Gold Member
ImageImageImageImageImage


member is offline

Avatar




PM


Posts: 3940
xx Re: Drone Discussion #10
« Reply #763 on: Oct 17th, 2009, 07:58am »

Drdil... as you know I can be a bit thick... sometimes when it comes to specific points that I block out because i deem them to not be as important as an aspect I'm trying to establish or persue.

Can you specify then for the future exactly what it is in that logo that I didn't get? All aspects of that "mistake" from the time I posted it till the end of the last diatribe at me are relatively inconsequencial to the point I had mistakenly tried to make about an example of what might be considered "derivative work" with enough originality to be in itself copyrightable IMO... But because its genesis wasn't even the LAP, it was a dumb association to make to begin with..

Now what else can I say there??
« Last Edit: Oct 17th, 2009, 07:59am by tommi01 » User IP Logged

Jeddyhi
Senior Member
ImageImageImageImage


member is offline

Avatar




PM

Gender: Male
Posts: 589
xx Re: Drone Discussion #10
« Reply #764 on: Oct 17th, 2009, 08:04am »

on Oct 17th, 2009, 03:51am, Albert wrote:
(See the video I posted earlier regarding the Art Bell show phonecall).

....


Are you aware the caller called back and confessed to hoaxing Art? He even went right into the 'upset,scared, panicked' mode on command. The power going out was an unexpected bonus to the hoax.

User IP Logged

"Nothing will ever claim ownership of the original Drone information, so copyright is not a question. Use it."- Masker33
Pages: 1 ... 49 50 51 52 53  ...  100 Notify Send Topic Print
« Previous Topic | Next Topic »

Become a member of the UFO Casebook Forum today and join our more than 18,000 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