UFO Casebook
Board Announcements & News >> The Drone Mystery, Isaac's Account >> Drone Discussion #10
http://ufocasebook.conforums.com/index.cgi?board=drone&action=display&num=1253635686

Drone Discussion #10
Post by DrDil on Sep 22nd, 2009, 11:08am

This is a continuation of the 2007 California Drone discussion.


Previous Drone thread (#9) is located here.


The Original Drone Sightings are as follows:

1) The *Chad* Drone, originally posted at the Coast2Coast Website.
URL: http://www.ufocasebook.com/strangecraftphotos.html

2) The *Lake Tahoe* Drone - Mufon <submitter> 7013
URL: http://www.ufocasebook.com/strangecraftdrone.html

3) The *Rajman1977* Drone, originally posted at Flickr.
URL: http://www.ufocasebook.com/strangecraft3.html

4) The *Jenna L/Stephen* Drone, originally posted at UFOCasebook.
URL: http://www.ufocasebook.com/bigbasin.html

5) The *Ty* Drone, originally posted at Earthfiles:
URL: http://tinyurl.com/4cpcgk

The *Isaac* documentation, originally posted at Fortunecity.com.:
URL: http://isaaccaret.fortunecity.com/


Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by DrDil on Sep 22nd, 2009, 11:08am

I appreciate all sides of the argument but if any of you have proof Tomi is involved in the Drone hoax then bring it on, otherwise not only are you making her a martyr to the cause but the last few pages of the other thread was, well, embarrassing and just plain uncomfortable to read.

Why can’t you realise that the more you finger-point and cast baseless aspersions that you are ultimately no better than what you accuse Tomi of being?

Worse still this is a bunch of people who all allegedly have the same interest at heart, i.e. UFOlogy and any truth that is contained therein, so do you really think ridiculing Tomi is the way forward?

At the end of the day practically everyone knows the Drones were indeed a hoax and I think you should look inside yourselves and try to figure out why just because a very small group of people can’t see it that it apparently causes you so much personal anguish. I made my peace with the DRT and their funky beliefs quite a while back and I think I’m the only one who is still banned from viewing theirs & Nemo’s boards, but so what? It’s obvious what their agenda is and good luck to them…..

Any posts containing further accusations without proof or what could be perceived as school-yard bullying will be removed, so please step back, assess the situation and above all, get a grip people.

As you were…..

Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by Double Nought Spy on Sep 22nd, 2009, 11:32am

Why not just close this down then? Oh, yeah, I keep forgetting the hit counter...
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by DrDil on Sep 22nd, 2009, 11:37am

on Sep 22nd, 2009, 11:32am, Double Knit Spy wrote:
Why not just close this down then? Oh, yeah, I keep forgetting the hit counter...

Ha, ha, you must be joking, there’s only about six of us who read & contribute to it!! laugh

But please feel free to stop visiting…..

Cheers.

Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by SiddReader on Sep 22nd, 2009, 11:39am

Finally... The voice of reason! wink

Here are the answers to the "ask Sidd"-posts:

1. Tomi had simply mentioned, that she had spent so much time with the drones and she did not want to end it just like that. Yes, she had thought that it would be a great book or film at one point.
When Sys asked me for news, I told him, that I had no contact at that time and that the above thoughts were the last thing, I had heard of her. This does not make Tomi a producer of a movie at all.

2. The Reyes-group was just a Yahoo-group. I don't think it was hidden or secret. But I don't know, if one could simply ask for getting a member or if it was necessary to get an invitation. I guess, everybody could have joined.

Hope this answers the questions.
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by Double Nought Spy on Sep 22nd, 2009, 11:48am

So what does this mean, exactly?

Topic: #9 The Drone Enigma A Global Search For The Truth (Read 23803 times)
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by Jeddyhi on Sep 22nd, 2009, 11:52am

Of course there is no proof Tomi is a hoaxer or an agent of deception.....she just fits the profile based on her actions and posts. At this late stage of the game, with everything that is now known about the drones, anybody that still pushes a drone agenda is either a hoaxer or a agent of disinfo. She comes here everyday to mingle with the drone skeptics. Why?

I certainly will not entertain her agenda any longer. I impose a self ban on myself to stay out of this thread.

I bid you all farewell and leave you with a warning. Do not believe a thing from the DRT or Tomi. They are not on the up and up.

Real cases are out there, Gentlemen, the distraction has lasted long enough.

See you in other threads and other forums but I am done here.
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by DrDil on Sep 22nd, 2009, 12:05pm

on Sep 22nd, 2009, 11:48am, Double Knit Spy wrote:
So what does this mean, exactly?

Topic: #9 The Drone Enigma A Global Search For The Truth (Read 23803 times)

Obviously I can only tell you what it means to me and in that context it appears that you’re implying I somehow have something to gain from the amount of board views a thread I’m moderating receives.

When I made my first post a little while ago I’d literally just walked in from work, believe me when I say that the until you posted the amount of views was completely unknown to me as was the fact you think so little of my motivations and intent. If the roles were reversed I certainly wouldn’t waste my time on someone and something I evidently have such a low opinion of.

But that's just me.....
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by Double Nought Spy on Sep 22nd, 2009, 12:21pm

We all have lots of motives, some admirable and some not. I do not have a low opinion of you, but I have trouble figuring out why you keep giving a platform to the one remaining dronie and then criticizing us for calling BS. Everybody knows it's BS.
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by DrDil on Sep 22nd, 2009, 12:38pm

on Sep 22nd, 2009, 12:21pm, Double Knit Spy wrote:
We all have lots of motives, some admirable and some not. I do not have a low opinion of you, but I have trouble figuring out why you keep giving a platform to the one remaining dronie and then criticizing us for calling BS. Everybody knows it's BS.

Agreed which is why I wrote:

on Sep 22nd, 2009, 11:08am, DrDil wrote:
At the end of the day practically everyone knows the Drones were indeed a hoax

<snip>

If every single member of the DRT were to post/register here then that would be absolutely fine, I’d willingly facilitate a platform for them all to state their views without ridicule.

Disagree? Yes.

State that they’re wrong? Yes.

Highlight the error of their ways? But of course!!

It’s only the ridicule that’s the problem, after all this time and how well we superficially know each other even stating that you believe Tomi has an agenda is just fine, it’s the unnecessarily nasty comments I was referencing and I hoped everyone knew this.

(Sorry to see you go Jed…..)

Cheers.

Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by YourWorstNightmare on Sep 22nd, 2009, 12:55pm

on Sep 22nd, 2009, 11:39am, SiddReader wrote:
Finally... The voice of reason! wink

Here are the answers to the "ask Sidd"-posts:

1. Tomi had simply mentioned, that she had spent so much time with the drones and she did not want to end it just like that. Yes, she had thought that it would be a great book or film at one point.
When Sys asked me for news, I told him, that I had no contact at that time and that the above thoughts were the last thing, I had heard of her. This does not make Tomi a producer of a movie at all.

2. The Reyes-group was just a Yahoo-group. I don't think it was hidden or secret. But I don't know, if one could simply ask for getting a member or if it was necessary to get an invitation. I guess, everybody could have joined.

Hope this answers the questions.


How is it ony you and Tomi and three others found..odd isnt it? right at the onset when interest was greatest..nobody else heard of it..and the draft was introduced by Tomi which she said she stumbled upon..she forgot she was a member of the group..no need to stumble..no not secret..but hidden ..especially since Reyes said he had students yet the group stayed same size..then vanished..along with Reyes..who you said was interviwed by linda..but she never used the interview..cancelled mention and booked to UK..its not he was a no show..she changed her mind..

Of course thats just me

As for Tomi who who changed more adresses in FL than you can shake a stick at, in 2008 conducted searches of me..according via reunion.com all info was for floriday.now in 2009..uk appears a s a sweet old 60 year old woman..shows up quite nicely. covering maiden name as well as married name..what prompted the change?

I agree double..this is most Flaky..
and im not the one shedding flakes..

Doc is there anyreason why the Lev directory was moved..I needed to compare some older Fotos...would you email the new link..
Thank you.

cheers all..


Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by Jeddyhi on Sep 22nd, 2009, 12:57pm

on Sep 22nd, 2009, 12:38pm, DrDil wrote:
(Sorry to see you go Jed…..)

Cheers.


I'll still be around. I love Casebook and appreciate being allowed to voice my opinion.

I'm just through dancing with Tomi. tongue
My self imposed ban from this thread has changed to a self imposed ban to ignore Tomi. cool

If I see a post that is interesting, enlightening, amazing or incredible, I still may chime in from time to time.

Thank you DrDil, for your excellent moderating and patience! wink
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by YourWorstNightmare on Sep 22nd, 2009, 1:42pm

My fondest memory of you Jedd was when you asked about the cement drive..that was the straw that broke the camels back and led to discovery of numbers lying, the Restaurant, the phony witness report of new sightings down the road , the PIs adresses, up the road..there was no stopping the truth then..I am in your debt for your persistence.

I want you to know I was also impressed..with your early days..thoughts .in pre 2000 ..you are a bonafide credit to this field..Lord knows I wish we hundreds like you..to unrave the thousands of lies in the subterfuge going on..

You really should consider wrting..it was certainly a pleasure reading you.
Im glad your not leaving..either..
I think an off/on ignore button would work fine...and protects the right of free speech..and even help in cooling off moments..but its not my house..


I salute you

Manny
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by masker33 on Sep 22nd, 2009, 2:42pm

Tomi, you have the basics figured and you know it was no viral marketing. They compare it with O'Hare which was fake photos from one end to the other. While O'Hare was an unknown the Drones were not. A hoax is an easy term to apply to them and convenient, it files them neatly away for now. I have found that disinformation flows both ways and the best thing to do is take advantage of it. The Drones have been labeled a minor hoax and and erstwhile myth. Just what was wanted. Ufology remains a marvelous cover.
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by Jeddyhi on Sep 22nd, 2009, 3:06pm

on Sep 22nd, 2009, 2:42pm, Masker33 wrote:
Tomi, you have the basics figured and you know it was no viral marketing. They compare it with O'Hare which was fake photos from one end to the other. While O'Hare was an unknown the Drones were not. A hoax is an easy term to apply to them and convenient, it files them neatly away for now. I have found that disinformation flows both ways and the best thing to do is take advantage of it. The Drones have been labeled a minor hoax and and erstwhile myth. Just what was wanted. Ufology remains a marvelous cover.


Fake photos did come out concerning O'Hare, and were immediately recognized as such. The sighting nonetheless remains 100 times more credible than the drone case.
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by SiddReader on Sep 22nd, 2009, 3:32pm

on Sep 22nd, 2009, 12:55pm, YourWorstNightmare wrote:
How is it ony you and Tomi and three others found..odd isnt it?


As an observer from outside I only can say, that it is odd, that in UFOlogy nobody tells the things as they were. This is a repeating pattern - believer or skeptic. Everybody is producing his/her own reality and is totally closed to facts. Usually this is then called "open minded" or "common sense", as Occam's razor is turned around three or four times.

If nothing else helps, there are many Capital letters to use and finally we got the PTB, who even influence our alien friends. - Or how could it be, that our aliens don't dare to show themselves, if they are not after Whitley's backside?

You find it odd, that we were there very early? I find it odd, that not one of those alleged researchers had the idea to write to Reyes after Linda published his mail on earthfiles.
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by masker33 on Sep 22nd, 2009, 3:56pm

Ufology is a cover generated and maintained. For what, well that is what it is all about. This thread was sure that this Drone Saga was viral marketing. Are you now!. Now its a minor hoax and yes it may very well have been a distraction for the moment. I do not care to get into personalities here that is the JOB of others. What ever you want to call the Drones, they worked. As to the LAP: Drafix CAD and HP Plotter? Also all programs such as Maya are vector. As in all Ufology the UFO's best friend is the UFO researcher. Long may they live.
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by SiddReader on Sep 22nd, 2009, 5:19pm

After I followed this, I would go even further: UFOlogy is like an aquarium. Inside are the dopefishes, that try to eat everything and outside are the children, who try to feed the fishes everything.

Outside of this room, the aquarium is not important at all. The fishes may tell their stories to each other and be happy.
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by Sheepdog on Sep 22nd, 2009, 6:23pm

on Sep 22nd, 2009, 3:56pm, Masker33 wrote:
What ever you want to call the Drones, they worked.

Why don't you explain how it/they worked in laymens language.
I already know how it worked to a few suckers and those with an interest to find the who's and why.
Tell me of the big picture if you dare.
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by murnut on Sep 22nd, 2009, 11:01pm

on Sep 22nd, 2009, 6:23pm, StaffLetter25 wrote:
Why don't you explain how it/they worked in laymens language.
I already know how it worked to a few suckers and those with an interest to find the who's and why.
Tell me of the big picture if you dare.


I can think of plenty of ways that the hoax was successful in it's mission.

The question is..... just what that mission was.

That's what the debate centers on now.

Viral advertising? Maybe....but I don't think so....I could be wrong.

Practical joke? Maybe....but I don't think so....I could be wrong.

Disinfo for Cointel? I don't know

Cointel fishing Expedition? I don't know

Cointel internet test? I don't know.

Whatever the case ,maybe the hoax had a value to someone or some organization.

Determining what aspect had the potential to produce the greatest value, for the hoaxers is what interests me at this point.

Value is subjective....depending on what was important to the hoaxers.

I see patterns over the years of ufology.

MJ-12 Docs and Doty, Doty and LMH, Doty and Paul Bennewitz, Serpo and Doty again, LMH and the Dive company.

Was Doty acting alone, or following orders?

Was there a "value" for someone or some organization as the result of Doty's actions?

Doty's not rich, is he?...what other motivation might there be?

With Doty removed, has someone(s) filled the void?

I'm speculating.

Some have speculated that the MJ-12 docs contained a code message that was meant for the Russians.

Might the Lap be something along those lines?

I doubt it, seems like a lot of trouble when there are much easier ways.


I think it's fair to speculate.

I think it is fair to speculate that some involved with the drone "research" aren't who they appear to be.

Just look at Bill Moore

I prefer transparency, and there has been very little from the supposed "researchers"

Who bankrolled the PI's is a fair question.

It's not been answered and there may be perfectly good reasons for that.

There are plenty of other questions that haven't been answered either, about the "researchers".

They don't have to answer, if they don't want to.

It is interesting to speculate on patterns though. wink





Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by TheShadow on Sep 23rd, 2009, 11:08am

The who and why IMO are not the most important things. The most important thing at this juncture is to be sure this does not go down in history as a possible real event!!

There is enough BS floating around touted as real that is not. My goal in posting is to make sure EVERYONE knows this was a hoax and it does not get spun into the archives of UFOlogy as reality.

We know there are those that are angling for just that...thanks to many dedicated and tenacious researchers and plain old common sense UFOlogists we know the truth and can make sure that does not happen!
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by DrDil on Sep 23rd, 2009, 1:19pm

on Sep 22nd, 2009, 12:57pm, Jeddyhi wrote:
I'll still be around. I love Casebook and appreciate being allowed to voice my opinion.

I'm just through dancing with Tomi. tongue
My self imposed ban from this thread has changed to a self imposed ban to ignore Tomi. cool

If I see a post that is interesting, enlightening, amazing or incredible, I still may chime in from time to time.

Thank you DrDil, for your excellent moderating and patience! wink

Thanks Jed it’s appreciated more than you know!!

And I'm looking forward to reading your posts as yours is an opinion I've always valued. smiley

(Oh and the ‘cheerleader’ thing was about right!! grin)

Best regards, wink
Doc.

Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by DrDil on Sep 23rd, 2009, 1:22pm

on Sep 23rd, 2009, 11:08am, TheShadow wrote:
The who and why IMO are not the most important things. The most important thing at this juncture is to be sure this does not go down in history as a possible real event!!

There is enough BS floating around touted as real that is not. My goal in posting is to make sure EVERYONE knows this was a hoax and it does not get spun into the archives of UFOlogy as reality.

We know there are those that are angling for just that...thanks to many dedicated and tenacious researchers and plain old common sense UFOlogists we know the truth and can make sure that does not happen!

I agree 100% Shads hence…..

Cheers!! grin

Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by Gort on Sep 23rd, 2009, 1:42pm

on Sep 23rd, 2009, 1:22pm, DrDil wrote:
I agree 100% Shads hence…..

Cheers!! grin


Same here
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by masker33 on Sep 23rd, 2009, 1:42pm

Quote:
Tell me of the big picture if you dare.


Nope.

Cheerleaders are required for a game. Also the Lev comment was typical of the source.

Ufology is just that a game and the Drones, as I have said before, are no more needed to be real than the rest of it.

The UFO scene becomes more stale by the minute and that is good.
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by DrDil on Sep 23rd, 2009, 2:24pm

on Sep 23rd, 2009, 1:42pm, Masker33 wrote:
Nope.

Cheerleaders are required for a game. Also the Lev comment was typical of the source.

Ufology is just that a game and the Drones, as I have said before, are no more needed to be real than the rest of it.

The UFO scene becomes more stale by the minute and that is good.

Again with the game? laugh

User Image

Typical for the source”?

While the subject is broached do/can you speak for Lev?

User Image


Don't hate the players.....
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by Jeddyhi on Sep 23rd, 2009, 3:17pm

He is Lev. I thought everyone knew that. Why do you think Tomi likes him so much lol grin
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by DrDil on Sep 23rd, 2009, 3:27pm

on Sep 23rd, 2009, 3:17pm, Jeddyhi wrote:
He is Lev. I thought everyone knew that.

He speaks of Lev in the third/fourth/fifth person only and I was seeking conformation from the horse’s mouth as it were but I fear it may have been truly beaten to death, if there was an iota of truth in the ‘group’ thing then we’ve witnessed the birth of yet another of Lev’s fractured personalities.

But I suspect the same as you in that he’s nowhere near as mysterious as that, no harm in seeking verification though…..

Cheers.

Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by masker33 on Sep 23rd, 2009, 3:52pm

I like Lev's work as I said when I came here. I do have information about this saga. Opinions are a dime a dozen and those here including mine are just that, except for the info I know. I like Tomi and enjoy her enthusiasm. The horse is dead, but many have learned what to do and what not to do next time. As I said I consider the sources and I am sure you do to. If the Drones are established as a hoax of whatever degree, it is close enough.
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by Jeddyhi on Sep 23rd, 2009, 3:55pm

User Image

In the above Screen capture, Masker (Lev) posted a pic of some Leviathan art. Notice the time of the post....3:44PM.

Now in the below screen capture from the DRT forum, Lev (Masker) posts the same art but over 15 minutes later. So Masker had access to the art and posted it before Lev at the DRT. They are one and the same. Thought everyone knew.


User Image
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by DrDil on Sep 23rd, 2009, 4:05pm

on Sep 23rd, 2009, 3:55pm, Jeddyhi wrote:
User Image

In the above Screen capture, Masker (Lev) posted a pic of some Leviathan art. Notice the time of the post....3:44PM.

Now in the below screen capture from the DRT forum, Lev (Masker) posts the same art but over 15 minutes later. So Masker had access to the art and posted it before Lev at the DRT. They are one and the same. Thought everyone knew.

Heh, heh, you misunderstood Jed, I merely wanted Masker to admit it.

The information you posted does indeed corroborate this fact but as you can see from Masker’s last post he again alludes to the ‘group’ thing (although ‘Hydra’ is infinitely more appropriate) but besides what you’ve posted there are many, many more coincidences that mark Masker as certainly from the same stable –if not- Lev.

Either way this ‘Lev’ is by far my favourite incarnation, but I have a feeling that was the reasoning behind the gentle prose (by direct comparison)…..

Cheers.

Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by TheShadow on Sep 23rd, 2009, 4:09pm

Every one knew but masker/lev/sybil! grin
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by Jeddyhi on Sep 23rd, 2009, 4:12pm

Sorry Doc! Didn't mean to mess up your plan though I don't think Masker would ever admit to being Lev. He was/is using this current incarnation as a means to keep his poker in the fire. I admit that this has been my favorite incarnation as well. It's as though he understands the drones are dead in the water but still likes to give tomi the occasional prod to keep drudging. wink
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by DrDil on Sep 23rd, 2009, 4:21pm

on Sep 23rd, 2009, 4:12pm, Jeddyhi wrote:
Sorry Doc! Didn't mean to mess up your plan though I don't think Masker would ever admit to being Lev. He was/is using this current incarnation as a means to keep his poker in the fire. I admit that this has been my favorite incarnation as well. It's as though he understands the drones are dead in the water but still likes to give tomi the occasional prod to keep drudging. wink

Ha, ha, it certainly wasn’t a plan otherwise I obviously wouldn’t have given up my methodology so easily!! laugh

I too don’t think he would admit it but by not –admitting it- he is also confirming that the farm-bound ‘group’ is still the catch-all explanation for what is at best described as schizophrenic tendencies (and I sincerely mean no offence Masker33 et al).

But I do have a question, was the signature *IC* representative of *interocitor* : *Indrid Cold* or none of the above?

Cheers. smiley

Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by TheShadow on Sep 23rd, 2009, 4:44pm

on Sep 23rd, 2009, 4:21pm, DrDil wrote:
But I do have a question, was the signature *IC* representative of *interocitor* : *Indrid Cold* or none of the above?

Cheers. smiley


IC=Isaac Caret!
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by masker33 on Sep 23rd, 2009, 4:50pm

Sorry, but you are wrong, but being associated with Lev helps. You must see that there is to be a carry on from here and manipulation within the internet and how "researchers" react is esensial. Now look harder and you will find even more or just wait for the "NEXT BIG THING". Poor Lev, if it only new.

No kidding you really have a problem here, but don't listen to US.

My guess IC = Indrid Cold, most often used.
grin grin grin grin grin grin

Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by DrDil on Sep 23rd, 2009, 4:59pm

on Sep 23rd, 2009, 4:50pm, Masker33 wrote:
Sorry, but you are wrong, but being associated with Lev helps. You must see that there is to be a carry on from here and manipulation within the internet and how "researchers" react is esensial. Now look harder and you will find even more or just wait for the "NEXT BIG THING". Poor Lev, if it only new.

No kidding you really have a problem here, but don't listen to US.

My guess IC = Indrid Cold, most often used.
grin grin grin grin grin grin

on Mar 22nd, 2008, 5:45pm, Truether wrote:
Whatever.

Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by Jeddyhi on Sep 23rd, 2009, 5:09pm

on Sep 23rd, 2009, 4:50pm, Masker33 wrote:
Sorry, but you are wrong, but being associated with Lev helps. You must see that there is to be a carry on from here and manipulation within the internet and how "researchers" react is esensial. Now look harder and you will find even more or just wait for the "NEXT BIG THING". Poor Lev, if it only new.

No kidding you really have a problem here, but don't listen to US.

My guess IC = Indrid Cold, most often used.
grin grin grin grin grin grin


You posted the same Leviathan art here on casebook 15 minutes before Leviathan posted it at the DRT and you claim you are not him.....thats hilarious....but expected! You can't even admit when your busted. grin grin grin grin grin grin
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by masker33 on Sep 23rd, 2009, 5:18pm

Whatever grin grin grin

How astute.


Quote:
You posted the same Leviathan art here on casebook 15 minutes before Leviathan posted it at the DRT and you claim you are not him.....thats hilarious....but expected! You can't even admit when your busted.


Try just a little harder and you might get it.
or Whatever. grin grin grin
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by Jeddyhi on Sep 23rd, 2009, 5:28pm

I got it a long time ago. Did you think you were fooling anybody? Come on! laugh laugh laugh laugh laugh laugh laugh

What is your explanation for posting Lev's art before Lev? This outta be good! grin grin grin grin
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by Sheepdog on Sep 23rd, 2009, 5:33pm

on Sep 23rd, 2009, 4:50pm, Masker33 wrote:
Sorry, but you are wrong, but being associated with Lev helps. You must see that there is to be a carry on from here and manipulation within the internet and how "researchers" react is esensial. Now look harder and you will find even more or just wait for the "NEXT BIG THING". Poor Lev, if it only new.

No kidding you really have a problem here, but don't listen to US.

Yawn.
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by elevenaugust on Sep 23rd, 2009, 5:34pm

FYI, the DRT date/time set is GMT +1 and there are five hours differences between UCB time and DRT time.

Actually, GMT time is 10:33PM, DRT time is 11:33PM and UCB is 06:33PM.
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by Double Nought Spy on Sep 23rd, 2009, 5:45pm

I liked Ascended Being Lev the best. At least his comical attempts at arrogance had a context then.

Well, old 666 Lev was pretty funny, too. The fun never ends around here.
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by Jeddyhi on Sep 23rd, 2009, 5:52pm

on Sep 23rd, 2009, 5:34pm, elevenaugust wrote:
FYI, the DRT date/time set is GMT +1 and there are five hours differences between UCB time and DRT time.

Actually, GMT time is 10:33PM, DRT time is 11:33PM and UCB is 06:33PM.


I'm not sure what that means in reference to which post was first, but by the mere fact that he posted the stuff on the same day, he is certainly associated with Lev. He posts like Lev! (because he is Lev)

Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by redlite on Sep 23rd, 2009, 6:15pm

No, it was 8:44 PM at DRT when it's 3:44 pm at UCB, 5 hours difference.
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by masker33 on Sep 23rd, 2009, 6:28pm

grin grin grin grin grin grin grin grin grin grin
Researchers all!!!
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by TheShadow on Sep 23rd, 2009, 6:28pm

on Sep 23rd, 2009, 6:15pm, redlite wrote:
No, it was 8:44 PM at DRT when it's 3:44 pm at UCB, 5 hours difference.


Regardless......is there anyone here (besides Masker/Lev of course) that really believes Masker is not Lev?
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by redlite on Sep 23rd, 2009, 6:29pm

The DRT post was at 4:04 pm which would have made it 11:04AM at UCB. GMT is in England and is where the "day" starts. Useful for timekeeping in GPS, Military, Surveyors, mapmaking,etc. No big deal.

OK masker, one too many grins there!
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by Sheepdog on Sep 23rd, 2009, 6:42pm

I could care less if he/she is Lev.
He/she wants people to think so. That's the thrill of the game or affliction.
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by Jeddyhi on Sep 23rd, 2009, 8:23pm

Lev always came through a proxy server so his actual location was never pinned down. I bet Masker is running through a proxy. shocked
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by redlite on Sep 23rd, 2009, 11:33pm

Other than this thread being the worst ever, I have no ax to grind. It seems to bring out the worst in otherwise good people. I also don't care who Masker is.

However, not to belabor this point, Maskers' (or Levs') location or what server type was used is irrelevant due to the facts that you supplied. The art was posted at 4:04PM DRT time. 4 hours and 40 minutes later, the same art was posted on UCB. Of course this is all predicated on the accuracy of the two posts you found.

I've read about time-portal stuff on UCB and elsewhere, that would be the only other option, but I think Masker would have to own up to that one.....
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by Jambo on Sep 24th, 2009, 12:00am

Is this topic really going anywhere or is just droning on? laugh
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by Jeddyhi on Sep 24th, 2009, 06:30am

on Sep 23rd, 2009, 11:33pm, redlite wrote:
Other than this thread being the worst ever, I have no ax to grind. It seems to bring out the worst in otherwise good people. I also don't care who Masker is.

However, not to belabor this point, Maskers' (or Levs') location or what server type was used is irrelevant due to the facts that you supplied. The art was posted at 4:04PM DRT time. 4 hours and 40 minutes later, the same art was posted on UCB. Of course this is all predicated on the accuracy of the two posts you found.

I've read about time-portal stuff on UCB and elsewhere, that would be the only other option, but I think Masker would have to own up to that one.....


Lev posted his artwork on here and on the DRT on the same day. The only person that likes to post Lev artwork is Lev. You're a funny guy with the time portal stuff. grin
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by Gort on Sep 24th, 2009, 09:23am

on Sep 23rd, 2009, 3:55pm, Jeddyhi wrote:
User Image

In the above Screen capture, Masker (Lev) posted a pic of some Leviathan art. Notice the time of the post....3:44PM.

Now in the below screen capture from the DRT forum, Lev (Masker) posts the same art but over 15 minutes later. So Masker had access to the art and posted it before Lev at the DRT. They are one and the same. Thought everyone knew.


User Image



Bears repeating
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by Double Nought Spy on Sep 24th, 2009, 12:09pm

These are screen shots. Doesn't the DRT forum have a way to adjust for the participant's local time, like any decent forum? Isn't that why it says p.m. on both shots? GMT is usually expressed in 24 hour mode, isn't it?

M'self, I wouldn't know because I never go there.
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by DrDil on Sep 24th, 2009, 1:28pm

on Sep 24th, 2009, 09:23am, Gort wrote:
Bears repeating

Hi all,

As I said earlier there are many, many coincidences that mark Masker as Lev but the only one that is in the above image is the fact that they are both Lev creations, as 11 pointed out the DRT operates five hours in front of Casebook.

on Sep 24th, 2009, 12:09pm, Double Knit Spy wrote:
These are screen shots. Doesn't the DRT forum have a way to adjust for the participant's local time, like any decent forum? Isn't that why it says p.m. on both shots? GMT is usually expressed in 24 hour mode, isn't it?

M'self, I wouldn't know because I never go there.

Also I’ve just captured a screen-shot of both websites with the time displayed and I was logged out so this is the default settings, i.e. my time-zone is irrelevant and as you can see there is a five hour difference with UFOcasebook being the earlier.

User Image

But as for them being the same person I raised this point here as I wrote the following:

on Aug 27th, 2009, 2:34pm, DrDil wrote:
I was pleased to see that you’d posted a larger (file-size) version of Lev’s Drone mural but I have to ask why you removed it as the image you’ve left up is instantly identifiable as the work of Lev and so there’s no real point in distancing yourself from the ‘group,’ and especially so when your –purposefully- obvious name for the Photobucket account/folder is realised.

So as you can see Masker has access to previously unreleased Lev images of a better quality than previously seen, which also means he either is Lev or is in close contact with him, like the majority I lean towards the former.

Cheers.

Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by Double Nought Spy on Sep 24th, 2009, 1:57pm

Thanks Doc. That clears it up nicely. Not that there has ever been much question about who is who in this case. smiley
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by Jeddyhi on Sep 24th, 2009, 2:24pm

I certainly agree. I apparently jumped the gun a bit on the time but the date and pics are the same. My view of the DRT was indeed from a logged out view which shows the default forum time. My bad. shocked grin grin
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by masker33 on Sep 24th, 2009, 2:41pm

Oh, anyone can make a mistake!
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by SiddReader on Sep 24th, 2009, 2:57pm

Do you still hit your wife, Mask? wink
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by Jeddyhi on Sep 24th, 2009, 3:13pm

on Sep 24th, 2009, 2:41pm, Masker33 wrote:
Oh, anyone can make a mistake!


Only about the time, oh mysterious one, only about the time. wink
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by EVS on Sep 24th, 2009, 3:29pm

Hi DrDil,

I'm here, so let the slaying begin...

First, I find it a little bit personal to call a fellow member a liar, as this member never in any way threatened anyone by posting as this person did. Just to make it clear.

I, on the other hand, could be the very item of chase, as I openly stated that there might be some "reality" to the "Drone" saga....as you all here claim is a silly "Hoax"...

Well, some like to think otherwise, and that's where I fail to see the harm done to the Ufo Society...

If not the Ufo Society needs openminded people, who does?

You are actually disregarding and losing valuable witnesses by the way you treat newcomers here, it's
like it's not a game for them anymore, as you are so full of yourself that it doesn't matter anymore!

If, and only if, this is a hoax, brilliant as it is, and well thought of, you will not find it genuine, unless someone came to your doorstep to say you've been had!

Crunch on this for a while, and then start this thread all over again, so that real discussion can prevail!

EVS
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by TheShadow on Sep 24th, 2009, 3:34pm

on Sep 24th, 2009, 3:29pm, EVS wrote:
Well, some like to think otherwise, and that's where I fail to see the harm done to the Ufo Society...

If not the Ufo Society needs openminded people, who does?

You are actually disregarding and losing valuable witnesses by the way you treat newcomers here, it's
like it's not a game for them anymore, as you are so full of yourself that it doesn't matter anymore!

If, and only if, this is a hoax, brilliant as it is, and well thought of, you will not find it genuine, unless someone came to your doorstep to say you've been had!

Crunch on this for a while, and then start this thread all over again, so that real discussion can prevail!

EVS


What harm is done to UFOlogy? The fact that people are being sold nonsense as fact and then complain that UFOlogy and UFOlogists are the subject of ridicule doesnt bother you?

The problem is that we are being distracted from the truth by a lie. Open minded should not mean gullible! We need facts and truth not BS and anon witnesses.

The truth is out there and as long as we chase hoaxes we will never find it!!
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by SiddReader on Sep 24th, 2009, 3:35pm

Hi EVS!

Nice that you give me the chance to tell you, that it is people like you, who make me think, that UFOlogy is nothing but a big bubble of self announced academics, who are nothing but dreamers.

But go on. YOU surely will give more credibility to this... lipsrsealed (Silenced myself.)
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by DrDil on Sep 24th, 2009, 3:47pm

on Sep 24th, 2009, 3:29pm, EVS wrote:
Hi DrDil,

I'm here, so let the slaying begin...

First, I find it a little bit personal to call a fellow member a liar, as this member never in any way threatened anyone by posting as this person did. Just to make it clear.

I, on the other hand, could be the very item of chase, as I openly stated that there might be some "reality" to the "Drone" saga....as you all here claim is a silly "Hoax"...

Well, some like to think otherwise, and that's where I fail to see the harm done to the Ufo Society...

If not the Ufo Society needs openminded people, who does?

You are actually disregarding and losing valuable witnesses by the way you treat newcomers here, it's
like it's not a game for them anymore, as you are so full of yourself that it doesn't matter anymore!

If, and only if, this is a hoax, brilliant as it is, and well thought of, you will not find it genuine, unless someone came to your doorstep to say you've been had!

Crunch on this for a while, and then start this thread all over again, so that real discussion can prevail!

EVS

RE: Liar
In the context you’re speaking and as you know I was specifically referring to submitting a hoaxed image and then denying and claiming ownership of it depending on which time of the month you asked him. So whether he did it or not he’s a liar for first admitting, then denying, admitting etc…

Just to remind you that you specifically posted MY screenshot, hence this conversation, why not ask the object of my statement if I was mistaken as you are still apparently struggling with the definition of ‘liar’?

That’s the only aspect of your post I wish to address as I’ve long since moved beyond this verbal sparring, but good luck.

Nice to see you posting again. (And it’s not a Friday night!! grin)

Cheers smiley.

Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by EVS on Sep 24th, 2009, 3:51pm

What if you are mistaken? Has it ever occured to you that not everything is what it seems to be?

I've personally been in touch with serious investigators that aren't that sure it's all a hoax, as you all here claim..

But if it is your goal to depress any thinking that questions the "Drones" as hoax, please continue...

EVS
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by Jeddyhi on Sep 24th, 2009, 3:51pm

on Sep 24th, 2009, 3:29pm, EVS wrote:
Hi DrDil,

I'm here, so let the slaying begin...

First, I find it a little bit personal to call a fellow member a liar, as this member never in any way threatened anyone by posting as this person did. Just to make it clear.

I, on the other hand, could be the very item of chase, as I openly stated that there might be some "reality" to the "Drone" saga....as you all here claim is a silly "Hoax"...

Well, some like to think otherwise, and that's where I fail to see the harm done to the Ufo Society...

If not the Ufo Society needs openminded people, who does?

You are actually disregarding and losing valuable witnesses by the way you treat newcomers here, it's
like it's not a game for them anymore, as you are so full of yourself that it doesn't matter anymore!

If, and only if, this is a hoax, brilliant as it is, and well thought of, you will not find it genuine, unless someone came to your doorstep to say you've been had!

Crunch on this for a while, and then start this thread all over again, so that real discussion can prevail!

EVS


Oh boy, here we go! lipsrsealed
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by YourWorstNightmare on Sep 24th, 2009, 3:54pm

You all have no idea how this warms the cockles of my heart..Mask Lev EvS and even Atto just came out the woodwork!! And Sidd , Masker a Wifebeater? hmm Interesting..I knew I saw some connection with some Netherland Call girls , shall we say Talk service..They say Masker is quite the talker ,and that little Levs Hero who ran HGOD ..was indicted as a Pimp or running something from his establishment.. in GA before going to Florida.. but hey we all make mistakes...Who said Ufology full of saints..lots of Crooks and Losers too...Forgive and forget..but..it looks like they don't want us to forget..
So we remember for them what big mistake this is..and all the little ones before..!
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by Double Nought Spy on Sep 24th, 2009, 3:55pm

on Sep 24th, 2009, 3:51pm, EVS wrote:
What if you are mistaken? Has it ever occured to you that not everything is what it seems to be?

I've personally been in touch with serious investigators that aren't that sure it's all a hoax, as you all here claim..

But if it is your goal to depress any thinking that questions the "Drones" as hoax, please continue...

EVS




Please! We just got this place all mucked out.
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by EVS on Sep 24th, 2009, 3:55pm

Quote:
And it’s not a Friday night!!


No, but tomorrow is!

grin grin grin
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by TheShadow on Sep 24th, 2009, 3:59pm

on Sep 24th, 2009, 3:51pm, EVS wrote:
What if you are mistaken? Has it ever occured to you that not everything is what it seems to be?

I've personally been in touch with serious investigators that aren't that sure it's all a hoax, as you all here claim..

But if it is your goal to depress any thinking that questions the "Drones" as hoax, please continue...

EVS


Prove me wrong? Name one serious researcher (The DRT does not count) that gives one ounce of credibilty to this HOAX!!!!!
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by YourWorstNightmare on Sep 24th, 2009, 4:04pm

They couldnt even get that French Physicist. Petit at Maintenance ici.....the Ummo believer to back them up..and hes been on their show..but maybe they do like LMH and Whitley and Noorey..they all invite each other as guests and "journalists" to give it realism and Flavor..dont ask me what flavor please..this is a family forum smiley
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by EVS on Sep 24th, 2009, 4:07pm

Well, since you put it so nicely, I am not 100 % sure whether or not this is in fact a hoax, but I still cling to the potent 1 % that it might not be...does this make me a bad ufo researcher in your eyes?

Aren't there room for at least some small window of opportunity, that it could be real?

And if no, why spend time in here saying it's out of the question?

Has it been proved utterly and genuine?

If it has, I would like to see the final outcome.

Please show the evidence of said "hoax".

EVS
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by SiddReader on Sep 24th, 2009, 4:11pm

If somebody thinks, he is Napoleon, how could you convince him, that he lost Waterloo?
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by masker33 on Sep 24th, 2009, 4:29pm

Hello EVS.
Notice I can now maneuver time.
It is proven I can and do maneuver this thread.
I think it should just be ended or downplayed, but for some reason it goes on. Could it be maneuvering?
Do you see how viral marketing disappeared.
I have made it for sure that I do not respond in a personal way to these posters and appreciate you noticing that. My agenda is far more important for my wants than insults to US.
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by SiddReader on Sep 24th, 2009, 4:35pm

Thanks, for making it funny again! I appreciate that!
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by Jeddyhi on Sep 24th, 2009, 4:37pm

on Sep 24th, 2009, 3:51pm, EVS wrote:
What if you are mistaken? Has it ever occured to you that not everything is what it seems to be?

I've personally been in touch with serious investigators that aren't that sure it's all a hoax, as you all here claim..

But if it is your goal to depress any thinking that questions the "Drones" as hoax, please continue...

EVS


For the sake of argument, and you seem to be way waaay openminded, lets imagine for a moment that it is indeed a hoax and all the skeptical critics are correct and all the believers are wrong. In your openminded mind, imagine that scenario......Now, since it is the believers that are funding the "serious investigators", what are the chances of the said investigators playing to the clients tendacy to believe the story? What if the investigators realize that in order to see a steady cash flow all they need to do is keep the case going. Even agreeing with the client that the case shows real merit in order to motivate a long continued case with a long continued billing period?

I don't know if this is the case or not, but it certainly is not impossible to imagine it. Investigators, after all, are trying to make money.

Now lets suppose the opposite for a minute. Lets imagine in this scenario that the skeptics have employeed 'Serious investigators" to help prove the case false. The skeptics want to know if the case has any validity. The investigators would find that no photo witnesses can be identified and false deceptive testimony and locations were submitted, reaching a logical conclusion of likely hoax. Now how would these investigators keep the case going and going in order to get the most money? They could try to offer an indepth search for the hoaxers, but why bother? If it is a hoax, it is a hoax regardless of origin. The investigator could not play on the skeptics need for it to be fake, as all evidence already points to fake.

So you see, the believers in any hoax that want their believe to be justified will continue to pay and pay until hell freezes over or money runs out.

It is my opinion that you all are being played by the investigators, that you all can't accept obvious holes and flaws in the hoax, and work adamantly to make the case real. Almost as if caught in a cult that desires to justify its own existence.

All the evidence points towards hoax. Whether it is an elaborate homespun hoax or a disinfo campaign designed to steal the spotlight from something else, it is a hoax. That is the critical surmisation that logical deduction leads to.
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by YourWorstNightmare on Sep 24th, 2009, 4:50pm

Hey Mask its not ended as viral and you well know it....have you ever seen a dead category of virus no ..and like memes stay in play..they are opportunistic infections..polymorphic..just like sightings are used to rekindle Roswell..and chupacabras migrated to Brazil from PR..and in play of course the nice conference fees that come along with them..whether or not witnesses are alive..and not one piece of scrap metal..here its damage control..as well to deflect from the tie ins to the people like warners and its Graphics team that blew it, and the marketing team that fumbled and then colluders like the Big Three collapsed..
What you didn't expect was for us to be still hanging around..we'll give you hits all right..but not what you like..you effed up terribly..Lower your proxy and show what you have big boy..
thats a fact. and we are working this meme over..big time..
Next Batter up..
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by masker33 on Sep 24th, 2009, 5:10pm

You see how easy it is to resurrect a theme. Viral Marketing! Loony Toones.



Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by YourWorstNightmare on Sep 24th, 2009, 5:14pm

when we get thru with this one it will be one step below the imagery of a child molester..believe that..that image lives on long too..if you dont want to head that way..lower your proxy..UCB won't bite.
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by Double Nought Spy on Sep 24th, 2009, 5:15pm

Hey Lev,

Viral! Viral! Viral!

(I just love watching his eyebrow twitch.)
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by SiddReader on Sep 24th, 2009, 5:15pm

Maybe. Still in a little aquarium. Know the last scene of "Find Nemo?"

Long live Kris! He saved us all from stupidity long ago!
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by YourWorstNightmare on Sep 24th, 2009, 5:19pm

the little anchovie?
Im going out for some pizza
BRB
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by SiddReader on Sep 24th, 2009, 6:07pm

The who and why doesn't matter anymore. Alienware is using it. That's all. They were silly enough, to think, we would be a way of marketing, not knowing that nothing happens here, but insults and aggressions against each other.

That's all.
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by TheShadow on Sep 24th, 2009, 6:34pm

on Sep 24th, 2009, 4:07pm, EVS wrote:
Well, since you put it so nicely, I am not 100 % sure whether or not this is in fact a hoax, but I still cling to the potent 1 % that it might not be...does this make me a bad ufo researcher in your eyes?


Not to be rude.....but to be honest I have read enough of what you write over the years to believe you are not a good UFO researcher......so in a nutshell......yes, it makes you a bad UFO researcher!

on Sep 24th, 2009, 4:07pm, EVS wrote:
Aren't there room for at least some small window of opportunity, that it could be real?


No. Had it been real we would have at least one verifiable and trustworthy photo witness!

on Sep 24th, 2009, 4:07pm, EVS wrote:
And if no, why spend time in here saying it's out of the question?


Simple. I want to make sure this does not go down in history as a possible real event. There is enough mud in the water.

on Sep 24th, 2009, 4:07pm, EVS wrote:
Please show the evidence of said "hoax".

EVS


That i can do

http://www.dronehoax.com
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by EVS on Sep 24th, 2009, 7:08pm

on Sep 24th, 2009, 6:34pm, TheShadow wrote:
Not to be rude.....but to be honest I have read enough of what you write over the years to believe you are not a good UFO researcher......so in a nutshell......yes, it makes you a bad UFO researcher!



No. Had it been real we would have at least one verifiable and trustworthy photo witness!



Simple. I want to make sure this does not go down in history as a possible real event. There is enough mud in the water.



That i can do

http://www.dronehoax.com


TheShadow, your statement are taken ad notam as I find that you speak for all here.

Hence the virus warning I got from viewing the page allegedly showing the evidence of the hoax, I suspect you are aware of consequences that rely on the informer of such, and are understood of the personal prosecution if verified will be instated upon you if prosecuted in a state of law for spreading threats on the internet.

EVS


Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by SiddReader on Sep 24th, 2009, 7:15pm

EVS, you are simply sick! The virus warning probably is the result of your internet-researches. Unprotected research can easily lead to infections.

But please feel free, to tell the world, that talking about drones on UCB leads to viral infections of PCs... I bet, some people will believe this. At least Endzone will...

Edit to add: Insiders will know, what kind of sites you visit in your "spare-time".
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by Sheepdog on Sep 24th, 2009, 7:16pm

on Sep 24th, 2009, 7:08pm, EVS wrote:
TheShadow, your statement are taken ad notam as I find that you speak for all here.

Hence the virus warning I got from viewing the page allegedly showing the evidence of the hoax, I suspect you are aware of consequences that rely on the informer of such, and are understood of the personal prosecution if verified will be instated upon you if prosecuted in a state of law for spreading threats on the internet.

EVS


What in the world did you just say? I don't no no Latin.
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by SiddReader on Sep 24th, 2009, 7:20pm

He just wanted to impress you: ad notam = fyi
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by Radi on Sep 24th, 2009, 7:22pm

on Sep 24th, 2009, 7:08pm, EVS wrote:
TheShadow, your statement are taken ad notam as I find that you speak for all here.

Hence the virus warning I got from viewing the page allegedly showing the evidence of the hoax, I suspect you are aware of consequences that rely on the informer of such, and are understood of the personal prosecution if verified will be instated upon you if prosecuted in a state of law for spreading threats on the internet.

EVS



Hmmm....Have a legal page to show.....Reminds me of the last post on this page..
http://www.book-of-thoth.com/ftopic-13393-120.html
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by Double Nought Spy on Sep 24th, 2009, 7:24pm

Aaaaannnnnnndd in post number Five, he threatens a lawsuit. shocked This is the best entertainment on the innernets at the moment, I'd say.
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by SiddReader on Sep 24th, 2009, 7:32pm

My o my, again the price of worst UFOlogy goes to Denmark, as every year...

Where is Isaac? Is it possible that such a little country wins the price every year?
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by Sheepdog on Sep 24th, 2009, 7:33pm

on Sep 24th, 2009, 7:24pm, Double Knit Spy wrote:
Aaaaannnnnnndd in post number Five, he threatens a lawsuit. shocked This is the best entertainment on the innernets at the moment, I'd say.

He's too smart for me. I'm just gonna sit back and enjoy this show awhile.
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by EVS on Sep 24th, 2009, 7:45pm

on Sep 24th, 2009, 7:15pm, SiddReader wrote:
Edit to add: Insiders will know, what kind of sites you visit in your "spare-time".


Horst, is this another legal issue we need to take up..?

EVS
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by TheShadow on Sep 24th, 2009, 8:05pm

on Sep 24th, 2009, 7:08pm, EVS wrote:
TheShadow, your statement are taken ad notam as I find that you speak for all here.

Hence the virus warning I got from viewing the page allegedly showing the evidence of the hoax, I suspect you are aware of consequences that rely on the informer of such, and are understood of the personal prosecution if verified will be instated upon you if prosecuted in a state of law for spreading threats on the internet.

EVS



LMFAO!!!

WHAT IN THE FARK ARE YOU TALKING ABOUThuh?

Perhaps you could enlighten me. As i am just a stupid american with enough common sense to know a hoax when i see one and I do not have the luxury of holding an imaginary title of Dr. as do you kind sir
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by EVS on Sep 24th, 2009, 8:21pm

on Sep 24th, 2009, 8:05pm, TheShadow wrote:
LMFAO!!!

WHAT IN THE FARK ARE YOU TALKING ABOUThuh?

Perhaps you could enlighten me. As i am just a stupid american with enough common sense to know a hoax when i see one and I do not have the luxury of holding an imaginary title of Dr. as do you kind sir


Yes, a true hoax always set trails....

See, you all (almost all) fell for this hoax...

How easy is it?

Ofcourse I won't prosecute...but I got a virus warning when viewing the "Drone Hoax" site...

You are free to speak as usual, but weigh your language...maybe next time it's real...and not by me..

Please carry on...

It's allways nice to know your buddy's..

EVS
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by TheShadow on Sep 24th, 2009, 8:22pm

on Sep 24th, 2009, 8:21pm, EVS wrote:
Yes, a true hoax always set trails....

See, you all (almost all) fell for this hoax...

How easy is it?

Ofcourse I won't prosecute...but I got a virus warning when viewing the "Drone Hoax" site...

You are free to speak as usual, but weigh your language...maybe next time it's real...and not by me..

Please carry on...

It's allways nice to know your buddy's..

EVS


LOL I dont think anyone was worried about some BS prosecution you threatened. I know i wasnt! The BS in that threat was as obvious as Chads letter!!
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by Double Nought Spy on Sep 24th, 2009, 8:29pm

It's always good when the meds kick in. Oops, I hope that doesn't trigger a lawsuit.
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by TheShadow on Sep 24th, 2009, 8:32pm

on Sep 24th, 2009, 8:29pm, Admiral Nought Spy, Ret. wrote:
It's always good when the meds kick in. Oops, I hope that doesn't trigger a lawsuit.


I still dont know what i was being sued/prosecuted for? Was it answering HIS question honestly? Or putting a link to a website in my post??
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by EVS on Sep 24th, 2009, 8:35pm

on Sep 24th, 2009, 8:32pm, TheShadow wrote:
I still dont know what i was being sued/prosecuted for? Was it answering HIS question honestly? Or putting a link to a website in my post??


It was the link.

It contains a virus.

Your answer was polite and good, to me you can say anything...you should know by now..more than 2 years has passed... cool grin

Regards,

EVS
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by Radi on Sep 24th, 2009, 8:41pm

on Sep 24th, 2009, 8:35pm, EVS wrote:
It was the link.

It contains a virus.

Your answer was polite and good, to me you can say anything...you should know by now..more than 2 years has passed... cool grin

Regards,

EVS


Sorry went to the link just now..NO VIRUS for me....Why don't you report it to the owner of the site wink
Perhaps look up THE INTERNET COPS yes the all around site that one reports to for all kinds of things from sites...Even from the sites that have BS warnings on them....Now back to something more interesting.."Plan9 from outer space" smiley
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by EVS on Sep 24th, 2009, 8:44pm

on Sep 24th, 2009, 8:41pm, Radi wrote:
Sorry went to the link just now..NO VIRUS for me....Why don't you report it to the owner of the site wink
Perhaps look up THE INTERNET COPS yes the all around site that one reports to for all kinds of things from sites...Even from the sites that have BS warnings on them....Now back to something more interesting.."Plan9 from outer space" smiley


I don't get a warning 2cond time around either...but it sure was there the 1st time.

EVS

PS: You are free to make fun of the Dane, we beat you all at soccer anyway! grin cheesy smiley
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by YourWorstNightmare on Sep 24th, 2009, 8:45pm

That happened to the DT yeah left out the R on purpose ..thats what they are no research goes on there..bad virus..
A little virus or cold is nothing , A hot toddy and nice bed fix all Dr.But its a possibility Mask and DRTwill be hearing from Nikkis Attorney if he doesn't his money for that operatiion..you can take that to the bank. they all fumbled it so bad.. Maybe you can help Nikki you know She thinks nice of you all..but can get Maaaad. Didnt Lev say he wasn't paid for somebody's banner or was that Krissy.Dr did you pay him? or was it free no free lunch ...You know back to other.. girls have to stick together nowadays..
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by SiddReader on Sep 25th, 2009, 01:30am

on Sep 24th, 2009, 7:45pm, EVS wrote:
Horst, is this another legal issue we need to take up..?

EVS


Hehe! It's just a hint, that most virus warnings are not caused by the sites you are watching at this moment, but by something you got on your harddrive in another session before.

What do you mean with "another legal issue"? Did we have one before? Who did win?
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by murnut on Sep 25th, 2009, 05:56am

The Drone hoax is/was a virus, and some were infected.

The vaccination took with most, but not all.
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by Gort on Sep 25th, 2009, 06:16am

See what tomi starts, thats her job, keep it going. She starts it and the rest of lulus follow. Oh well I suppose this lizard grew a new tail.


Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by Marvin on Sep 25th, 2009, 06:55am

on Sep 25th, 2009, 06:16am, Gort wrote:
See what tomi starts, thats her job, keep it going. She starts it and the rest of lulus follow. Oh well I suppose this lizard grew a new tail.




I am surprised no one has noticed this Gort...


We are back to the old "tag team" event. Tomi “taps” out and another takes her place. Some things don't change, it is not surprising for a 2 year plus pattern. Sigh…

The issue is, I do not know if these folks are just duped or are they a part of the hoax? For me, this has become the Drone story.


Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by Marvin on Sep 25th, 2009, 07:02am

on Sep 24th, 2009, 5:10pm, Masker33 wrote:
You see how easy it is to resurrect a theme. Viral Marketing! Loony Toones.





It’s all about fame and glory Lev... fame and glory.


Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by Marvin on Sep 25th, 2009, 07:04am

on Sep 24th, 2009, 4:50pm, YourWorstNightmare wrote:
Hey Mask its not ended as viral and you well know it....



Hi YWN!

Good to see you posting again.

Have a great one.

Marvin
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by YourWorstNightmare on Sep 25th, 2009, 10:59am

Good to see you too Marvin smiley
Were you able to resolve getting on ATS? Missed you there..
You have a good Birds eye view of everything...
watch out for the passing Crows and Ravens from the Halcyon days.
They leave horrible messes behind and Somethings money just cannot buy to assure a thourough clean up.
Anyone catch LMH and her comments on Self activating Diagrams last night? withouht getting deep into caret at all she circumnavigated and spent most of night plugging the November Crash dive Conference..but she didnt mention the PIs..or anything to entice people to confidently plow 200 plus dollars to attend..She sounded horrible too.croaking almost...must not be getting much sleep.

Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by Marvin on Sep 25th, 2009, 11:24am

on Sep 25th, 2009, 10:59am, YourWorstNightmare wrote:
Good to see you too Marvin smiley
Were you able to resolve getting on ATS?



Nope... besides, between here and OMF, I have more than I have time for.

Don't be a stranger.

Marvin


Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by DrDil on Sep 25th, 2009, 1:20pm

on Sep 24th, 2009, 8:22pm, TheShadow wrote:
<snip>

The BS in that threat was as obvious as Chads letter!!


Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by Gort on Sep 25th, 2009, 1:49pm

After seeing that again, I'm only to stupidified to admit that for a fleeting moment I put reason aside and gave the guy the benefit of a doubt.
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by Double Nought Spy on Sep 25th, 2009, 3:51pm

Just makes it that much harder for the next real witness to come forward. Which could be the whole point of the con. Right now, I don't know if I'd report a weird sighting, even if I had clear video and a piece of a flying saucer.
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by YourWorstNightmare on Sep 25th, 2009, 3:59pm

But Gentlemen..think of all those poor conference speakers who depend on this endless supply of hoaxes from people like this..at a time when jobs are getting scarce as ..the proverbial hens tooth. All those field junkets to merry England for the Circles We're so close, think of it, a Hares bredth (sic) to antigravity thanx to Taptens rancheros, All those welcome sites planned for the Visitors, The Multimillion dollar theme Park in Roswell with more clowns..and cotton candy..think of the kids..summary thousands depend on this being kept afloat..They will all Freak Out!
Perhaps we've been to Harsh..I know thats a strong word, but nothing else came to mind..I just had Lunch, and a hangover from the hot toddy I made for the virus i caught..Nothing a little elixir of Chivas Regal can't fix..

But I digress
IamIamIam put so much effort..thousands of links in a span of a few months..that this was viable..connections to nanotechnology..gynecology, proctology,
Spfs brilliant foreys and being the first like Johnny on the spot.. into bolstering useless and less than honest photos..
All those epic if not legendary grandstanding efforts surely must be worth something..

Perhaps Marvin..wrapped it up nicely..Nope
I like the sound of that..Nope Nope Nope..there.. cool
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by redlite on Sep 26th, 2009, 03:19am

"All quiet on the western front, sir" replied the corporal from his dank, muddy trench on a moonless night.

"Und haf you zeen any DRONES?" said the sergeant major.

Remembering what happened to the cook, Issac, who was never heard from again for serving badly prepared carets at chow earlier that evening, the corporal quickly replied "No sir, I've never even seen a DRONE".

"Das is goot, my little schnitzle, das is goot" replied the sergeant major.

And that night, all at UCB slept peacefully while distant flashes and rumbles on other forums could be seen and heard.....
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by Sheepdog on Sep 26th, 2009, 08:10am

on Sep 24th, 2009, 7:22pm, Radi wrote:
Hmmm....Have a legal page to show.....Reminds me of the last post on this page..
http://www.book-of-thoth.com/ftopic-13393-120.html

The rest of the exchanges there were of more interest in this charade.
Thank you for posting it.
I had not seen it before and after scratching my head a bit it started to make sense. I may be slow but not stopped.
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by murnut on Sep 26th, 2009, 08:33am

http://stargate007.blogspot.com/2009/09/fbi-counterintelligence-operations.html
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by tommi01 on Sep 26th, 2009, 2:27pm

@mask

Mr. Wells I presume?

Whoa!

cclub?
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by masker33 on Sep 26th, 2009, 4:53pm

A slippage in time followed by, well you know what. Viral Marketing, Terrible Hoax, Intellectual Carrot, the mind boggles grin grin grin
HGW
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by Sheepdog on Sep 26th, 2009, 5:14pm

How cute.
The duo make an appearance.
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by YourWorstNightmare on Sep 27th, 2009, 12:16am

Yes the same boring pattern and irrespective of perspective
User Image


The results are identical



User Image
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by tommi01 on Sep 27th, 2009, 07:53am

on Sep 26th, 2009, 4:53pm, Masker33 wrote:
A slippage in time followed by, well you know what. Viral Marketing, Terrible Hoax, Intellectual Carrot, the mind boggles grin grin grin
HGW



Too many coincidences...
No wonder YWN keeps losing the plot.. wink
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by YourWorstNightmare on Sep 27th, 2009, 09:09am

There is a pattern and irrespective of perspective
User Image
The results are identical
User Image


How you ever you slice or dice its just your opinion

Again your POV
You see this plot for your hoax..you peep thru keyholes when you all have the key..or now imply..
User Image
Despite the reality

whether by image or words

The reality is Its this plot
User Image

Again you mix apples and orange juice

Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by tommi01 on Sep 27th, 2009, 09:41am

on Sep 26th, 2009, 4:53pm, Masker33 wrote:
...the mind boggles grin grin grin
HGW


How true Mr. Wells... how true...

http://www.break.com/pictures/your-worst-nightmare558114.html
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by Radi on Sep 27th, 2009, 12:08pm

on Sep 26th, 2009, 08:10am, StaffLetter24 wrote:
The rest of the exchanges there were of more interest in this charade.
Thank you for posting it.
I had not seen it before and after scratching my head a bit it started to make sense. I may be slow but not stopped.


You are welcome...I like posting that from time to time to refresh and just in case people have not seen it..It is an interesting read from the beginning thou...But still I wonder why some would follow this type of Troll.....
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by Sheepdog on Sep 27th, 2009, 5:55pm

on Sep 27th, 2009, 12:08pm, Radi wrote:
But still I wonder why some would follow this type of Troll.....

Certainly not for the truth or any real knowledge.
A mistaken belief of fooling people; including the troll perhaps?
Assuming no other bond.



Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by Klatunictobarata on Sep 27th, 2009, 6:34pm

on Sep 27th, 2009, 09:41am, tomi01uk wrote:
How true Mr. Wells... how true...

http://www.break.com/pictures/your-worst-nightmare558114.html



Geez, Tomi, I didn't think the husband would appreciate your posting such an intimate photo of him doing the laundry like that!

A simple couch shot (no play on words intended) playing WoW would have sufficed. grin
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by tommi01 on Sep 27th, 2009, 7:03pm

on Sep 27th, 2009, 6:34pm, Klatunictobarata wrote:
Geez, Tomi, I didn't think the husband would appreciate your posting such an intimate photo of him doing the laundry like that!

A simple couch shot (no play on words intended) playing WoW would have sufficed. grin


your worst nightmare... Klat
mine doing laundry ??.... grin
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by YourWorstNightmare on Sep 28th, 2009, 07:28am

on Sep 27th, 2009, 12:08pm, Radi wrote:
You are welcome...I like posting that from time to time to refresh and just in case people have not seen it..It is an interesting read from the beginning thou...But still I wonder why some would follow this type of Troll.....


Thanx for that
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by Double Nought Spy on Sep 28th, 2009, 10:18am

on Sep 27th, 2009, 5:55pm, StaffLetter24 wrote:
Certainly not for the truth or any real knowledge.
A mistaken belief of fooling people; including the troll perhaps?
Assuming no other bond.




That is a remarkably cohesive group. They are still trying to cover for one another, too. Even people I would have thought would be enemies by now are still laying down BS for one another, even at considerable risk to themselves if they are who they say they are. Very curious indeed...
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by Gort on Sep 28th, 2009, 3:54pm

Guess there's still money to be made sucking off of this.

"Tommy "TK" Davis and Frank Dixon
The "California Drone Investigation"
Private investigators Tommy "TK" Davis and Frank Dixon are retired high ranking sheriff's officers officers from Santa Clara County, California working as Private Investigators. They will give a "behind the scenes" look on how they investigated the five "California Drone" sightings by finding witnesses, locations and developing sources, The former captain and lieutenant in one of the state's biggest law enforcement agencies used all their skills as cops and undercover narcotic agents to track local connections and make the case for finding whether the drones were earthly or not. They coupled with a team of international UFO enthusiasts and used the media, including the Los Angeles Times and Fox News, to gain international exposure to further the cause. Follow their year and a half roller coaster ride as the set out to prove is this series of famous UFO pictures real or a hoax"
From

http://www.ufoconference.com/

Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by TheShadow on Sep 28th, 2009, 4:28pm

on Sep 28th, 2009, 3:54pm, Gort wrote:
They will give a "behind the scenes" look on how they investigated the five "California Drone" sightings by finding witnesses, locations...


Thats my favorite part!! What witnesses did they find?? Chad? Raj? LMAO

As for locations.......i dont believe it was these highly paid con men that found the actual locations......was it?
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by SiddReader on Sep 28th, 2009, 4:29pm

on Sep 28th, 2009, 3:54pm, Gort wrote:
Guess there's still money to be made sucking off of this.

"Tommy "TK" Davis and Frank Dixon
The "California Drone Investigation"
Private investigators Tommy "TK" Davis and Frank Dixon are retired high ranking sheriff's officers officers from Santa Clara County, California working as Private Investigators.


Okay. No past in the internet, but perhaps in Santa Clara.

Quote:
They will give a "behind the scenes" look on how they investigated the five "California Drone" sightings by finding witnesses,


Witnesses? What witnesses? Mr. X.? LMH? Whitley? Shirley? Us?

Quote:
locations and developing sources,


Aaaah! MarsAve!

Quote:
The former captain and lieutenant in one of the state's biggest law enforcement agencies used all their skills as cops and undercover narcotic agents to track local connections and make the case for finding whether the drones were earthly or not.


What? "Narcotic agents"? Is that something like Virgil Crowe?

Quote:
They coupled with a team of international UFO enthusiasts and used the media, including the Los Angeles Times and Fox News, to gain international exposure to further the cause.


Does that mean, there is nothing else?

Quote:
Follow their year and a half roller coaster ride as the set out to prove is this series of famous UFO pictures real or a hoax"
From

http://www.ufoconference.com/


Okay, but only because I like parody so much!
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by Gort on Sep 28th, 2009, 5:14pm

I bet these two figured out it was a hoax early on but they probably figure no harm done keeping it a secret. Plus they can milk it for all it's worth right down to the very last nickel.


I would much rather have seen the topic entitled

Analysis of a Hoax - who has profited the most, the role of the Internet, how to recognize the key elements of a hoax and avoid monetary loss as well as credibility.

Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by tommi01 on Sep 28th, 2009, 7:00pm

Tommy "TK" Davis and Frank Dixon

User Image
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by Sheepdog on Sep 28th, 2009, 7:15pm

So, you must be going to the conference.
Maybe you have an advance copy of their Power Point presentation?
Maybe you proofed and approved it?
Nah, you know nothing remember.
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by Double Nought Spy on Sep 28th, 2009, 7:40pm

Villain? Shirley you jest. More like shills, I'd say. And Hero? How about co-star?
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by Klatunictobarata on Sep 29th, 2009, 12:20am

on Sep 28th, 2009, 7:00pm, tomi01uk wrote:
Tommy "TK" Davis and Frank Dixon

User Image


Oh, Tomi,

Please say that you are actually the middle chick in that album cover sandwich and all will be forgiven!

wink tongue tongue wink


P.S.

Will you be coming to America for that conference perchance?
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by tommi01 on Sep 29th, 2009, 08:10am

on Sep 29th, 2009, 12:20am, Klatunictobarata wrote:
Oh, Tomi,

Please say that you are actually the middle chick in that album cover sandwich?


I dunno.. Klat.. Do you do laundry? wink cheesy
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by tommi01 on Sep 29th, 2009, 08:13am

on Sep 29th, 2009, 12:20am, Klatunictobarata wrote:
Will you be coming to America for that conference perchance?


I only wish ......
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by YourWorstNightmare on Sep 29th, 2009, 08:29am

On the topic of dirty Laundry and upcoming Congferences Yes you can read about the very same Villains and Heroes in hall of Shame and Fame at http://www.UfoWatchdog.com. And You thought the wild wild west was bad....Some of you will feel right at home. Some of you will swoon at Earthfiles perfomance..then and now..Amazing how the same names keep popping up for nominations .

For those of you who are saying damned be it you are going to throw your money anyway..don't forget to take list of unanswered questions by Earthfiles and the DT..so you will get some measure of something..in return for your 200 dollars
http://ufocasebook.conforums.com/index.cgi?board=drone&action=display&num=1240012212

Feel free to print pnint any colored paper you wish..

Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by TheShadow on Sep 29th, 2009, 09:47am

on Sep 29th, 2009, 08:29am, YourWorstNightmare wrote:
On the topic of dirty Laundry and upcoming Congferences Yes you can read about the very same Villains and Heroes in hall of Shame and Fame at http://www.UfoWatchdog.com. And You thought the wild wild west was bad....Some of you will feel right at home. Some of you will swoon at Earthfiles perfomance..then and now..Amazing how the same names keep popping up for nominations .

For those of you who are saying damned be it you are going to throw your money anyway..don't forget to take list of unanswered questions by Earthfiles and the DT..so you will get some measure of something..in return for your 200 dollars
http://ufocasebook.conforums.com/index.cgi?board=drone&action=display&num=1240012212

Feel free to print pnint any colored paper you wish..


Sounds like the UFO watchdog site needs an update (Hall 7) to include the DRT, PIs and our very own tomi!! The worst things to ever happen to UFOlogy and the search for the truth!!
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by Double Nought Spy on Sep 29th, 2009, 10:21am

on Sep 29th, 2009, 09:47am, TheShadow wrote:
Sounds like the UFO watchdog site needs an update (Hall 7) to include the DRT, PIs and our very own tomi!! The worst things to ever happen to UFOlogy and the search for the truth!!


Oh, I don't know about giving them their own page. If you look at Hall 6, which is about half full, it looks like the dronies would fit right in there. They'd be Sylvia Browne's neighbors!
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by YourWorstNightmare on Sep 29th, 2009, 11:11am

Do You mean Sylvia Shumacher (real name) (rhymes with Joe Schumacher the ephemeral engineer..for one of the "Big Three") , and who is Campbells long time resident superstar psychic and Lindas Friend , and yet neither reached out to the other..
Reminds of that Shoemaker and the magic elves story.
All those remote viewers and groups..not a peep no one "sensed " or heard anything . Those gubbamin people know how to put a lid on whole neighborhoods and cities..Good thing they powerless to stop the DT and conferences..hope springs eternal...

Yes I agree, very good company indeed, imho. smiley


Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by Double Nought Spy on Sep 29th, 2009, 11:44am

Very fitting, since some of them are actually Sylvia's neighbors already. Watchdog sometimes has separate entries for things like "The X-Files Poster," "The Aliens," and so on, so maybe the Raj Pole could have its own entry. You know, the mysterious utility pole location, found after months of searching through a proprietary process of reading tea leaves, chicken entrails, google maps, and decoding mysterious radio transmissions from Montauk. And of course the pole is Sylvia's neighbor in reality, too. shocked

I dunno, maybe Shads is right. The Campbell outfit alone would take up several entries, so maybe the whole mess needs its own page. But then the Billy Meier saga is summed up in a paragraph or two.
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by YourWorstNightmare on Sep 29th, 2009, 12:10pm

Lets not forget Tom Vances , Mars Ave..also fron the area, and The PI s acquaintance going back years..his..memorable moments of ourage at Linda and the photos..coming out with one of his own photos , At the Paracast no less, which he never made original available to look at the camera data..yes, his was a smashing performance and worthy of award for non performance as well. Simply smashing I say.
The name of production company..Vapor Trails..is so..so...telling isn't it?

This was like a Cecil B Demille production if we didn't know any better..a cast of thousands..
We need something like size of the Smithsonian to accommodate the honorable mentions too..To paraphrase the other famous Billy, no part was too small..Just small people..

AS for Billy the UFO baker, .That is actually Summed up in two letters found at the near beginning of alphabet and near the end.
On your other question earlier i've been politely advised and reminded to keep my trap shut. Not Gubbamint either..That means..no further posting on the matter, .even for chuckles.
Like this
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ohFJIerqZso
A daunting and Herculean task I assure you....
it was fun though.
Cheers

Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by Gort on Sep 29th, 2009, 1:50pm

Hey, maybe Jim Ruff (tt96) and the depenoids (sp) will make a guest appearance

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S2MihN2vwsI&feature=player_embedded



Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by tommi01 on Sep 29th, 2009, 2:21pm

on Sep 29th, 2009, 12:10pm, YourWorstNightmare wrote:
it was fun though.
Cheers



Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by Gort on Sep 29th, 2009, 3:20pm

This is why the topic will never be taken seriously, characters like numbers, nemo, jim ruff, jonathan reed, tomi, lev, chad, lmh, and many others too long to list, on and on it’s a circus, and some actually think there will be disclosure. Not now or any time soon. When better than 50 % of the main stream media take it seriously then maybe disclosure starts, until then a fringe, joke element. Perpetuating this hoax if disclosure is an objective only sets everything back; into the fringe element.
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by tommi01 on Sep 29th, 2009, 4:06pm

User Image
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by TheShadow on Sep 29th, 2009, 4:56pm

on Sep 29th, 2009, 4:06pm, tomi01uk wrote:
User Image


Isnt that original!!



Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by Klatunictobarata on Sep 29th, 2009, 5:06pm

Touche Tomi re the Laundry Hubby rejoinder...

All I can ask is this:

"Are you havin a laugh?"


Well, here's one for the Gipper (Que?):




Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by TheShadow on Sep 29th, 2009, 5:10pm

Hey tomi,
Try swallowing this pill!!

User Image

Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by Double Nought Spy on Sep 29th, 2009, 5:23pm

on Sep 29th, 2009, 5:10pm, TheShadow wrote:
Hey tomi,
Try swallowing this pill!!

User Image


C'mon Shads, you know that's not fair. She can't handle the truth.
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by tommi01 on Sep 29th, 2009, 5:42pm

A tribute to the PI's cool


Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by Klatunictobarata on Sep 29th, 2009, 5:50pm

on Sep 29th, 2009, 5:23pm, Double Nought Spy wrote:
The Shadow said
Hey tomi,
Try swallowing this pill!!

C'mon Shads, you know that's not fair. She can't handle the truth.




Hey Guys,

At the risk of being crude, I don't believe that Tomi does that kind of thing.

Cheers.
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by tommi01 on Sep 29th, 2009, 5:56pm

User Image
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by TheShadow on Sep 29th, 2009, 6:03pm

on Sep 29th, 2009, 5:56pm, tomi01uk wrote:
User Image


Another relevant and thought provoking post!!!
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by tommi01 on Sep 29th, 2009, 6:10pm

User Image
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by TheShadow on Sep 29th, 2009, 6:34pm

on Sep 29th, 2009, 6:10pm, tomi01uk wrote:
User Image


Not that this stupid nonsense deserves a reply......but the only thing serious about you is your delusion!!!
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by blackwater on Sep 29th, 2009, 6:38pm

I have no idea what the topic is
or what we're discussing here,
but I bring a special message
for all my space brothers and sisters out there:




Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by SiddReader on Sep 29th, 2009, 6:54pm

As long as you are all having fun, it must be alright. wink
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by TheShadow on Sep 29th, 2009, 7:14pm

on Sep 29th, 2009, 6:54pm, SiddReader wrote:
As long as you are all having fun, it must be alright. wink


I dont really consider saving the gullible people of this planet from pro drone propaganda fun......but somebody has got to do it!
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by tommi01 on Sep 29th, 2009, 7:23pm

on Sep 29th, 2009, 7:14pm, TheShadow wrote:
I dont really consider saving the gullible people of this planet from pro drone propaganda fun......but somebody has got to do it!


User Image
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by Jeddyhi on Sep 29th, 2009, 7:45pm

The CARET Detectives: An Investigational Report
will probably be available on youtube shortly after the event. I'm sure somebody will be videotaping. For some reason, I'm intrigued. Curious as to how its going to be presented.....as an investigation that failed? One that lasted a really long time and found nothing but photo locations?.....Or have they been sitting on something juicy for a while, waiting for the conference?

Strong evidence exists that point to a hoax (False locations, false testimony, anonymous sources, and analysis that shows a considerable amount of photo anomalies). What can they possibly present to suggest a real event happened? Are they even going to try that approach? Should be interesting to say the least.
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by Double Nought Spy on Sep 29th, 2009, 7:53pm

Something tells me it's going to be a lot like what is described here:

http://www.ufowatchdog.com/ufoexpo2.html

I dunno, call it a hunch. wink
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by Sheepdog on Sep 29th, 2009, 7:59pm

Sigh...
Looks like it worked again
Cute YouTube vids and jpeggies
Deflection at it's best
Gotta give her credit but my god, it's getting old
You can't even remember the topic anymore

Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by Jeddyhi on Sep 29th, 2009, 8:07pm

on Sep 29th, 2009, 7:53pm, Double Nought Spy wrote:
Something tells me it's going to be a lot like what is described here:

http://www.ufowatchdog.com/ufoexpo2.html

I dunno, call it a hunch. wink


Wow. Interesting read. Thanks for the link! A different perpective on a UFO conference. The very last sentence and image summed it up nicely:

"They have 'the truth', and it can be yours...and they will be more than happy to provide you with it...for a price, of course..."

User Image
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by Radi on Sep 29th, 2009, 8:23pm

on Sep 29th, 2009, 7:45pm, Jeddyhi wrote:
The CARET Detectives: An Investigational Report
will probably be available on youtube shortly after the event. I'm sure somebody will be videotaping. For some reason, I'm intrigued. Curious as to how its going to be presented.....as an investigation that failed? One that lasted a really long time and found nothing but photo locations?.....Or have they been sitting on something juicy for a while, waiting for the conference?

Strong evidence exists that point to a hoax (False locations, false testimony, anonymous sources, and analysis that shows a considerable amount of photo anomalies). What can they possibly present to suggest a real event happened? Are they even going to try that approach? Should be interesting to say the least.


Yep should be interesting none the less...Will it be the truth or are they going to ride in on a horse thats a little gassy......
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by Sheepdog on Sep 29th, 2009, 8:33pm

on Sep 29th, 2009, 8:23pm, Radi wrote:
Yep should be interesting none the less...Will it be the truth or are they going to ride in on a horse thats a little gassy......

My prediction is that there will be no conclusion. A "To be continued" , "to be continued", for years to come.
It will go down as inconclusive in history and be accepted as real by the gullible over time.
In 2067 it will be regarded as Roswell with all kinds of people coming out of the woodwork.
What a sorry state.

Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by TheShadow on Sep 29th, 2009, 8:49pm

on Sep 29th, 2009, 8:33pm, StaffLetter666 wrote:
My prediction is that there will be no conclusion. A "To be continued" , "to be continued", for years to come.
It will go down as inconclusive in history and be accepted as real by the gullible over time.
In 2067 it will be regarded as Roswell with all kinds of people coming out of the woodwork.
What a sorry state.


Absolutely correct!! Just as tomi, LMH and the DRT wish!

There is not a snowballs chance in hell these PIs, with their vast network of skills for finding revenue streams, kill their golden calf in the name of truth!



Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by blackwater on Sep 29th, 2009, 10:49pm

What does it take to kill a ufo/alien hoax?

Has it ever been done?

I mean look at Dr. Jonathan Reed, all of that info has been up on ufowatchdog for years, but he's still on the lecture circuit. It's totally ridiculous that he's able to give presentations and not get laughed out of the room.
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by Double Nought Spy on Sep 29th, 2009, 11:24pm

Excellent point, Blackwater. That example and the frauds it represents bother me a lot, too. Curiously, some good sightings (or at least plausible ones) have been killed off, sometimes by ufologists themselves. I think the difference is largely one of whether there is someone milking it or not.

Lots of dairy activity going on in this one, and the mission statement clearly says something like "to keep this mummified beast producing cash by whatever means are available." The behavior and the dogged persistence of the pawns in this case go far beyond what one would expect to find in anyone other than the most rabid, deluded nutcase. Pawns working effectively as a team are generally not crazy.
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by Undercover0ne on Sep 29th, 2009, 11:36pm

The drone saga was funded by LMH. Created by people she hired.

The PI's are funded by LMH, maybe even friends or related to LMH.

The drones were created for LMH to display on C2C, and to promote on Earthfiles. She wanted more payed subscribers to her content.

She never expected to ever come to a conclusion, and planned on making more and more content to help boost interest and subscribers over a period of time. Fake witnesses, fake sightings, and fake documents. All created by LMH and her hired crew under an NDA. That is why she still provides links to isaaccaret.fortunecity.com on a lot of her crop circle content, and other places.

LMH is using the PI's to create more interest, and is the one making them show up at UFO conferences to make even more money off them.

LMH has ties to people in the media, that is how the PI's got on the news.

LHM is also a member of the DRT forum, and talks on these and other forums in a bad disguise.

Who: LHM and her hired graphics team.
Why: To create a mystery she could promote and sell to subscribers.


We have been watching from day One.

Game Over

Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by Double Nought Spy on Sep 29th, 2009, 11:54pm

on Sep 29th, 2009, 11:36pm, Undercover0ne wrote:
The drone saga was funded by LMH. Created by people she hired.

The PI's are funded by LMH, maybe even friends or related to LMH.

The drones were created for LMH to display on C2C, and to promote on Earthfiles. She wanted more payed subscribers to her content.

She never expected to ever come to a conclusion, and planned on making more and more content to help boost interest and subscribers over a period of time. Fake witnesses, fake sightings, and fake documents. All created by LMH and her hired crew under an NDA. That is why she still provides links to isaaccaret.fortunecity.com on a lot of her crop circle content, and other places.

LMH is using the PI's to create more interest, and is the one making them show up at UFO conferences to make even more money off them.

LMH has ties to people in the media, that is how the PI's got on the news.

LHM is also a member of the DRT forum, and talks on these and other forums in a bad disguise.

Who: LHM and her hired graphics team.
Why: To create a mystery she could promote and sell to subscribers.


We have been watching from day One.

Game Over


Interesting theory. I'm looking forward to seeing what you have to back it up. You have taken in a lot of territory there, so I'd better plan the time for a lot of reading.

Oh dear, it's way past my bedtime.
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by Luvey on Sep 30th, 2009, 12:26am

I have never gotten into the drones because after the first few weeks into it, my instincts told me it was a hoax. I usually listen to my instincts…. Well try to anyway.
But, I have often wondered about why anyone would create such a hoax in the first place. What did run through my mind was if someone wanted to write a book what better way to do that than start a hoax and get ideas from what is posted. You have to admit that many clever minds have offered ideas, especially in the months when it all started. All the person would need to do is think on the ideas presented and build stories around it…..
Many movies I have watched lately have had things woven into them that have been posted on Casebook, and other sites.
To give an example there is a movie coming out soon called “The Fourth Kind” that used information researched from Casebook articles. http://www.thefourthkind.net/

Luvey

Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by Jeddyhi on Sep 30th, 2009, 06:37am

on Sep 29th, 2009, 11:36pm, Undercover0ne wrote:
The drone saga was funded by LMH. Created by people she hired.

The PI's are funded by LMH, maybe even friends or related to LMH.

The drones were created for LMH to display on C2C, and to promote on Earthfiles. She wanted more payed subscribers to her content.

She never expected to ever come to a conclusion, and planned on making more and more content to help boost interest and subscribers over a period of time. Fake witnesses, fake sightings, and fake documents. All created by LMH and her hired crew under an NDA. That is why she still provides links to isaaccaret.fortunecity.com on a lot of her crop circle content, and other places.

LMH is using the PI's to create more interest, and is the one making them show up at UFO conferences to make even more money off them.

LMH has ties to people in the media, that is how the PI's got on the news.

LHM is also a member of the DRT forum, and talks on these and other forums in a bad disguise.

Who: LHM and her hired graphics team.
Why: To create a mystery she could promote and sell to subscribers.


We have been watching from day One.

Game Over


In my opinion, LMH, Whitley Streiber, and C2C are all in collusion and are possibly behind the drone hoax. Ever since Whitley had the gall to claim he witnessed a drone, I have suspected the trio above as being the drone hoax team. Create a hoax to create subscribers, generate web page hits, more listeners, and revenue. It really is all about the money for some people. LMH even charges just to view her website content. Not every Ufologist is out for the truth, some are simply out for the money!

User Image

If they aren't the creators of the hoax, they are at least propagators of the hoax....knowingly using a hoax to their own benefit.
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by Radi on Sep 30th, 2009, 07:02am

on Sep 30th, 2009, 06:37am, Jeddyhi wrote:
In my opinion, LMH, Whitley Streiber, and C2C are all in collusion and are behind the drone hoax. Ever since Whitley had the gall to claim he witnesseed a drone, I have suspected the trio above as being the drone hoax team. Create a hoax to create subscribers, generate web page hits, more listeners, and revenue. It really is all about the money for some people. LMH even charges just to view her website content. Not every Ufologist is out for the truth, some are simply out for the money!

User Image


Also IMHO...PTB need not do much with people like this in the UFO field. Disclosure will never happen because of people like this. They make a laughing stock out of the field and are the number one reason why it will never happen....Think "World Weekly News"....
Also why this subject will never be taken seriously are these people that are only there for the money and just taken advantage of those that are gullible.....

Yep remember that Whit and LMH always advertise for each other..So this is was just more advertising for each other...Dr. Reyes? Don't forget to read his dream log since 2001 where he dreams and is a big fan of Whit........ laugh grin
Hmm wonder who LMH is posing as....Lev..hehe

I always use the LEGAL backdoor to read her site..:>wink laugh
No need to pay and it does not matter anyway since she always has nothing worth paying on there for anyway..
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by tommi01 on Sep 30th, 2009, 08:58am

"I keep six honest serving men
They taught me all I knew:
Their names are What and Why and When
And How and Where and Who."
(Rudyard Kipling.)
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by Jeddyhi on Sep 30th, 2009, 09:01am

on Sep 30th, 2009, 08:58am, tomi01uk wrote:
"I keep six honest serving men
They taught me all I knew:
Their names are What and Why and When
And How and Where and Who."
(Rudyard Kipling.)


Yeah, right. rolleyes
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by Marvin on Sep 30th, 2009, 10:43am

on Sep 30th, 2009, 08:58am, tomi01uk wrote:
"I keep six honest serving men
They taught me all I knew:
Their names are What and Why and When
And How and Where and Who."
(Rudyard Kipling.)



Doesn't one have to “critically apply” to what is being served?


Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by TheShadow on Sep 30th, 2009, 10:48am

on Sep 30th, 2009, 08:58am, tomi01uk wrote:
"I keep six honest serving men
They taught me all I knew:
Their names are What and Why and When
And How and Where and Who."
(Rudyard Kipling.)


Obviously they didnt teach you very well......or perhaps maybe you should have taken some notes!!!!
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by Double Nought Spy on Sep 30th, 2009, 11:07am

on Sep 30th, 2009, 08:58am, tomi01uk wrote:
"I keep six honest serving men
They taught me all I knew:
Their names are What and Why and When
And How and Where and Who."
(Rudyard Kipling.)


Such a one-trick pony. Any of us could fill in for her by now.

Without the DRT, the LMH, and parts of the OMF relentlessly pushing this fraud, it surely would have petered out by some time early last year. Without some responsible adults keeping a close eye on the emissions of the promoters, they would likely have inflated it to the point that it resembled the "underground base at Dulce" in the motley UFO culture: another silly story with no credible evidence to support it that is, nevertheless, believed in by people who really should know better. The owners of this particular snake oil emporium are desperate to keep the story alive for obvious reasons. Someone has invested a lot of time and money in the enterprise, and if it dies there is no hope of it ever turning a profit. That's okay, because there are too many people involved. At some point, someone will blow it big time or become disgruntled or have an attack of conscience, and the beans will spill. We hope that time comes soon, but we are patient.
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by tommi01 on Sep 30th, 2009, 12:58pm

Just as appropriate for this situation:

"To escape criticism, do nothing, say nothing, be nothing."
(Elbert Hubbard.)


"It isn't that they can't see the solution. It is that they can't see
the problem."
(G.K.Chesterton.)


"I have discovered the art of deceiving diplomats. I speak the truth, and they never believe me."
(Italian Statesman Camillo di Cavour, 1810-1861.)

"A lie can be half way around the world before truth has its boots on."
(Mark Twain.)

"The truth must not only be the truth – it must also be told."
(Bahais.)

"When you have no basis for an argument, abuse the plaintiff."
(Marcus Tullius Cicero 106-43 BC.)

"If you can't answer a man's arguments, all is not lost; you can still call him vile names."
(US writer Elbert Hubbard.)

Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by Radi on Sep 30th, 2009, 1:24pm

on Sep 30th, 2009, 12:58pm, tomi01uk wrote:
Just as appropriate for this situation:




“Every crowd has a silver lining.”

“There's a sucker born every minute”

“Without promotion something terrible happens... Nothing!”

P.T. Barnum quote
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by DrDil on Sep 30th, 2009, 1:34pm

on Sep 30th, 2009, 12:58pm, tomi01uk wrote:
Just as appropriate for this situation:

"To escape criticism, do nothing, say nothing, be nothing."
(Elbert Hubbard.)


"It isn't that they can't see the solution. It is that they can't see
the problem."
(G.K.Chesterton.)


"I have discovered the art of deceiving diplomats. I speak the truth, and they never believe me."
(Italian Statesman Camillo di Cavour, 1810-1861.)

"A lie can be half way around the world before truth has its boots on."
(Mark Twain.)

"The truth must not only be the truth – it must also be told."
(Bahais.)

"When you have no basis for an argument, abuse the plaintiff."
(Marcus Tullius Cicero 106-43 BC.)

"If you can't answer a man's arguments, all is not lost; you can still call him vile names."
(US writer Elbert Hubbard.)

Quote:
Whenever ufologists turn their attention to the subject of hoaxing within their subject the fundamental gulf between sceptics and believers is brought sharply into focus. Those who choose to invest belief in the ETH and other exotic explanations for the UFO phenomenon tend towards the simplistic party line that, yes, hoaxes exist, but they are few and far between and have little effect on ‘serious ufology’.

Sceptics and more open-minded students of flying saucery are a little more realistic.

It’s perfectly true that as a percentage of investigated UFO cases, known hoaxes represent a tiny fraction. But simple bean counting misses the point entirely. UFO hoaxes may be small in number but those which exist have had a massive impact upon the subject, and have been far reaching in their influence.

Hoaxes are rarely just standard UFO reports. They are invariably photographic or document based. This makes them an easily displayable, marketable media commodity. Whereas a single witness sighting of a brightly lit UFO may only get, at best, a few column inches in a newspaper, a UFO hoax photograph, such as that created by Gordon Faulkner during the 1965 Warminster flap, will receive national media coverage. In turn this sort of exposure can add a stamp of validity (however specious) on to a hitherto disparate collection of UFO reports, turning local a flap into a national phenomenon.

And so the cycle continues.


(c) 2001 David Clarke & Andy Roberts

Cheers!! grin kiss


Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by tommi01 on Sep 30th, 2009, 1:46pm

on Sep 30th, 2009, 1:34pm, DrDil wrote:
Cheers!! grin kiss



Uh huh.... but you gotta hand it to the LAP... not every "hoax" ends up having a computer line designed after it.

Considering the new way Alienware has incorporated even greater amounts of the LAP design into its products.. it bears considering this I think..

The use of certain aspects of the LAP have obviously gone uncontended by copyright claim, this has probably given greater confidence in using even more of it.

Whyhuhhuhhuhhuhhuh Why would someone allow all this lost talent, design, work, time, and most inportant, revenue.... just go like that.... ** poof ** tongue
Boggles the mind as Masker would say..

Masker what's your take on this question??
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by Double Nought Spy on Sep 30th, 2009, 1:52pm

*Sigh*

You know as well as anyone that there is evidence to support the idea that Alienware owns or has paid for the rights to the lap designs. Nice try, but you really need to mix up the pattern a little. We're starting to doze off.
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by Radi on Sep 30th, 2009, 2:02pm

on Sep 30th, 2009, 1:52pm, Double Nought Spy wrote:
*Sigh*

You know as well as anyone that there is evidence to support the idea that Alienware owns or has paid for the rights to the lap designs. Nice try, but you really need to mix up the pattern a little. We're starting to doze off.


Hmmm....Lazy Hoaxer and a Lazy researcher.....

Its goes back to do research Tomi...Bringing up old subjects keep it alive and being talked about like the size of the LAP thing...Which I have not seen anything from you yet..Have you designed one yet.....
Look over at the T files at bot....
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by tommi01 on Sep 30th, 2009, 2:13pm

on Sep 30th, 2009, 1:52pm, Double Nought Spy wrote:
*Sigh*

You know as well as anyone that there is evidence to support the idea that Alienware owns or has paid for the rights to the lap designs. Nice try, but you really need to mix up the pattern a little. We're starting to doze off.


Oh yeah??

Show it to me.. Show me any evidence at all.

btw: nice try at diversion of a very sound, IMO, point to consider..

Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by tommi01 on Sep 30th, 2009, 2:14pm

on Sep 30th, 2009, 2:02pm, Radi wrote:
Hmmm....Lazy Hoaxer and a Lazy researcher.....

Its goes back to do research Tomi...Bringing up old subjects keep it alive and being talked about like the size of the LAP thing...Which I have not seen anything from you yet..Have you designed one yet.....
Look over at the T files at bot....


Show me the evidence of this "theory".

edit to add: Still waiting..... rolleyes
Come on.. you got proof that AlienWare has commissioned or paid for use? Any proof that any claim to ownership or copyright has been made on the LAP so far??

Still waiting..........
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by masker33 on Sep 30th, 2009, 2:54pm

I see some of the LAP designs are used inside the Alienware computers. How interesting. I have said from the beginning this is supposed to grow into a myth, a UFO HOAX for results further down the road. We will see.
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by Radi on Sep 30th, 2009, 2:54pm

on Sep 30th, 2009, 2:14pm, tomi01uk wrote:
Show me the evidence of this "theory".

edit to add: Still waiting..... rolleyes
Come on.. you got proof that AlienWare has commissioned or paid for use? Any proof that any claim to ownership or copyright has been made on the LAP so far??

Still waiting..........


You're starting to sound like Lev Tomi....hmmm IF someone had commissioned this or had claimed copyright on the LAP then we would have our hoaxers now wouldn't we....AlienWare only claimed it on THEIR design found on the Laptops.....You can search on sites for those letters aluding to such.......
Oh wait I just remembered..You don't do any research you wait for others to do it for you.... wink
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by tommi01 on Sep 30th, 2009, 3:07pm

@ Mask
The LAP has been used to such a degree on their models now that they are ripe for a settlement should and if someone come forward, yet nobody does...
why??



Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by tommi01 on Sep 30th, 2009, 3:09pm

on Sep 30th, 2009, 2:54pm, Radi wrote:
Oh wait I just remembered..You don't do any research you wait for others to do it for you.... wink


You got research to show as proof or just those silly responses from their pr lady?

I was told above by Double there is proof. Where is it?

Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by Double Nought Spy on Sep 30th, 2009, 3:14pm

Indignant smokescreen made up of absurd blather? Check.

One of these days it will be like that old joke about prisoners telling jokes, and Tomi will only have to say, "Forty-seven."

Then Shads will say, "Ha! Five-B still negates that crap, for the hundredth time."

Tomi-- Fifty-three, then!

Jed-- Three-W and -X have been shown to be the actual
case, as you well know. Surely you can do better than that.

Lev-- We will reveal at the proper time that there is much more to the Fifty-series than your feeble minds can behold.

And on and on like that. I can't wait.
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by Double Nought Spy on Sep 30th, 2009, 3:15pm

on Sep 30th, 2009, 3:09pm, tomi01uk wrote:
You got research to show as proof or just those silly responses from their pr lady?

I was told above by Double there is proof. Where is it?


I said "evidence." I know you have trouble with such basic concepts, but please do try to follow along. As for where it is, if you don't know that, then maybe you should have been taking notes.
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by TheShadow on Sep 30th, 2009, 3:18pm

on Sep 30th, 2009, 3:07pm, tomi01uk wrote:
@ Mask
The LAP has been used to such a degree on their models now that they are ripe for a settlement should and if someone come forward, yet nobody does...
why??




Your question was answered (by doubles I believe).......because had they come forward we would have our hoaxers!! LMH and her cronies couldnt allow themselves to be exposed.......with almost zero credibilty now IMAGINE how fast her revenue stream would sink when she is exposed as not only a non journalist.....but also the instigator, financial backer and propogator of a HOAX!!!!
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by tommi01 on Sep 30th, 2009, 3:29pm

on Sep 30th, 2009, 3:18pm, TheShadow wrote:
Your question was answered (by doubles I believe).......because had they come forward we would have our hoaxers!! LMH and her cronies couldnt allow themselves to be exposed.......with almost zero credibilty now IMAGINE how fast her revenue stream would sink when she is exposed as not only a non journalist.....but also the instigator, financial backer and propogator of a HOAX!!!!


6. "When you have no basis for an argument, abuse the plaintiff."
(Marcus Tullius Cicero 106-43 BC.)

7. "If you can't answer a man's arguments, all is not lost; you can
still call him vile names."
(US writer Elbert Hubbard.)

Numbers 6 & 7 above.. For those taking notes... wink
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by Double Nought Spy on Sep 30th, 2009, 3:31pm

on Sep 30th, 2009, 3:29pm, tomi01uk wrote:
6. "When you have no basis for an argument, abuse the plaintiff."
(Marcus Tullius Cicero 106-43 BC.)

7. "If you can't answer a man's arguments, all is not lost; you can
still call him vile names."
(US writer Elbert Hubbard.)

Numbers 6 & 7 above.. For those taking notes... wink



Secret contracts and secret business deals are anything but unusual, especially in Hollywood. As we all know. How else would one capitalize on intellectual property that was obviously produced for a hoax, without ruining all the... fun?

So when you have an argument that is worthy of, say, a high school debate class, please post it.
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by tommi01 on Sep 30th, 2009, 3:34pm

Now..... let me explore this concept with Mask, without diversions please....

Since nobody else seems to have proof there was any claim made against the LAP being so extensively used in marketing and product design to this degree now..

Mask... why do you think with all the work involved to create such a HUGE original piece of design that is now being exploited totally by Alienware, why doesn't someone or some group make claim to it. Think of the lost revenue for such initial efforts..

What would be the motivation for not capitalising ??

Seems kinda unnatural... doesn't it?
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by Double Nought Spy on Sep 30th, 2009, 3:36pm

I guess you missed it the first time. Here it is again. laugh

Your smoke is getting a little thin, btw.


"Secret contracts and secret business deals are anything but unusual, especially in Hollywood. As we all know. How else would one capitalize on intellectual property that was obviously produced for a hoax, without ruining all the... fun?"
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by tommi01 on Sep 30th, 2009, 3:37pm

on Sep 30th, 2009, 3:36pm, Double Nought Spy wrote:
I guess you missed it the first time. Here it is again. laugh

Your smoke is getting a little thin, btw.


"Secret contracts and secret business deals are anything but unusual, especially in Hollywood. As we all know. How else would one capitalize on intellectual property that was obviously produced for a hoax, without ruining all the... fun?"


Don't just throw your extremely thin theories out as facts... where do you have any inkling of a suggestion that someone filed a claim against AlienWare using the LAP design?


Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by Double Nought Spy on Sep 30th, 2009, 3:41pm

I dunno, this is your argument. I understand your not wanting to claim it, but you did start it. All this was thoroughly discussed last winter or last year when the AW thing came up, and I'm not going to let you drag us into yet another rehash (DRT favorite "argument" technique #4).

Good luck! grin
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by TheShadow on Sep 30th, 2009, 3:42pm

on Sep 30th, 2009, 3:29pm, tomi01uk wrote:
6. "When you have no basis for an argument, abuse the plaintiff."
(Marcus Tullius Cicero 106-43 BC.)

7. "If you can't answer a man's arguments, all is not lost; you can
still call him vile names."
(US writer Elbert Hubbard.)

Numbers 6 & 7 above.. For those taking notes... wink


My argument is sound.....much sounder than your agenda!!
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by Radi on Sep 30th, 2009, 3:43pm

on Sep 30th, 2009, 3:34pm, tomi01uk wrote:
Now..... let me explore this concept with Mask, without diversions please....

Since nobody else seems to have proof there was any claim made against the LAP being so extensively used in marketing and product design to this degree now..

Mask... why do you think with all the work involved to create such a HUGE original piece of design that is now being exploited totally by Alienware, why doesn't someone or some group make claim to it. Think of the lost revenue for such initial efforts..

What would be the motivation for not capitalising ??

Seems kinda unnatural... doesn't it?


As said a long time ago in a fourm far far away....If someone or a group came forward to lay claim to the LAP and claim to hold the copyright to that then this would be the Hoaxers......Thought you went through this Copyright Lawsuit type of stuff before Tomi........Did you learn from this experience..........

Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by TheShadow on Sep 30th, 2009, 3:45pm

on Sep 30th, 2009, 3:43pm, Radi wrote:
As said a long time ago in a fourm far far away....If someone or a group came forward to lay claim to the LAP and claim to hold the copyright to that then this would be the Hoaxers......


HAs also been EXTENSIVELY explained (and ignored by tomi) in about 5 posts on this forum TODAY!!!!
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by tommi01 on Sep 30th, 2009, 3:47pm

on Sep 30th, 2009, 3:41pm, Double Nought Spy wrote:
All this was thoroughly discussed last winter or last year when the AW thing came up, and I'm not going to let you drag us into yet another rehash.

Good luck! grin


Great!! Thoroughly discussed... So thoroughly you end up with nothing to back up your "facts". Which you don't have.

Good Luck to you if that is how you apply your form of "reseach" to your hypothesess. Anyway..
A lot of talent, a lot of effort, a lot of excruciating work is being exploited by a major computer company and nobody makes a claim and to top it off.. nobody asks why??


Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by TheShadow on Sep 30th, 2009, 3:49pm

on Sep 30th, 2009, 3:47pm, tomi01uk wrote:
Great!! Thoroughly discussed... So thoroughly you end up with nothing to back up your "facts". Which you don't have.

Good Luck to you if that is how you apply your form of "reseach" to your hypothesess. Anyway..
A lot of talent, a lot of effort, a lot of excruciating work is being exploited by a major computer company and nobody makes a claim and to top it off.. nobody asks why??



DO YOU READ THE OTHER POSTS?? The why is so freaking obvious.....even YOU should be able to see it!!
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by Double Nought Spy on Sep 30th, 2009, 3:50pm

on Sep 30th, 2009, 3:47pm, tomi01uk wrote:
Great!! Thoroughly discussed... So thoroughly you end up with nothing to back up your "facts". Which you don't have.

Good Luck to you if that is how you apply your form of "reseach" to your hypothesess. Anyway..
A lot of talent, a lot of effort, a lot of excruciating work is being exploited by a major computer company and nobody makes a claim and to top it off.. nobody asks why??



Oh stop! I know you're not that stupid. As for your homework, why would you think I would do that for you? If you really weren't paying attention the first time, that's your problem. Now get to it.
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by tommi01 on Sep 30th, 2009, 3:51pm

on Sep 30th, 2009, 3:43pm, Radi wrote:
As said a long time ago in a fourm far far away....If someone or a group came forward to lay claim to the LAP and claim to hold the copyright to that then this would be the Hoaxers......

Let's examine this reasoning for a minute...
No.. it's really too superficial to justify.

It betrays the essence of the point I'm trying to make.. which is what is the point of putting so much in and taking nothing out?? And leaving it out there for the purpose of what?
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by tommi01 on Sep 30th, 2009, 3:55pm

on Sep 30th, 2009, 3:50pm, Double Nought Spy wrote:
Oh stop! I know you're not that stupid. As for your homework, why would you think I would do that for you? If you really weren't paying attention the first time, that's your problem. Now get to it.


Get me the proof you say you have. Get me the evidence. Because a PR response about derivative work is hardly a sufficient answer to the point of nobody making a claim. Especially now with the full exploitation of the LAP taking place in conventions and within their models. It's payback time... and nobody is asking..

Why??

Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by TheShadow on Sep 30th, 2009, 3:57pm

on Sep 30th, 2009, 3:51pm, tomi01uk wrote:
Let's examine this reasoning for a minute...
No.. it's really too superficial to justify.

It betrays the essence of the point I'm trying to make.. which is what is the point of putting so much in and taking nothing out?? And leaving it out there for the purpose of what?


Okay......now if possible follow this train of thought!!

1. Lets assume your hero LMH commissioned the drone hoax to drum up business for her crappy lame ass website.

2. She hires an artist that she pays to create the drones and BS witnesses.

3.That artist signs a Non disclosure agreement (NDA)

4. If anyone learns that Linda commissioned the drones she is finished as a "researcher" (so she absolutely aint going to file a suit)

5. If the artist blabs he.she gets their butt sued by LMH!!!

6. So Alienware gets away with blatant copywrite infringement because Linda sure as hell aint gonna expose herself and the artist doesnt wwish to be sued by her.

OR

AlienWare worked with Linda to create the drones because it benefits them both!!!
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by Jeddyhi on Sep 30th, 2009, 4:11pm

on Sep 30th, 2009, 3:43pm, Radi wrote:
As said a long time ago in a fourm far far away....If someone or a group came forward to lay claim to the LAP and claim to hold the copyright to that then this would be the Hoaxers......


And they would have to walk away from the hoax admitting that Isaac/CARET was a big deception as were all the witness reports and photos.

According to current law, the moment that Isaac uploaded and shared the CARET material, it became copyrighted automatically.

Quote:
'In all countries where the Berne Convention standards apply, copyright is automatic, and need not be obtained through official registration with any government office. Once an idea has been reduced to tangible form, for example by securing it in a fixed medium (such as a drawing, sheet music, photograph, a videotape, or a computer file), the copyright holder is entitled to enforce his or her exclusive rights. However, while registration isn't needed to exercise copyright, in jurisdictions where the laws provide for registration, it serves as prima facie evidence of a valid copyright and enables the copyright holder to seek statutory damages and attorney's fees. (In the USA, registering after an infringement only enables one to receive actual damages and lost profits.)'

Source: wiki

So Isaac, whover he is, actually has right to them. So either the material actually did originate from stolen top secret documents and Alienware could care less...... or they are created works by whoever created Isaac/CARET.com
and Alienware will cease and desist if ever told to. A cease and desist by the creator would only destroy the hoax and Alienware may simply cease and desist the usage of the material instead of offering money for the right to use. The claim could be made anytime Isaac wants to reveal himself.
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by Double Nought Spy on Sep 30th, 2009, 4:18pm

Christ on a crutch! You'd think it was rocket science or something. rolleyes
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by tommi01 on Sep 30th, 2009, 4:21pm

on Sep 30th, 2009, 3:57pm, TheShadow wrote:


All strawman crapolla Shads.. All BS with blinder on..

Quote:
1. Lets assume your hero LMH commissioned the drone hoax to drum up business for her crappy lame ass website.



Where's your proof? Not a chance? You got to be kidding! A production like that and she doesn't need a fricking website you moron!! wink kiss
next..

Quote:
2. She hires an artist that she pays to create the drones and BS witnesses.



Refer to above... rolleyes

Quote:
3.That artist signs a Non disclosure agreement (NDA)



This is the only senerio that has any weight so far.. ok.. but to whom?? Who would commission such work and why?

Quote:
4. If anyone learns that Linda commissioned the drones she is finished as a "researcher" (so she absolutely aint going to file a suit)



You have a baseless argument there that doesn't even bring into consideration the law of diminishing returns.. rolleyes

Quote:
5. If the artist blabs he.she gets their butt sued by LMH!!!



Errrrr... lol right.. grin Like LMH has all these lawyers in her pocket right next to bums around the street corner ready to play Issac for 5 dollars.. hilarious.. grin

Quote:
6. So Alienware gets away with blatant copywrite infringement because Linda sure as hell aint gonna expose herself and the artist doesnt wwish to be sued by her.



Someone should advise LMH where the money is then..
grin


Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by tommi01 on Sep 30th, 2009, 4:24pm

on Sep 30th, 2009, 4:11pm, Jeddyhi wrote:
And they would have to walk away from the hoax admitting that Isaac/CARET was a big deception as were all the witness reports and photos.

According to current law, the moment that Isaac uploaded and shared the CARET material, it became copyrighted automatically.


Source: wiki

So Isaac, whover he is, actually has right to them. So either the material actually did originate from stolen top secret documents and Alienware could care less...... or they are created works by whoever created Isaac/CARET.com
and Alienware will cease and desist if ever told to. A cease and desist by the creator would only destroy the hoax and Alienware may simply cease and desist the usage of the material instead of offering money for the right to use. The claim could be made anytime Isaac wants to reveal himself.


It certainly would not be a slam dunk, but it would give Dell pause for concern...
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by Radi on Sep 30th, 2009, 4:25pm

on Sep 30th, 2009, 4:11pm, Jeddyhi wrote:
And they would have to walk away from the hoax admitting that Isaac/CARET was a big deception as were all the witness reports and photos.

According to current law, the moment that Isaac uploaded and shared the CARET material, it became copyrighted automatically.


Source: wiki

So Isaac, whover he is, actually has right to them. So either the material actually did originate from stolen top secret documents and Alienware could care less...... or they are created works by whoever created Isaac/CARET.com
and Alienware will cease and desist if ever told to. A cease and desist by the creator would only destroy the hoax and Alienware may simply cease and desist the usage of the material instead of offering money for the right to use. The claim could be made anytime Isaac wants to reveal himself.


And if it was REAL secret stolen documents from whoever (Government, Secret Lab..etc..) It would have been taken down and off the web a loooong time ago and there would be no AW laptops designed on the LAP... wink smiley
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by TheShadow on Sep 30th, 2009, 4:26pm

on Sep 30th, 2009, 4:21pm, tomi01uk wrote:
All strawman crapolla Shads.. All BS with blinder on..



Where's your proof? Not a chance? You got to be kidding! A production like that and she doesn't need a fricking website you moron!! wink kiss
next..



Refer to above... rolleyes



This is the only senerio that has any weight so far.. ok.. but to whom?? Who would commission such work and why?



You have a baseless argument there that doesn't even bring into consideration the law of diminishing returns.. rolleyes



Errrrr... lol right.. grin Like LMH has all these lawyers in her pocket right next to bums around the street corner ready to play Issac for 5 dollars.. hilarious.. grin



Someone should advise LMH where the money is then..
grin



Every word i wrote makes perfect sense.....and i seem to have hit a nerve!!

Mods I believe tomi crossed a line by calling me a moron......how about a brief banning for her to bring up the mentality of the forum for a while??
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by tommi01 on Sep 30th, 2009, 4:29pm

on Sep 30th, 2009, 4:25pm, Radi wrote:
And if it was REAL secret stolen documents from whoever (Government, Secret Lab..etc..) It would have been taken down and off the web a loooong time ago and there would be no AW laptops designed on the LAP... wink smiley


Again, another speculation. The reverse could be just as true. In fact, IMO .. and the BIG IF comes into play here .. if this was in anyway an alien artifact, most of the "goberment" would be just as confused by it as everyone else. It would be so compartmentalised that it could sit there looking like a hoax and doing just what it was intended to do.
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by tommi01 on Sep 30th, 2009, 4:30pm

on Sep 30th, 2009, 4:26pm, TheShadow wrote:
Mods I believe tomi crossed a line by calling me a moron......how about a brief banning for her to bring up the mentality of the forum for a while??

poetic license ?

When does poetic license not apply anymore? wink


Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by TheShadow on Sep 30th, 2009, 4:31pm

on Sep 30th, 2009, 4:29pm, tomi01uk wrote:
Again, another speculation. The reverse could be just as true. In fact, IMO .. and the BIG IF comes into play here .. if this was in anyway an alien artifact, most of the "goberment" would be just as confused by it as everyone else. It would be so compartmentalised that it could sit there looking like a hoax and doing just what it was intended to do.


And you called me a moron?? Jesus christ woman.....can you be that freaking stupid?? No we all know you arent.........just doing your job!!

How pathetic.......
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by TheShadow on Sep 30th, 2009, 4:36pm

on Sep 30th, 2009, 4:30pm, tomi01uk wrote:
poetic license ?

When does poetic license not apply anymore? wink


General Rules and Regulations for Posting


3) As a member, you have the right to disagree with another member's post. However, you can do this without attacking that person's character. Personal attacks will not be tolerated. Again, a warning message with be issued, and a member will be banned upon a second offense.

Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by DrDil on Sep 30th, 2009, 4:37pm

on Sep 30th, 2009, 1:46pm, tomi01uk wrote:
Uh huh.... but you gotta hand it to the LAP... not every "hoax" ends up having a computer line designed after it.

Considering the new way Alienware has incorporated even greater amounts of the LAP design into its products.. it bears considering this I think..

The use of certain aspects of the LAP have obviously gone uncontended by copyright claim, this has probably given greater confidence in using even more of it.

Whyhuhhuhhuhhuhhuh Why would someone allow all this lost talent, design, work, time, and most inportant, revenue.... just go like that.... ** poof ** tongue
Boggles the mind as Masker would say..

Masker what's your take on this question??

“A computer line designed after it”?

What, from the five original accounts, the varying Drone designs and the many-worded explanation and images of alleged alien technology (antigrav device etc.) that Isaac proffered they copied what is best described as a schematic including known bastardized fonts and this is your idea of “Designed after it”?

I guess I really am in the minority here as I disagree with everyone about the viral angle but also with you about basing their design on it, or more specifically exclusively based on it as it seems you’re implying with “Designed after it”. Strangely the reasons I disagree with both theories are similarly themed but as for the copyright issue I still don’t think anyone has answered about claiming of such as surely whichever way you look at it it’s of no massive importance?

First scenario:
If Isaac is telling the truth (meh) then only Caret or one of the many alien races (according to Isaac anyway) could possibly claim copyright and if either were to do so then it’s game over as the fabled ‘disclosure’ would be upon us.

User Image


Second scenario: If it’s all lies, and as (when considering this theory) Isaac has, you have purposefully deceived from the outset (as well as waived copyrights,) plus there is no trademark registered, and most of the designs have been around as individual items in some form or another for long before Isaac claimed them, e.g.:


User Image

User Image

(Heh, heh, even the Drones themselves had their predecessors.

What about this one, it’s one of my my favourites.
User Image
From a Lightwave tutorial no less..... grin


All of these examples pre-date the Drones and I agree that the LAP was an inspired combination and subsequent representation of them (intentionally, subconsciously or otherwise), but unique?

Anyway when considering the above then would/does/could even intellectual copyright be argued? I.e. when already waived and there has been no one willing to be identified and we’re now past the two year mark? As I’ve stated previously this isn’t like a pseudonym as this was someone claiming anonymity and asking for no payment or recompense as well as asserting no ‘real’ copyright (in fact the exact opposite)?

But back to your original question about the design thing, as Masker has pointed out then a couple of prints on the INTERNAL board components are the only difference from the earlier designs, isn’t it? Well, apart from a vague screen-shot on the desktop on the main page for the desktops (note, NOT notebooks).

So regarding: “Considering the new way Alienware has incorporated even greater amounts of the LAP design into its products.. it bears considering this I think.” There may be an extra couple of representations of the schematic ‘under the hood’ but I still don’t get the implications of such as surely it’s just the same as the SCC, or bioware, or Serenity, isn’t it?

IF they were the originators then surely this would have been claimed instead of appearing to plagiarise the LAP, and as you said the earlier inclusion of the symbols in the original MX’s was perhaps just testing the water before printing another couple of representations on the inside of the new aurora’s?

I still don’t see why this is of any real relevance?

After all, this IS Alienware.

Remember the one with the iconic aliens head as a trademark?
That was around for many moons before they slightly altered and claimed it, wasn’t it?
Hmm, I wonder if Whitley has a case with Alienware?
Or come to that if the Crowley estate has just cause against Whitley regarding Crowley’s “LAM”?

But back to Alienware, you know, the one that has hardware named after famous & misidentified UFO events (aurora, Area51) and is futuristic in design, what better way than to try and tie it in with reversed alien technology be it legitimate or merely claimed as legitimate (i.e. alien-tech)?

I guess I'm on my own in thinking this way but never mind as it's not the first time and I'm sure it won't be the last.....

Cheers. smiley
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by tommi01 on Sep 30th, 2009, 4:38pm

on Sep 30th, 2009, 4:31pm, TheShadow wrote:
And you called me a moron?? Jesus christ woman.....can you be that freaking stupid?? No we all know you arent.........just doing your job!!

How pathetic.......


Stop the diversion.. seems like you behave stranger and stranger the more we seek the deeper crevices of truth here.. rolleyes
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by Radi on Sep 30th, 2009, 4:39pm

on Sep 30th, 2009, 4:29pm, tomi01uk wrote:
Again, another speculation. The reverse could be just as true. In fact, IMO .. and the BIG IF comes into play here .. if this was in anyway an alien artifact, most of the "goberment" would be just as confused by it as everyone else. It would be so compartmentalised that it could sit there looking like a hoax and doing just what it was intended to do.


Is that a generalization "Everyone Else"....Its been on the web long enough...Even the host site thought it to be a HOAX......
"goberment"=government unless you meant Goober-Mint
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by Jeddyhi on Sep 30th, 2009, 4:39pm

on Sep 30th, 2009, 4:29pm, tomi01uk wrote:
Again, another speculation. The reverse could be just as true. In fact, IMO .. and the BIG IF comes into play here .. if this was in anyway an alien artifact, most of the "goberment" would be just as confused by it as everyone else. It would be so compartmentalised that it could sit there looking like a hoax and doing just what it was intended to do.


So now your saying it was intended to look like a hoax or am I reading you the wrong way?
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by DrDil on Sep 30th, 2009, 4:44pm

on Sep 30th, 2009, 4:26pm, TheShadow wrote:
Every word i wrote makes perfect sense.....and i seem to have hit a nerve!!

Mods I believe tomi crossed a line by calling me a moron......how about a brief banning for her to bring up the mentality of the forum for a while??

Unfortunately if that were the case (lines being crossed in the Drone threads) then I would be talking to myself, but hey, it seems I do most of the time anyway.....

But to ALL Dronies, please try and at least be civil to each other and STOP posting non-related videos and images.

Many thanks in advance.
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by TheShadow on Sep 30th, 2009, 4:45pm

on Sep 30th, 2009, 4:38pm, tomi01uk wrote:
Stop the diversion.. seems like you behave stranger and stranger the more we seek the deeper crevices of truth here.. rolleyes


The only person here diverting the truth is you tomi and we all know it!!

You may as well report back to whomever it is that hired you that your mission has failed....just like their hoax!!
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by tommi01 on Sep 30th, 2009, 4:46pm

on Sep 30th, 2009, 4:39pm, Jeddyhi wrote:
So now your saying it was intended to look like a hoax or am I reading you the wrong way?


It's a theory. Just a theory. But certainly more plausible than thinking little ol LMH was behind this..
LOL as if she doesn't already have a life too full to even look at the internet half the time... to see how frustrated everyone is about this. It is off her radar.


Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by Radi on Sep 30th, 2009, 4:51pm

on Sep 30th, 2009, 4:37pm, DrDil wrote:
“A computer line designed after it”?
snipped for size
I guess I'm on my own in thinking this way but never mind as it's not the first time and I'm sure it won't be the last.....

Cheers. smiley


As always great rational DrDill.......
Oh yea forgot about that Lightwave Tut...Wasn't that on a clock face or something? smiley
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by tommi01 on Sep 30th, 2009, 4:51pm

on Sep 30th, 2009, 4:44pm, DrDil wrote:
But to ALL Dronies, please try and at least be civil to each other and STOP posting non-related videos and images.

Many thanks in advance.


Hmmm... in this case that's going to be hard to figure..
esp when dealing with everything from internal astronauts to labrats.. but I will try doc.. I will try smiley

Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by TheShadow on Sep 30th, 2009, 4:51pm

on Sep 30th, 2009, 4:46pm, tomi01uk wrote:
It's a theory. Just a theory. But certainly more plausible than thinking little ol LMH was behind this..
LOL as if she doesn't already have a life too full to even look at the internet half the time... to see how frustrated everyone is about this. It is off her radar.



My lord you play gullible well!!!

The LMH theory makes perfect sense!
Who benefited the most from this hoax?? LMH!
Who did the witneses "supposedly" contact? LMH or her close friends at C2C
Who has all the contact info for the alleged witnesses?? LMH
Who is holding back the pictures that prove this is a hoax?? LMH
Who does tomi and the DRT protect like she is their motherhuh LMH

If you step back and look at tis without your paycheck blinding you......

I certainly hope you never reproduce the world has enough idiots! (okay i feel better now ill try to behave as well)
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by DrDil on Sep 30th, 2009, 4:52pm

on Sep 30th, 2009, 4:46pm, tomi01uk wrote:
It's a theory. Just a theory. But certainly more plausible than thinking little ol LMH was behind this..
LOL as if she doesn't already have a life too full to even look at the internet half the time... to see how frustrated everyone is about this. It is off her radar.


With the greatest respect Tomi that's the problem.

If it were on her radar she, along with C2C, could have weeded the hoaxers out long ago, or at least confirmed any truth in the story instead of, well, it being off their respective radars.
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by tommi01 on Sep 30th, 2009, 4:57pm

on Sep 30th, 2009, 4:51pm, TheShadow wrote:
My lord you play gullible well!!!

The LMH theory makes perfect sense!
Who benefited the most from this hoax?? LMH!
Who did the witneses "supposedly" contact? LMH or her close friends at C2C
Who has all the contact info for the alleged witnesses?? LMH
Who is holding back the pictures that prove this is a hoax?? LMH
Who does tomi and the DRT protect like she is their motherhuh LMH

If you step back and look at tis without your paycheck blinding you......

I certainly hope you never reproduce the world has enough idiots!


Mods! Lay into him Mods... he is attacking me ..

He thinks I'm getting paid for defending against the most asinine theories he can think of..

He has no proof, no rational reason why even and he is performing ad hominens on people because he can't come up with any other rational explaination...
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by tommi01 on Sep 30th, 2009, 4:58pm

on Sep 30th, 2009, 4:52pm, DrDil wrote:
With the greatest respect Tomi that's the problem.

If it were on her radar she, along with C2C, could have weeded the hoaxers out long ago, or at least confirmed any truth in the story instead of, well, it being off their respective radars.


How do you know that's not going on, with the resources and time allowed?
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by Double Nought Spy on Sep 30th, 2009, 4:59pm

Someone would have to pay me a lot of money to act that stupid. Just sayin'.
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by DrDil on Sep 30th, 2009, 5:00pm

on Sep 30th, 2009, 4:51pm, tomi01uk wrote:
Hmmm... in this case that's going to be hard to figure..
esp when dealing with everything from internal astronauts to labrats.. but I will try doc.. I will try smiley

on Sep 30th, 2009, 4:51pm, TheShadow wrote:
(okay i feel better now ill try to behave as well)

Ha, I have it in writing now (and intend to hold you to it wink).

Cheers.
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by TheShadow on Sep 30th, 2009, 5:02pm

on Sep 30th, 2009, 4:58pm, tomi01uk wrote:
How do you know that's not going on, with the resources and time allowed?


what resources?? Sounds like you are saying LMH is paying the detectives?? Are those the resources?? Did you just accidentally let the cat out of the bag??

Linda is not going to like that!!
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by tommi01 on Sep 30th, 2009, 5:05pm

on Sep 30th, 2009, 4:59pm, Double Nought Spy wrote:
Someone would have to pay me a lot of money to act that stupid. Just sayin'.


I was just thinking... You gotta be getting your money from somewhere.. wink lipsrsealed
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by DrDil on Sep 30th, 2009, 5:06pm

on Sep 30th, 2009, 4:58pm, tomi01uk wrote:
How do you know that's not going on, with the resources and time allowed?

I don’t Tomi and have never claimed to, I’m merely basing my comments on what you stated as you evidently know more than us about what LMH does with her time, and of course it's purely my opinion based on their public actions to date. Although I will add that C2C has been infinitely more accommodating to me personally than LMH ever has (before I posted any critiques of her, belly-laughing aside).

But allow me to rephrase, what I was trying to say is that it certainly doesn’t inspire confidence.

Better?

Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by Double Nought Spy on Sep 30th, 2009, 5:09pm

on Sep 30th, 2009, 5:05pm, tomi01uk wrote:
I was just thinking... You gotta be getting your money from somewhere.. wink lipsrsealed


But, see, I get paid for being a smart-@ss, which is far, far less embarrassing.
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by Sheepdog on Sep 30th, 2009, 5:09pm

This is getting so silly.
Like the other Doc (the one who speaks latin) and his newest theory that the drones could be a hoax in 3D because they don't exist in 3D only 4D.
Everyone is going bonkers entertaining any of these diversions and twisting of logic.
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by TheShadow on Sep 30th, 2009, 5:09pm

on Sep 30th, 2009, 5:09pm, Double Nought Spy wrote:
But, see, I get paid for being a smart-@ss, which is far, far less embarrassing.


... and an intelligent one at that!!!!
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by DrDil on Sep 30th, 2009, 5:10pm

on Sep 30th, 2009, 5:09pm, Double Nought Spy wrote:
But, see, I get paid for being a smart-@ss, which is far, far less embarrassing.

Take any further bickering to PM's, this is the last warning.
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by Double Nought Spy on Sep 30th, 2009, 5:27pm

on Sep 30th, 2009, 5:10pm, DrDil wrote:
Take any further bickering to PM's, this is the last warning.


Fair enough. Since LMH isn't here (as far as we know) and Isaac and Chad and Raj and the others don't exist, I will endeavor to keep my unflattering comments directed at the defenseless and the fictitious. grin
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by SiddReader on Sep 30th, 2009, 5:28pm

on Sep 30th, 2009, 5:09pm, StaffLetter666 wrote:
This is getting so silly.
Like the other Doc (the one who speaks latin) and his newest theory that the drones could be a hoax in 3D because they don't exist in 3D only 4D.
Everyone is going bonkers entertaining any of these diversions and twisting of logic.


Kind of evolution, I guess. rolleyes
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by Double Nought Spy on Sep 30th, 2009, 5:42pm

on Sep 29th, 2009, 11:36pm, Undercover0ne wrote:
The drone saga was funded by LMH. Created by people she hired.

The PI's are funded by LMH, maybe even friends or related to LMH.

The drones were created for LMH to display on C2C, and to promote on Earthfiles. She wanted more payed subscribers to her content.

She never expected to ever come to a conclusion, and planned on making more and more content to help boost interest and subscribers over a period of time. Fake witnesses, fake sightings, and fake documents. All created by LMH and her hired crew under an NDA. That is why she still provides links to isaaccaret.fortunecity.com on a lot of her crop circle content, and other places.

LMH is using the PI's to create more interest, and is the one making them show up at UFO conferences to make even more money off them.

LMH has ties to people in the media, that is how the PI's got on the news.

LHM is also a member of the DRT forum, and talks on these and other forums in a bad disguise.

Who: LHM and her hired graphics team.
Why: To create a mystery she could promote and sell to subscribers.


We have been watching from day One.

Game Over


Is it just me, or is this a very intriguing post? I saw it late last night, when I should have been sleeping, but I've read it a few times now and it seems to make a great deal of sense. Really, the only thing I can find that doesn't quite fit is this: I don't think of LMH as being competent enough to pull this off. But then she obviously had some talented help, and I'm biased anyway. Well, the "bad disguise" isn't so convincing, either. Of course we have seen plenty of bad disguises here, but why would LMH post on any of these forums. Talk about a bad trip!

Is LMH rich enough to still be paying PIs and lackeys?
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by tommi01 on Sep 30th, 2009, 5:42pm

on Sep 30th, 2009, 4:37pm, DrDil wrote:
“A computer line designed after it”?

All of these examples pre-date the Drones and I agree that the LAP was an inspired combination and subsequent representation of them (intentionally, subconsciously or otherwise), but unique?



Yes, the LAP was for legal purposes a "creative work".

Quote:
Anyway when considering the above then would/does/could even intellectual copyright be argued?



Absolutely as an "original creative work".

Quote:
I.e. when already waived and there has been no one willing to be identified and we’re now past the two year mark?



Yes, that's why it wouldn't be a "slam dunk". The LAP has been put into the public domain and left there uncontested. One also needs to register it in the Library of Congress before asserting legal claims to the right. But intent to defend must also be proven within this specified period of time.

Quote:
But back to your original question about the design thing, as Masker has pointed out then a couple of prints on the INTERNAL board components are the only difference from the earlier designs, isn’t it? Well, apart from a vague screen-shot on the desktop on the main page for the desktops (note, NOT notebooks).



If the person or group who did the LAP wanted to excercise their rights the entire production and distribution worldwide of these computers would be halted. Every single distributor holding these computers in stock would be sued concurrently with the manufacturer. The defense of such issues would amount to a tremendous amount of money, considering the loses in sales and and the adverse publicity.

Anyone with the nouse to do the LAP knows this. I'm sure.


Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by Jeddyhi on Sep 30th, 2009, 5:44pm

on Sep 30th, 2009, 4:46pm, tomi01uk wrote:
It's a theory. Just a theory. But certainly more plausible than thinking little ol LMH was behind this..
LOL as if she doesn't already have a life too full to even look at the internet half the time... to see how frustrated everyone is about this. It is off her radar.



With all due respect, that statement is misnomer of sorts. LMH, C2C, Whitley Streiber and many others have a big interest in their websites and the internet as a whole since there are so many Ufology related forums and websites these days.

Her plate maybe full, but I'm sure a hefty portion of it is dedicated to her website (and the internet) which generates revenue. A lot of these names like LMH and Whitley are making their money around Ufology. They want the money first, then truth or disclosure or whatever else later. That is a simple fact of truth. They write books not to give away for free, but to sell. They do the lecture circuit, not to enlighten us for free but in order to get paid. They attempt to increase the size of the 'tin foil hat' crowd because that means fresh fans willing to believe whatever they read regarding Ufology. And they are willing to pay to read it.

LMH, Streiber, etc.....they do not impress me. They promote their ideas and theories to make a buck, not to find truth.

For them, it will always be about the almighty dollar first, truth second. If you think othewise, your just fooling yourself.


Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by tommi01 on Sep 30th, 2009, 5:48pm

on Sep 30th, 2009, 5:44pm, Jeddyhi wrote:
If you think othewise, your just fooling yourself.



I know LMH doesn't have time to browse the internet to the point of paying attention to posts and sentiments from ppl like us.
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by Jeddyhi on Sep 30th, 2009, 5:49pm

on Sep 30th, 2009, 5:42pm, tomi01uk wrote:
If the person or group who did the LAP wanted to excercise their rights the entire production and distribution worldwide of these computers would be halted. Every single distributor holding these computers in stock would be sued concurrently with the manufacturer. The defense of such issues would amount to a tremendous amount of money, considering the loses in sales and and the adverse publicity.

Anyone with the nouse to do the LAP knows this. I'm sure.



Well then, that points more to Alienware being the origin of the LAP than anything else. Surely they would not take such a risk unless they had the right. But this is all deja vue and has been discussed many times over.

Why travel in a circle?
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by Double Nought Spy on Sep 30th, 2009, 5:49pm

Well put, Jed. LMH, C2C and Strieber all live on the internet. Their web sites are their places of business as much as a building with a good location is where a pharmacist does business.
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by Jeddyhi on Sep 30th, 2009, 5:50pm

on Sep 30th, 2009, 5:48pm, tomi01uk wrote:
I know LMH doesn't have time to browse the internet to the point of paying attention to posts and sentiments from ppl like us.


And why is she to busy? She is busy making money from Ufology, correct?
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by tommi01 on Sep 30th, 2009, 5:50pm

on Sep 30th, 2009, 5:49pm, Jeddyhi wrote:
Well then, that points more to Alienware being the origin of the LAP than anything else. Surely they would not take such a risk unless they had the right. But this is all deja vue and has been discussed many times over.

Why travel in a circle?


Why?? Because your speculations say so??
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by Double Nought Spy on Sep 30th, 2009, 5:52pm

on Sep 30th, 2009, 5:49pm, Jeddyhi wrote:
Well then, that points more to Alienware being the origin of the LAP than anything else. Surely they would not take such a risk unless they had the right. But this is all deja vue and has been discussed many times over.

Why travel in a circle?


As noted a good fraction of a zillion times already, to think that AW, part of Dell, didn't have it's hind end covered when they ordered the production of those computers is just loopy.
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by tommi01 on Sep 30th, 2009, 5:56pm

AlienWare created a trademark when they used a derivative work from the LAP. That would normally trigger a response, but it didn't. They slowly incorporated more and increasing replications of the design into their products and the marketing of their products. Assured possibly by no longer having the 2 year limit of contesting copyright to fear, they have gone full use with many original elements of the design.

However, they are not out of danger yet. I believe they are speculating on winning with a team of research lawyers who have what they now consider to be "public domain" defenses to use. This would still not stop a group of smart New York lawyers from stopping their distribution in a NY heartbeat... should the creator of the LAP assert a defense.
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by tommi01 on Sep 30th, 2009, 5:59pm

on Sep 30th, 2009, 5:52pm, Double Nought Spy wrote:
As noted a good fraction of a zillion times already, to think that AW, part of Dell, didn't have it's hind end covered when they ordered the production of those computers is just loopy.


Well then there are only two possibilities.. if you are right and I'm wrong.

1. Your theory that the creator was Alienware.
2. Your theory, that the creator is known to alienware and has filed copyright in the Library of Congress to settle behind the scenes with NDA..??

But how come no copyright filed in Lib of Congress?
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by DrDil on Sep 30th, 2009, 5:59pm

von Sep 30th, 2009, 5:42pm, Double Nought Spy wrote:
Is it just me, or is this a very intriguing post? I saw it late last night, when I should have been sleeping, but I've read it a few times now and it seems to make a great deal of sense. Really, the only thing I can find that doesn't quite fit is this: I don't think of LMH as being competent enough to pull this off. But then she obviously had some talented help, and I'm biased anyway. Well, the "bad disguise" isn't so convincing, either. Of course we have seen plenty of bad disguises here, but why would LMH post on any of these forums. Talk about a bad trip!

Is LMH rich enough to still be paying PIs and lackeys?

I’ve seriously contemplated it as well but I personally can’t see it actually being possible.

When the PI’s were first involved and appeared on the mainstream media LMH was scathing in her unprompted retort, she really did seem to take it personally:

User Image


This isn’t the actions of someone employing the PI’s as if that is the case then it’s counter-productive at best and at worst could be described as self-destruction.

Back in the day Tomi confirmed that while LMH was semi-aware of their (DRT) efforts she had no prior knowledge of the PI’s appearance and personally I don’t think this conspiracy runs any deeper, and certainly not to the extent that LMH would use counter/reverse psychology to convince Dronies like us that she hadn’t funded the PI’s on the off-chance her detractors may cite this was the case.

Doesn’t mean I’m right of course as to paraphrase yourself I'm a little biased….. grin

Cheers.

Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by Double Nought Spy on Sep 30th, 2009, 6:00pm

on Sep 30th, 2009, 5:56pm, tomi01uk wrote:
AlienWare created a trademark when they used a derivative work from the LAP. That would normally trigger a response, but it didn't. They slowly incorporated more and increasing replications of the design into their products and the marketing of their products. Assured possibly by no longer having the 2 year limit of contesting copyright to fear, they have gone full use with many original elements of the design.

However, they are not out of danger yet. I believe they are speculating on winning with a team of research lawyers who have what they now consider to be "public domain" defenses to use. This would still not stop a group of smart New York lawyers from stopping their distribution in a NY heartbeat... should the creator of the LAP assert a defense.


You seem to be saying that if there were a hoaxer, he or she would surely sue AW. Correct? Would you please clarify a point? You do understand that any such lawsuit brought by the hoaxer would "out" the hoaxer. Correct?
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by tommi01 on Sep 30th, 2009, 6:06pm

on Sep 30th, 2009, 6:00pm, Double Nought Spy wrote:
You seem to be saying that if there were a hoaxer, he or she would surely sue AW. Correct? Would you please clarify a point? You do understand that any such lawsuit brought by the hoaxer would "out" the hoaxer. Correct?


Are you saying that someone with the nouse to do this is also so rich and powerful in his own right he wouldn't try to settle with Alienware for capitalising on his creative work, time and excruciating effort ??
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by Double Nought Spy on Sep 30th, 2009, 6:07pm

Thanks DrDil. That was most illuminating. I had seen all that, but forgotten it.

I have always cherished the phrase "superficial and inaccurate reporting" in that context. Priceless!
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by Double Nought Spy on Sep 30th, 2009, 6:10pm

on Sep 30th, 2009, 6:06pm, tomi01uk wrote:
Are you saying that someone with the nouse to do this is also so rich and powerful in his own right he wouldn't try to settle with Alienware for capitalising on his creative work, time and excruciating effort ??


Again, you grossly overestimate the expense of time and money in the production. You also assume that there would be a great deal of money to be squeezed out of AW. You also assume that the hoaxers would be so overcome by greed that they would not care if everyone knew they were the hoaxers, no matter what their motivation and no matter what liabilities they would face.

And you still have not answered the question.
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by Jeddyhi on Sep 30th, 2009, 6:11pm

on Sep 30th, 2009, 5:59pm, DrDil wrote:
v
I’ve seriously contemplated it as well but I personally can’t see it actually being possible.

When the PI’s were first involved and appeared on the mainstream media LMH was scathing in her unprompted retort, she really did seem to take it personally:

User Image


This isn’t the actions of someone employing the PI’s as if that is the case then it’s counter-productive at best and at worst could be described as self-destruction.

Back in the day Tomi confirmed that while LMH was semi-aware of their (DRT) efforts she had no prior knowledge of the PI’s appearance and personally I don’t think this conspiracy runs any deeper, and certainly not to the extent that LMH would use counter/reverse psychology to convince Dronies like us that she hadn’t funded the PI’s on the off-chance her detractors may cite this was the case.

Doesn’t mean I’m right of course as to paraphrase yourself I'm a little biased….. grin

Cheers.


Very good point, Doc!

But I can't help but think that if LMH were in on the drone hoax, then she wouldn't be willing to cooperate with the DRT or the detectives.

How much has she cooperated? I assume very little and if she is backing a hoax, why cooperate with those digging into to it. In other words, she wouldn't want to help out herself.
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by tommi01 on Sep 30th, 2009, 6:15pm

on Sep 30th, 2009, 6:10pm, Double Nought Spy wrote:
Again, you grossly overestimate the expense of time and money in the production. You also assume that there would be a great deal of money to be squeezed out of AW. You also assume that the hoaxers would be so overcome by greed that they would not care if everyone knew they were the hoaxers, no matter what their motivation and no matter what liabilities they would face.

And you still have not answered the question.


I over estimate the size? The design? The details? The creative initiative so remarkable that AlienWare characterise their computers with it?

I overestimate what this is worth in a legal claim? I notice I haven't estimated anything but what the sale, distribution and reputation of the line is worth...

Do you have any figures?
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by DrDil on Sep 30th, 2009, 6:16pm

on Sep 30th, 2009, 5:42pm, tomi01uk wrote:
If the person or group who did the LAP wanted to excercise their rights the entire production and distribution worldwide of these computers would be halted. Every single distributor holding these computers in stock would be sued concurrently with the manufacturer. The defense of such issues would amount to a tremendous amount of money, considering the loses in sales and and the adverse publicity.

Anyone with the nouse to do the LAP knows this. I'm sure.


Anybody with the 'nouse' must also know that waiving copyright and posting anonymously on a free (and for all intents and purposes anonymous) website with no copyright claims or assertions for 27+ months isn't halting the production of anything?

The paperwork and appeals (or as you said because there’s no 'slam-dunk') would inevitably make the case one of compensation rather than retraction?

And for all you credit the hoaxers with do you really think they could have foreseen this?

As you say they’re obviously bright and have a strong background in computers and arguably UFO history, would they risk (possibly) their personal & family life by publicly admitting to a hoax such as this?

Hoax=Deception=Liar?

Would that look good on a resume or CV?

And using the (your) same logic if they weren’t computer-literate this wouldn’t be an issue as the hoax would have been more readily accepted as such instead of spawning believers as it did. (As a rule I can generally count the internet/public advocates of other hoaxes on one hand, but the Drones, well, you know better than me….. kiss)

Cheers.

Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by Double Nought Spy on Sep 30th, 2009, 6:18pm

on Sep 30th, 2009, 6:15pm, tomi01uk wrote:
I over estimate the size? The design? The details? The creative initiative so remarkable that AlienWare characterise their computers with it?

I overestimate what this is worth in a legal claim? I notice I haven't estimated anything but what the sale, distribution and reputation of the line is worth...

Do you have any figures?


Please answer the question. Do you understand that such a lawsuit would expose the hoaxers? Yes or no, please.
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by TheShadow on Sep 30th, 2009, 6:18pm

on Sep 30th, 2009, 5:48pm, tomi01uk wrote:
I know LMH doesn't have time to browse the internet to the point of paying attention to posts and sentiments from ppl like us.


Regardless of what she may tell you tomi......LMH is a businesswoman and as a businesswomen she has to troll around the web (forums included) to stay abreast of whats happening in her field and see what the competition is up to.

To believe anything else is simply foolish!
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by TheShadow on Sep 30th, 2009, 6:26pm

on Sep 30th, 2009, 6:18pm, Double Nought Spy wrote:
Please answer the question. Do you understand that such a lawsuit would expose the hoaxers? Yes or no, please.


Yes tomi please answer the question above and Jed's question

on Sep 30th, 2009, 6:11pm, Jeddyhi wrote:
How much has she cooperated? (LMH)



Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by tommi01 on Sep 30th, 2009, 6:31pm

A copyright would expose the hoaxers so I suppose a legal claim would as well. Be it a company or individual.

Next, yes, LMH has co-operated with the PI's as 11th has said already in his posts. If 11th said it, it is closer to home than if I say it, so why are you bugging me about ithuh
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by DrDil on Sep 30th, 2009, 6:31pm

on Sep 30th, 2009, 6:18pm, TheShadow wrote:
Regardless of what she may tell you tomi......LMH is a businesswoman and as a businesswomen she has to troll around the web (forums included) to stay abreast of whats happening in her field and see what the competition is up to.

To believe anything else is simply foolish!

I’m not so sure Shads, sure she may pay others to do it (but I doubt it) for her or mine her subscribers and online associates into informing her, albeit inadvertently on their behalf. But I honestly think that not only does she not have the time I believe she neither has the inclination to even pretend to care about what people who are interested in the topics she writes about actually think of what she writes/sells.

Let’s face it, what could she possibly reference at Earthfiles that would warrant a link to any online forums considering that any forum that discusses the Drones in any detail will inevitably house a higher than average percentage of people who are aware of LMH & her Drone-dealings?

(Talk about counter-productive!! laugh)

Cheers.

(What colour IS your office Shads?)
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by tommi01 on Sep 30th, 2009, 6:34pm

on Sep 30th, 2009, 6:18pm, TheShadow wrote:
Regardless of what she may tell you tomi......LMH is a businesswoman and as a businesswomen she has to troll around the web (forums included) to stay abreast of whats happening in her field and see what the competition is up to.

To believe anything else is simply foolish!


Not to the degree you would think, does she really care what Shads or doc or me think.. She has people who are friends who keep her appraised of things, but there is a very big world out there outside of this little spec. And revenues to LMH is not why she does what she does with such fervor in as many areas as she engages in. She loves her work and she tries to do her best.

Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by DrDil on Sep 30th, 2009, 6:38pm

on Sep 30th, 2009, 6:31pm, DrDil wrote:
I’m not so sure Shads, sure she may pay others to do it (but I doubt it) for her or mine her subscribers and online associates into informing her, albeit inadvertently on their behalf.

Right on cue.... grin

on Sep 30th, 2009, 6:34pm, tomi01uk wrote:
Not to the degree you would think, does she really care what Shads or doc or me think.. She has people who are friends who keep her appraised of things,

This tag-team thing is working just like you said it would Tomi!! undecided laugh


Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by tommi01 on Sep 30th, 2009, 6:38pm

on Sep 30th, 2009, 6:16pm, DrDil wrote:
Anybody with the 'nouse' must also know that waiving copyright and posting anonymously on a free (and for all intents and purposes anonymous) website with no copyright claims or assertions for 27+ months isn't halting the production of anything?



There would have to be a statue of limitations put aside for the fact that copyright registration was late. Once that was completed however, all hell would break loose smiley


Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by Double Nought Spy on Sep 30th, 2009, 6:44pm

I haven't seen so many lawyers in one place since... well never mind. grin
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by tommi01 on Sep 30th, 2009, 6:45pm

Quote:
The paperwork and appeals (or as you said because there’s no 'slam-dunk') would inevitably make the case one of compensation rather than retraction?



Retraction? Never suggested it ! Compensation (settlement) surely though..

Quote:
And for all you credit the hoaxers with do you really think they could have foreseen this?



IMO yes. The sophistication employed in this... yes absolutely.

However, we don't know the complications behind its release and there may be the achilles heel.

And as you said, there was no way of anticipating such usage by a computer company in their mass media advertising and production blitz either.

Time, circumstances and profit may still drive human endeavor in this after all.. Two years tho.. I would be checking Library of Congress for registrations of anything "alien" laugh


Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by tommi01 on Sep 30th, 2009, 6:49pm

Quote:
As you say they’re obviously bright and have a strong background in computers and arguably UFO history, would they risk (possibly) their personal & family life by publicly admitting to a hoax such as this?

Hoax=Deception=Liar?

Would that look good on a resume or CV?



OMG.... first of all... who ever did this is beyond being a "designer", the group behind this is showing no profit motive whatsoever so far..

But if they settled with Dell, errors and ommissions insurance would kick in. They would never have to work again.

Next, Dell would probably hire them in a crush of competition from other companies wanting not designers, but storyboard editors at the very least.
IMO
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by Double Nought Spy on Sep 30th, 2009, 6:53pm

on Sep 30th, 2009, 6:49pm, tomi01uk wrote:
OMG.... first of all... who ever did this is beyond being a "designer", the group behind this is showing no profit motive whatsoever so far..

But if they settled with Dell, errors and ommissions insurance would kick in. They would never have to work again.

Next, Dell would probably hire them in a crush of competition from other companies wanting not designers, but storyboard editors at the very least.
IMO


Just because it fooled you, that doesn't mean it is work of any great accomplishment. In fact, all the real CGI artists who looked at it said it looked crappy to them. Well, there was that one guy, but he's hardly above reproach.
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by TheShadow on Sep 30th, 2009, 6:54pm

on Sep 30th, 2009, 6:34pm, tomi01uk wrote:
And revenues to LMH is not why she does what she does with such fervor in as many areas as she engages in. She loves her work and she tries to do her best.


Please tell me you are kidding!!! Does her best?? Best to do what? Sensationalize nonsense! Next you are going to claim she only seeks and reports the truth!!

OH PUL-LEASE!!!!
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by Sheepdog on Sep 30th, 2009, 6:55pm

on Sep 30th, 2009, 6:49pm, tomi01uk wrote:
Next, Dell would probably hire them in a crush of competition from other companies wanting not designers, but storyboard editors at the very least.
IMO

Give me a break.
What is Dell going to use these clowns for?
Buyers of PC's and IT don't want this nonsense.
They want low cost, performance and service.
They certainly won't get trust or confidence.
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by tommi01 on Sep 30th, 2009, 6:56pm

on Sep 30th, 2009, 6:53pm, Double Nought Spy wrote:
Just because it fooled you, that doesn't mean it is work of any great accomplishment. In fact, all the real CGI artists who looked at it said it looked crappy to them. Well, there was that one guy, but he's hardly above reproach.


Please do not use your transparent tactics of ad hominems and diversion from the topic.

The topic is that there is a big motivation now for any creator of the LAP to come forward for compensation of commercial usage of that design.
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by Double Nought Spy on Sep 30th, 2009, 6:57pm

on Sep 30th, 2009, 6:56pm, tomi01uk wrote:
Please do not use your transparent tactics of ad hominems and diversion from the topic.

The topic is that there is a big motivation now for any creator of the LAP to come forward for compensation of commercial usage of that design.


That's just BS. You are trying to inflate the importance of the artwork. Somebody here is transparent in their motives and tactics. rolleyes
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by tommi01 on Sep 30th, 2009, 6:57pm

on Sep 30th, 2009, 6:55pm, StaffLetter666 wrote:
Give me a break.
What is Dell going to use these clowns for?
Buyers of PC's and IT don't want this nonsense.
They want low cost, performance and service.
They certainly won't get trust or confidence.


Are you saying then that the people who created this "hoax" as you like to simplify it, are unemployable?
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by tommi01 on Sep 30th, 2009, 6:59pm

on Sep 30th, 2009, 6:57pm, Double Nought Spy wrote:
That's just BS.


I am telling you what could be done right now by the creators of the LAP. And asking why they are not doing this?

If you want to try to figure how much to claim in a lawsuit, I would certainly think that a muliple of millions would not be out of the ball park. Because the whole identity of that line and their marketing is now built on almost exact replication of the LAP.
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by Double Nought Spy on Sep 30th, 2009, 7:00pm

on Sep 30th, 2009, 6:59pm, tomi01uk wrote:
I am telling you what could be done right now by the creators of the LAP. And asking why they are not doing this?

If you want to try to figure how much to claim in a lawsuit, I would certainly think that a muliple of millions would not be out of the ball park.


Please! And you are qualified to make such statements how, exactly?
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by TheShadow on Sep 30th, 2009, 7:03pm

on Sep 30th, 2009, 6:59pm, tomi01uk wrote:
I am telling you what could be done right now by the creators of the LAP. And asking why they are not doing this?

If you want to try to figure how much to claim in a lawsuit, I would certainly think that a muliple of millions would not be out of the ball park.


Which is exactly why it is obvious Alienware was somehow involved from the beginning!! No way a company that size is going to risk a lawsuit!

Think tomi Think!!
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by DrDil on Sep 30th, 2009, 7:07pm

on Sep 30th, 2009, 6:45pm, tomi01uk wrote:
Retraction? Never suggested it ! Compensation (settlement) surely though..

Re: Retraction.

Sorry, I assumed that was a logical progression (if not what you meant) from halting the “entire production and distribution worldwide” of this product (i.e. retracting the product).

Hence the sentence prior which you omitted:

on Sep 30th, 2009, 6:16pm, DrDil wrote:
Anybody with the 'nouse' must also know that waiving copyright and posting anonymously on a free (and for all intents and purposes anonymous) website with no copyright claims or assertions for 27+ months isn't halting the production of anything?

The paperwork and appeals (or as you said because there’s no 'slam-dunk') would inevitably make the case one of compensation rather than retraction?

Cheers. smiley


Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by tommi01 on Sep 30th, 2009, 7:09pm

on Sep 30th, 2009, 7:03pm, TheShadow wrote:
Which is exactly why it is obvious Alienware was somehow involved from the beginning!! No way a company that size is going to risk a lawsuit!

Think tomi Think!!


It's cheaper to settle ... they have defense worked out I'm sure. They know what can happen. What can happen is this... worse case senerio that I'm sure they know how to avoid is that the claimant will file a lawsuit against AlienWare, their board, the parent company Dell, and then also sue all other in additional lawsuits all independent distributors of Alienware products. Effectively halting all sales and shipping of the product.
This is what they want to avoid. Also publicity. I would imagine.... rolleyes

Now how much is this worth, especially when you have built an entire product line and marketing campaign on this design?
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by Sheepdog on Sep 30th, 2009, 7:09pm

on Sep 30th, 2009, 7:03pm, TheShadow wrote:
Which is exactly why it is obvious Alienware was somehow involved from the beginning!! No way a company that size is going to risk a lawsuit!

Think tomi Think!!


It's cheaper to settle ... they have defense worked out I'm sure. They know what can happen. What can happen is this... worse case senerio that I'm sure they know how to avoid is that the claimant will file a lawsuit against AlienWare, their board, the parent company Dell, and then also sue all other in additional lawsuits all independent distributors of Alienware products. Effectively halting all sales and shipping of the product.
This is what they want to avoid. Also publicity. I would imagine.... rolleyes

Now how much is this worth, especially when you have built an entire product line and marketing campaign on this design?
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by Sheepdog on Sep 30th, 2009, 7:13pm

on Sep 30th, 2009, 7:09pm, tomi01uk wrote:
It's cheaper to settle ... they have defense worked out I'm sure. They know what can happen. What can happen is this... worse case senerio that I'm sure they know how to avoid is that the claimant will file a lawsuit against AlienWare, their board, the parent company Dell, and then also sue all other in additional lawsuits all independent distributors of Alienware products. Effectively halting all sales and shipping of the product.
This is what they want to avoid. Also publicity. I would imagine.... rolleyes

The design was given away, pure and simple.
You can argue till pigs fly.
Any legal or civil issues would drag on for decades.
Isaac stole the material anyway.
There's no serious risk here with anyone using it.
Common sense would prevail.
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by tommi01 on Sep 30th, 2009, 7:14pm

So you think this is proof that Alienware started the drone saga? Geeze ... what took them so long and why did they waste time on the LAP that only a few dronies know about.. grin

And that explains the BB drone then too... esp in context of how much that was used rolleyes
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by tommi01 on Sep 30th, 2009, 7:17pm

on Sep 30th, 2009, 7:13pm, StaffLetter666 wrote:
The design was given away, pure and simple.
You can argue till pigs fly.
Any legal or civil issues would drag on for decades.
Isaac stole the material anyway.
There's no serious risk here with anyone using it.
Common sense would prevail.


Yeah? I suppose you know what you are talking about and I don't. Why don't you look up copyright procedure and get back to me..
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by Double Nought Spy on Sep 30th, 2009, 7:19pm

on Sep 30th, 2009, 7:14pm, tomi01uk wrote:
So you think this is proof that Alienware started the drone saga? Geeze ... what took them so long and why did they waste time on the LAP that only a few dronies know about.. grin

And that explains the BB drone then too... esp in context of how much that was used rolleyes


Your leaps of "logic" are nothing short of stunning!
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by DrDil on Sep 30th, 2009, 7:19pm

on Sep 30th, 2009, 6:49pm, tomi01uk wrote:
OMG.... first of all... who ever did this is beyond being a "designer", the group behind this is showing no profit motive whatsoever so far..


"OMG"?! laugh (<-- First time I've ever wrote that!!)

Where did I state "designer" as I assume that's why you put it in quotes?

You're definitely getting better at this Tomi!! grin

My post is here.
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by Jeddyhi on Sep 30th, 2009, 7:21pm

on Sep 30th, 2009, 6:31pm, tomi01uk wrote:
A copyright would expose the hoaxers so I suppose a legal claim would as well. Be it a company or individual.

Next, yes, LMH has co-operated with the PI's as 11th has said already in his posts. If 11th said it, it is closer to home than if I say it, so why are you bugging me about ithuh


How as she cooperated? We know she has withheld some hi-res photos of the BB drone. We know she claimed to have contact information for some of the witnesses, was it RaJ? Didn't she communicate with Isaac via telephone and have a phone number for him? How much has she shared? Or is the better question how much has she not?

If she were truly cooperating with the investigation, a lot of unknowns would be known.

Is Linda protecting the hoax and herself?
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by tommi01 on Sep 30th, 2009, 7:22pm

Oh.. my mistake...
First use.. There is a statue of limitations on making a defense pertaining to when one can show demonstable example of violation of copyright first used.

So there is still time to make a defense.. and file a registration of copyright with library of Congress.


Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by tommi01 on Sep 30th, 2009, 7:26pm

on Sep 30th, 2009, 7:21pm, Jeddyhi wrote:
If she were truly cooperating with the investigation, a lot of unknowns would be known.

Is Linda protecting the hoax and herself?


You would think so... I can understand your reasoning here, forgetting the bias it betrays.. However, such is the level of sophistication employed in this "saga" that men and women who were put into unfortunate or fortunate, depending on your perspective, positions of receiving the material are still trying to come to terms with it themselves as well, and make sense out of it too.
Of that I'm pretty sure. Ask Lex if this is not the case...
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by Sheepdog on Sep 30th, 2009, 7:31pm

on Sep 30th, 2009, 7:17pm, tomi01uk wrote:
Yeah? I suppose you know what you are talking about and I don't. Why don't you look up copyright procedure and get back to me..

Yes.
I know of your claim of knowledge of copyrights.
I don't need to rely on some Wiki.
I live in the world of common sense and common sense dictates the design was given away and rights abandoned.
Any judge or jury with common sense would agree regardless of your reading of any law or right.
It can't be won.

Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by Double Nought Spy on Sep 30th, 2009, 7:37pm

on Sep 30th, 2009, 7:31pm, StaffLetter666 wrote:
Yes.
I know of your claim of knowledge of copyrights.
I don't need to rely on some Wiki.
I live in the world of common sense and common sense dictates the design was given away and rights abandoned.
Any judge or jury with common sense would agree regardless of your reading of any law or right.
It can't be won.


Tomi gets her legal opinions from the same place she gets her art appraisals. Out of thin air. Anybody can make crap up as they go along.
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by tommi01 on Sep 30th, 2009, 7:40pm

on Sep 30th, 2009, 7:31pm, StaffLetter666 wrote:
Yes.
I know of your claim of knowledge of copyrights.
I don't need to rely on some Wiki.
I live in the world of common sense and common sense dictates the design was given away and rights abandoned.
Any judge or jury with common sense would agree regardless of your reading of any law or right.
It can't be won.


Do you even know the procedure for filing a copyright with the Library of Congress and what that entails the owner? Look it up before supposing common sense prevails over common law grin
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by tommi01 on Sep 30th, 2009, 7:41pm

on Sep 30th, 2009, 7:37pm, Double Nought Spy wrote:
Tomi gets her legal opinions from the same place she gets her art appraisals. Out of thin air. Anybody can make crap up as they go along.


Take every detail I've laid out here and test it in research about copyright law. You will see I know exactly what I'm talking about, that is why I'm doing it so confidently right now. I do about this aspect of law. I won't say how, except I do know a great deal more about it than I ever wished to .. lipsrsealed
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by Double Nought Spy on Sep 30th, 2009, 7:46pm

on Sep 30th, 2009, 7:41pm, tomi01uk wrote:
Take every detail I've laid out here and test it in research about copyright law. You will see I know exactly what I'm talking about, that is why I'm doing it so confidently right now. I do about this aspect of law. I won't say how, except I do know a great deal more about it than I ever wished to .. lipsrsealed


I know a bit about it myself, and patents too, which means I know enough not to make a fool of myself rendering legal opinions on an internet forum. Your hypothetical copyright case is anything but straightforward, and for anyone who is not a copyright attorney to speculate on the outcome is just silly.
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by tommi01 on Sep 30th, 2009, 7:51pm

on Sep 30th, 2009, 7:46pm, Double Nought Spy wrote:
I know a bit about it myself, and patents too, which means I know enough not to make a fool of myself rendering legal opinions on an internet forum. Your hypothetical copyright case is anything but straightforward, and for anyone who is not a copyright attorney to speculate on the outcome is just silly.


Yeah? Lemme ask you.. how many lawsuits have you ever had to have served for copyright violation at one time? Till you've hit as many companies as the Godfather hit families.. you don't know squat my friend. cheesy
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by Jeddyhi on Sep 30th, 2009, 7:53pm

Nowadays, a copyright is automatic as soon as the material is put into a tangible form (written down, CD, DVD, harddrive, etc...)

From the US copyright office:
-------------------------------------------

What is copyright?
Copyright is a form of protection grounded in the U.S. Constitution and granted by law for original works of authorship fixed in a tangible medium of expression. Copyright covers both published and unpublished works.

What does copyright protect?
Copyright, a form of intellectual property law, protects original works of authorship including literary, dramatic, musical, and artistic works, such as poetry, novels, movies, songs, computer software, and architecture. Copyright does not protect facts, ideas, systems, or methods of operation, although it may protect the way these things are expressed. See Circular 1, Copyright Basics, section "What Works Are Protected."

How is a copyright different from a patent or a trademark?
Copyright protects original works of authorship, while a patent protects inventions or discoveries. Ideas and discoveries are not protected by the copyright law, although the way in which they are expressed may be. A trademark protects words, phrases, symbols, or designs identifying the source of the goods or services of one party and distinguishing them from those of others.

When is my work protected?
Your work is under copyright protection the moment it is created and fixed in a tangible form that it is perceptible either directly or with the aid of a machine or device.

Do I have to register with your office to be protected?
No. In general, registration is voluntary. Copyright exists from the moment the work is created. You will have to register, however, if you wish to bring a lawsuit for infringement of a U.S. work. See Circular 1, Copyright Basics, section “Copyright Registration.”

Why should I register my work if copyright protection is automatic?
Registration is recommended for a number of reasons. Many choose to register their works because they wish to have the facts of their copyright on the public record and have a certificate of registration. Registered works may be eligible for statutory damages and attorney's fees in successful litigation. Finally, if registration occurs within 5 years of publication, it is considered prima facie evidence in a court of law. See Circular 1, Copyright Basics, section “Copyright Registration” and Circular 38b, Highlights of Copyright Amendments Contained in the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (URAA), on non-U.S. works.

What is the registration fee?
If you file online using eCO eService, the fee is $35 per application. If you file using Form CO, the fee is $50 per application. Generally, each work requires a separate application. See Circular 4, Copyright Fees.

------------------------------------------------------------

I highlighted some questions pertinent to the topic at hand.
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by Jeddyhi on Sep 30th, 2009, 7:55pm

on Sep 30th, 2009, 7:51pm, tomi01uk wrote:
Yeah? Lemme ask you.. how many lawsuits have you ever had to have served for copyright violation at one time? Till you've hit as many companies as the Godfather hit families.. you don't know squat my friend. cheesy


Are you a copyright lawyer? Then you don't know squat yourself, other than some copyright was violated and a lawsuit was needed. If the plaintiff knew it all, copyright lawyers wouldn't be needed.
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by tommi01 on Sep 30th, 2009, 7:59pm

on Sep 30th, 2009, 7:55pm, Jeddyhi wrote:
Are you a copyright lawyer? Then you don't know squat yourself, other than some copyright was violated and a lawsuit was needed. If the plaintiff knew it all, copyright lawyers wouldn't be needed.


Jeddyhi, On this topic I know exactly what I say is correct. Yes, I've been through "the mill" in everything I'm saying here. No, I am not an attorney but I have worked with numerous ones regarding every aspect I relate here.
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by DrDil on Sep 30th, 2009, 8:05pm

on Sep 30th, 2009, 7:41pm, tomi01uk wrote:
Take every detail I've laid out here and test it in research about copyright law. You will see I know exactly what I'm talking about, that is why I'm doing it so confidently right now. I do about this aspect of law. I won't say how, except I do know a great deal more about it than I ever wished to .. lipsrsealed


US Copyright Law Duration of copyright

§ 302. Duration of copyright:

Works created on or after January 1, 19784
(a) In General. — Copyright in a work created on or after January 1, 1978, subsists from its creation and, except as provided by the following subsections, endures for a term consisting of the life of the author and 70 years after the author's death.

(b) Joint Works. — In the case of a joint work prepared by two or more authors who did not work for hire, the copyright endures for a term consisting of the life of the last surviving author and 70 years after such last surviving author's death.

(c) Anonymous Works, Pseudonymous Works, and Works Made for Hire. — In the case of an anonymous work, a pseudonymous work, or a work made for hire, the copyright endures for a term of 95 years from the year of its first publication, or a term of 120 years from the year of its creation, whichever expires first. If, before the end of such term, the identity of one or more of the authors of an anonymous or pseudonymous work is revealed in the records of a registration made for that work under subsections (a) or (d) of section 408, or in the records provided by this subsection, the copyright in the work endures for the term specified by subsection (a) or (b), based on the life of the author or authors whose identity has been revealed. Any person having an interest in the copyright in an anonymous or pseudonymous work may at any time record, in records to be maintained by the Copyright Office for that purpose, a statement identifying one or more authors of the work; the statement shall also identify the person filing it, the nature of that person's interest, the source of the information recorded, and the particular work affected, and shall comply in form and content with requirements that the Register of Copyrights shall prescribe by regulation.

<408>

§ 408. Copyright registration in general

(a) Registration Permissive. — At any time during the subsistence of the first term of copyright in any published or unpublished work in which the copyright was secured before January 1, 1978, and during the subsistence of any copyright secured on or after that date, the owner of copyright or of any exclusive right in the work may obtain registration of the copyright claim by delivering to the Copyright Office the deposit specified by this section, together with the application and fee specified by sections 409 and 708. Such registration is not a condition of copyright protection.

(b) Deposit for Copyright Registration. — Except as provided by subsection (c), the material deposited for registration shall include —

(1) in the case of an unpublished work, one complete copy or phonorecord;

(2) in the case of a published work, two complete copies or phonorecords of the best edition;

(3) in the case of a work first published outside the United States, one complete copy or phonorecord as so published;

(4) in the case of a contribution to a collective work, one complete copy or phonorecord of the best edition of the collective work.

Copies or phonorecords deposited for the Library of Congress under section 407 may be used to satisfy the deposit provisions of this section, if they are accompanied by the prescribed application and fee, and by any additional identifying material that the Register may, by regulation, require. The Register shall also prescribe regulations establishing requirements under which copies or phonorecords acquired for the Library of Congress under subsection (e) of section 407, otherwise than by deposit, may be used to satisfy the deposit provisions of this section.

(c) Administrative Classification and Optional Deposit

================


<409>

§ 409. Application for copyright registration9

The application for copyright registration shall be made on a form prescribed by the Register of Copyrights and shall include —

(1) the name and address of the copyright claimant;

(2) in the case of a work other than an anonymous or pseudonymous work, the name and nationality or domicile of the author or authors, and, if one or more of the authors is dead, the dates of their deaths;

(3) if the work is anonymous or pseudonymous, the nationality or domicile of the author or authors;

(4) in the case of a work made for hire, a statement to this effect;

(5) if the copyright claimant is not the author, a brief statement of how the claimant obtained ownership of the copyright;

(6) the title of the work, together with any previous or alternative titles under which the work can be identified;

(7) the year in which creation of the work was completed;

(8) if the work has been published, the date and nation of its first publication;

(9) in the case of a compilation or derivative work, an identification of any preexisting work or works that it is based on or incorporates, and a brief, general statement of the additional material covered by the copyright claim being registered;

(10) in the case of a published work containing material of which copies are required by section 601 to be manufactured in the United States, the names of the persons or organizations who performed the processes specified by subsection (c) of section 601 with respect to that material, and the places where those processes were performed; and

(11) any other information regarded by the Register of Copyrights as bearing upon the preparation or identification of the work or the existence, ownership, or duration of the copyright.

If an application is submitted for the renewed and extended term provided for in section 304(a)(3)(A) and an original term registration has not been made, the Register may request information with respect to the existence, ownership, or duration of the copyright for the original term.
================


Is this relevant Tomi?
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by Double Nought Spy on Sep 30th, 2009, 8:11pm

Nobody here is even qualified to do the basic research on such a complicated case, I'll wager. Tomi, you talk about everything with great confidence and you are usually full of it. Why should this be any different? Now where did you get that estimate of the probable damages? From your vast experience in the art world?
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by Radi on Sep 30th, 2009, 8:16pm

on Sep 30th, 2009, 7:59pm, tomi01uk wrote:
Jeddyhi, On this topic I know exactly what I say is correct. Yes, I've been through "the mill" in everything I'm saying here. No, I am not an attorney but I have worked with numerous ones regarding every aspect I relate here.


Then you might want to add this to your posts..IANAL...
Otherwise those that take your word as legal advice can turn around and sue you...Just gotta get legal for those little things like that...I have learned this from GPL infringement cases that I have done work for...Ask Sys next time you see him.. wink smiley

As DrDill said before if the LAP was the real deal Issac has no case because they are stolen documents....PACL has no case except for these are stolen documents and were not to be in the wild so that could stop production on things...But since they are still up one can assume thats not the case....
So IMHO and IANAL........
The person or group if they felt like suing AW and have the money to due so good luck to them..Anybody can sue anybody in the US...Look at the mcdonalds coffee incident that was even mocked on the Seinfield show....Will they win my educated guess would be no....They most likly would get laughed out of the court and might pay for wasting the courts time...AW could bring all the information of previous designs and elements to the LAP that were used and say that these designs exsisted and the LAP is not that original....Another thing is AW could say that its been abandoned and the copyrights holder only showed up because of their use of the LAP and are only after money....They could also claim the LAP copyright holders as criminals for hoaxing what they did and painting the copyright holders in a bad light so as to turn the tables on said copyright holders....Yes it could get real ugly thats for sure.....But there are several other possibilities that I won't go into.......They do not include winning at all..It would be a very very hard case......

Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by Double Nought Spy on Sep 30th, 2009, 8:21pm

Thanks Radi. I'm glad to see it's not lost on others that this imaginary copyright case has too many variables and too many unknowns to be sorted out by amateurs. It's a specious argument anyway, since the drone images and the lap are hoaxes, and there has been no such suit. End of story.
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by tommi01 on Sep 30th, 2009, 8:26pm

on Sep 30th, 2009, 8:11pm, Double Nought Spy wrote:
Nobody here is even qualified to do the basic research on such a complicated case, I'll wager. Tomi, you talk about everything with great confidence and you are usually full of it. Why should this be any different? Now where did you get that estimate of the probable damages? From your vast experience in the art world?


The damages is part of the market value pertaining to the importance of that work to the value of the item.
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by Double Nought Spy on Sep 30th, 2009, 8:28pm

on Sep 30th, 2009, 8:26pm, tomi01uk wrote:
The damages is part of the market value pertaining to the importance of that work to the value of the item.



And you derived your multi-million dollar estimate how?
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by Radi on Sep 30th, 2009, 8:37pm

on Sep 30th, 2009, 8:21pm, Double Nought Spy wrote:
Thanks Radi. I'm glad to see it's not lost on others that this imaginary copyright case has too many variables and too many unknowns to be sorted out by amateurs. It's a specious argument anyway, since the drone images and the lap are hoaxes, and there has been no such suit. End of story.


Oh yea way to many variables...I could not see AW paying off this person or group out of court...Its to big of a company with lots of money to waste time on a pay-out and criminal element...wink
Heres one Tomi and for fun look up IBM vs SCO...... wink
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by tommi01 on Sep 30th, 2009, 8:38pm

on Sep 30th, 2009, 8:16pm, Radi wrote:
The person or group if they felt like suing AW and have the money to due so good luck to them..


You don't do this kind of case without a good NY law firm that specialises in Intellectual Rights. And if you had the copyright and AlienWare had the design..
you can bet your booty... you would have nice contingency case on offer smiley

Quote:
They most likly would get laughed out of the court and might pay for wasting the courts time...



No... you would have to meet the test for "frivilious lawsuit", but that would be far more technical in nature and pertain to defense issues, that the other party may raise when answering the lawsuit. Every good lawyer knows the tests that will be raised and how their clients will overcome those issues before bringing the lawsuit or they wouldn't risk the investment of time.

Quote:
AW could bring all the information of previous designs and elements to the LAP that were used and say that these designs exsisted and the LAP is not that original....



Impossible. The LAP is a creative work that stands on its own merit.

Quote:
Another thing is AW could say that its been abandoned and the copyrights holder only showed up because of their use of the LAP and are only after money....

Yes, that is the problem, but those issues will be considered and compensated from provided the copyright defense is made in a timely way, with "extinuating" circumstances providing sufficent reason for the delay in registration and defense. Like I said, because of this it is not a slam dunk anymore, but still enough to fight for.

Quote:
They could also claim the LAP copyright holders as criminals for hoaxing what they did and painting the copyright holders in a bad light so as to turn the tables on said copyright holders....Yes it could get real ugly thats for sure.....But there are several other possibilities that I won't go into.......They do not include winning at all..It would be a very very hard case......


It won't be decided on moral principles it will be decided on established law. It will be settled anyway. IMO
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by Sheepdog on Sep 30th, 2009, 8:44pm

on Sep 30th, 2009, 7:40pm, tomi01uk wrote:
Do you even know the procedure for filing a copyright with the Library of Congress and what that entails the owner? Look it up before supposing common sense prevails over common law grin

You are under some impression the owner filed for copyright?
Wrong.
Knowing or not knowing the procedure is immaterial.
When faced with contadictions, questionable motives, unique circumstances, renegning on abandonment of ownership, etc. Occam's Razor and common sense often comes into play with legal or civil judgements. That is fact.
That Razor cuts in many places.
You seem not to understand that.
It's a mine(d)field.
There will never be any legit lawsuits nor settlements.
The hoaxers have no case unless they try to sue themselves.
Now that would be a hoot.



Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by donkeykong on Sep 30th, 2009, 8:44pm

You guys really need to step awaaay from the drones.

Leave them be. Everything has been said, several times over and has become cyclical. I don't know why either side carry it on anymore.

If it is hoaxed, then everyone leaving it alone for a few years might take the pressure off someone wanting to admit to it all. Or not, but you'll never know.

Anyway, that's all. Hope all of you are well.

Kris
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by tommi01 on Sep 30th, 2009, 8:47pm

Anyway, my only point here is that there is enough financial motive for those, he or she, who MAY be human and created the LAP to get a great deal of compensation from AlienWare for copyright infringement.

Now why hasn't anyone? That's all I ask..
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by TheShadow on Sep 30th, 2009, 8:50pm

on Sep 30th, 2009, 8:47pm, tomi01uk wrote:
Anyway, my only point here is that there is enough financial motive for those, he or she, who MAY be human and created the LAP to get a great deal of compensation from AlienWare for copyright infringement.

Now why hasn't anyone? That's all I ask..


The likely and most probable scenerios have been explained to you thoroughly!! One of what proceeded is the reason. Pick one and choose a new line of distraction.
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by tommi01 on Sep 30th, 2009, 8:52pm

on Sep 30th, 2009, 8:50pm, TheShadow wrote:
All possible scenerios have been explained to you thoroughly!! One of what proceeded is the reason. Pick one and choose a new line of distraction.


Sorry, I missed any answer that makes sense..
What would prevent you from making a claim for copyright infringement in such a substancial case as this?
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by Double Nought Spy on Sep 30th, 2009, 8:53pm

on Sep 30th, 2009, 8:47pm, tomi01uk wrote:
Anyway, my only point here is that there is enough financial motive for those, he or she, who MAY be human and created the LAP to get a great deal of compensation from AlienWare for copyright infringement.

Now why hasn't anyone? That's all I ask..


What part of "Because they would expose themselves as the hoaxers" are you having trouble comprehending?
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by Sheepdog on Sep 30th, 2009, 8:54pm

on Sep 30th, 2009, 8:47pm, tomi01uk wrote:
Anyway, my only point here is that there is enough financial motive for those, he or she, who MAY be human and created the LAP to get a great deal of compensation from AlienWare for copyright infringement.

Now why hasn't anyone? That's all I ask..

They don't have the $$?
Fear of ridicule?
Money ain't everything?
They have a life?
Don't really care anymore?
Don't want to be put under a microscope?
Don't know how to pursue?
Have tried and were advised against it.
Don't have backing to pay lawyers?
And so on and so on ......

Lot's of reasons really.

I think you read too much into it as supporting it could be real.
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by TheShadow on Sep 30th, 2009, 8:54pm

on Sep 30th, 2009, 8:52pm, tomi01uk wrote:
Sorry, I missed any answer that makes sense..
What would prevent you from making a claim for copyright infringement in such a substancial case as this?


BECAUSE it is not a substantial case!! It is a HOAX!! To be a substantial case it must be somewhat factual in nature!!!
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by tommi01 on Sep 30th, 2009, 8:55pm

on Sep 30th, 2009, 8:53pm, Double Nought Spy wrote:
What part of "Because they would expose themselves as the hoaxers" are you having trouble comprehending?


Like this is really going to keep them awake at night while they are living in the Virgin Islands on their yachts.. grin

Bad bad hoaxers !! no no no!
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by Double Nought Spy on Sep 30th, 2009, 8:57pm

on Sep 30th, 2009, 8:55pm, tomi01uk wrote:
Like this is really going to keep them awake at night while they are living in the Virgin Islands on their yachts.. grin

Bad bad hoaxers !! no no no!


I'm sorry, I must have too many windows open on my machine. I keep thinking I'm back in reality. Carry on with your little fantasy. It obviously brings you a lot of pleasure.
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by tommi01 on Sep 30th, 2009, 8:57pm

on Sep 30th, 2009, 8:54pm, TheShadow wrote:
BECAUSE it is not a substantial case!! It is a HOAX!! To be a substantial case it must be somewhat factual in nature!!!


Ummm... it's later in the night here than there I assume and I'm wondering what are you thinking?

AlienWare now building the entire personna of a line of computers and its marketing on the LAP is not substancial? hmmmmm wonder what is then rolleyes
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by TheShadow on Sep 30th, 2009, 9:01pm

on Sep 30th, 2009, 8:57pm, tomi01uk wrote:
Ummm... it's later in the night here than there I assume and I'm wondering what are you thinking?

AlienWare now building the entire personna of a line of computers and its marketing on the LAP is not substancial? hmmmmm wonder what is then rolleyes


Means one of 3 things.

Either Alienware created or was involved in creating the drones and LAP and therefore own them.

Or they found and cut a deal with the hoaxers.

Option 3 Their lawyers are really stupid



Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by tommi01 on Sep 30th, 2009, 9:08pm

How much value the claim is depends on to what degree the use of that copyright material has on the market and to what degree it was used (violated) for profit. This is where the jury will figure in the most, because violation will have already been established in previous extensive legal tests from prior cases in copyright law.

No company wants to get to this point. By the time they do the product will have dried up in the market.
A copyright violation has the ability to request customs to seize the property at the point of transit into the USA.

edit to add: This is why, earlier, when AlienWare was just using a little of the LAP in the case design I thought it not significant enough to overcome the public domain aspect, but now, they are going full hog and I suspect that puts them right where a NY law firm would be interested....
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by Sheepdog on Sep 30th, 2009, 9:11pm

on Sep 30th, 2009, 8:57pm, tomi01uk wrote:
Ummm... it's later in the night here than there I assume and I'm wondering what are you thinking?

AlienWare now building the entire personna of a line of computers and its marketing on the LAP is not substancial? hmmmmm wonder what is then rolleyes


Do you really seriously think anyone is buying one of their products because of the LAP connection?
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by Sheepdog on Sep 30th, 2009, 9:16pm

on Sep 30th, 2009, 9:08pm, tomi01uk wrote:
edit to add: This is why, earlier, when AlienWare was just using a little of the LAP in the case design I thought it not significant enough to overcome the public domain aspect, but now, they are going full hog and I suspect that puts them right where a NY law firm would be interested....

Now we have a NY law firm searching for hoaxers to bring a suit.
My God.
It gets more unbelievable by the minute.
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by murnut on Sep 30th, 2009, 9:31pm

What's wrong with this picture?

User Image
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by Radi on Sep 30th, 2009, 9:39pm

on Sep 30th, 2009, 9:08pm, tomi01uk wrote:
How much value the claim is depends on to what degree the use of that copyright material has on the market and to what degree it was used (violated) for profit. This is where the jury will figure in the most, because violation will have already been established in previous extensive legal tests from prior cases in copyright law.

No company wants to get to this point. By the time they do the product will have dried up in the market.
A copyright violation has the ability to request customs to seize the property at the point of transit into the USA.

edit to add: This is why, earlier, when AlienWare was just using a little of the LAP in the case design I thought it not significant enough to overcome the public domain aspect, but now, they are going full hog and I suspect that puts them right where a NY law firm would be interested....


Then sue them.......Its a very weak case..But like I said anybody can sue anybody for anything in the US...You just need to find the right lawyer......
Why you even bring a jury in this is a question..Its like you are preparing the case for the copyright holder..wink
Could be messy......The copyright holders Could also leave themselves open for lawsuits after this case..
Like the people who wasted time and put effort into this HOAX...
Its not really anything to be concerned about like the size of the LAP..... wink smiley wink wink
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by TheShadow on Sep 30th, 2009, 9:42pm

on Sep 30th, 2009, 9:31pm, murnut wrote:
What's wrong with this picture?


Yea I wondered about that myself??
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by Sheepdog on Sep 30th, 2009, 9:52pm

I saw that too.
Can't explain it.
But you can take my word I am not Tomi.
Nor she I.
Could be some bug?
Maybe I copied her "last edited" part of text and pasted by error then entered?
Two posts collided passing in the night?
Really don't know but do recall pressing enter at some point and something not looking right.
Weird but nothing to be suspicious of.
Believe me, seriously.
No fault or association with Tomi. Seriously.
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by neveleeleven on Sep 30th, 2009, 9:56pm

Yes, I would like to know how StaffLetter666 has an "edit by tomiuk" link on his post. Also, why is it like a double post?

From experience, I can only think of one way that would be possible....

grin

-Oh and hello everyone!


Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by Radi on Sep 30th, 2009, 9:56pm

on Sep 30th, 2009, 9:52pm, StaffLetter666 wrote:
I saw that too.
Can't explain it.
But you can take my word I am not Tomi.
Nor she I.
Could be some bug?
Maybe I copied her "last edited" part of text and pasted by error then entered?
Two posts collided passing in the night?
Really don't know but do recall pressing enter at some point and something not looking right.
Weird but nothing to be suspicious of.
Believe me, seriously.
No fault or association with Tomi. Seriously.


hehe I did that before then posted it but saw it right away and changed it..I guess the previews are a good thing....Thou I still never use it... laugh
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by murnut on Sep 30th, 2009, 10:04pm

I just thought it was odd...I figured it is/was some kind of software glitch...I just never saw that type of "error" before
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by neveleeleven on Sep 30th, 2009, 10:20pm

on Sep 30th, 2009, 8:55pm, tomi01uk wrote:
Like this is really going to keep them awake at night while they are living in the Virgin Islands on their yachts.. grin

Bad bad hoaxers !! no no no!


Tomi, listen carefully.

Isaac pretended to be a federal agent (D.O.D.), and also pretend to have a security clearance with access to secret documents. That is illegal, and is a felony.

If he filed a lawsuit, all of that would come to light because he would have to explain how Alienware got the documents. That means he would probably get sent to jail for impersonating a federal agent.

Also, he would have to prove that he lost money from Alienware's copywrite infringement. He didn't loose money... so he has no case.

Tomi, since nobody is coming forward and claiming ownership of the LAP then, WHY DON'T YOU? You can fake having the source, you can lie and say you created the LAP, and you can claim copywrite infringement against Alienware, and nobody would be able to prove you are not Isaac. So, if you think there is millions of dollars involved, why don't you pretend to be Isaac and sue Aleinware?

The mundane truth is, the LAP is a piece of sh!t. It probably took the creator(s) a couple hours to make at least. To them, it's an expendable piece of art. Worthless.

Hey, I could sue Google. I have a website with copywrite images that show up on Google Images.... Nope, wont work. It's called "Fair Use".

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

I'm surprise with your "expertise", Tomi, that you never heard of "Fair Use"....

Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by Radi on Sep 30th, 2009, 10:29pm

on Sep 30th, 2009, 8:44pm, donkeykong wrote:
You guys really need to step awaaay from the drones.

Leave them be. Everything has been said, several times over and has become cyclical. I don't know why either side carry it on anymore.

If it is hoaxed, then everyone leaving it alone for a few years might take the pressure off someone wanting to admit to it all. Or not, but you'll never know.

Anyway, that's all. Hope all of you are well.

Kris


Hello Kris..It seems to more about Tomi then drones..hehe laugh smiley

on Sep 30th, 2009, 10:20pm, neveleeleven wrote:
Tomi, listen carefully.

Isaac pretended to be a federal agent (D.O.D.), and also pretend to have a security clearance with access to secret documents. That is illegal, and is a felony.

If he filed a lawsuit, all of that would come to light because he would have to explain how Alienware got the documents. That means he would probably get sent to jail for impersonating a federal agent.


Yes and you know that AW lawyers will capitalize on this very aspect.....Jury or judge will frown upon this also and then the case is pretty much lost because they have no creditability and are just that criminals.....
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by Klatunictobarata on Oct 1st, 2009, 12:30am

on Sep 30th, 2009, 7:41pm, tomi01uk wrote:
Take every detail I've laid out here and test it in research about copyright law. You will see I know exactly what I'm talking about, that is why I'm doing it so confidently right now. I do about this aspect of law. I won't say how, except I do know a great deal more about it than I ever wished to .. lipsrsealed



I'm a bit confused Tomi:

I thought you were a Brit and didn't live or work in the United States.

So how come you claim to know so much about the U.S. copyright laws and so forth?

It now seems that you are building a case for your actually living in our country as a citizen or legal resident in Florida as some here (and elsewhere) have put forth...
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by Klatunictobarata on Oct 1st, 2009, 12:50am

Look, I have been following this for so long that my head hurts at times.

The whole Alienware shtick is highly overrated.

First of all, who the HELL would go out and buy an expensive computer for its cute alien head logo motif OR the 'mysterious' CARET/LAP diagramming or cool alien alphabet that is not really that impressive at all? Children perhaps?

Notice that the "mysterious' graphics and LAP/alphabet are only imprinted on the actual product line...as if the words ISAAC and CARET has to be steered clear of for fear of violating some copyright or servicemark.

And consider the highly overrated use of private investigators as a way to add value to this affair.

In California, where I live, two retired law enforcement employees reach retirement and decide to become private investigators to supplement their retirement benefits.
Per CA. law, it is so darn easy to do.

And this is supposed to 'enhance' what exactly?

A 'Mom 'n Pop retiree' investigation isn't really prestigious at all, is it?

Yet one indeed wonders why a few keep coming back, and back, and back, almost on cue, to defend...WHAT EXACTLY?
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by tommi01 on Oct 1st, 2009, 03:38am

on Sep 30th, 2009, 10:20pm, neveleeleven wrote:
Tomi, listen carefully.



I'll try...

Quote:
Isaac pretended to be a federal agent (D.O.D.), and also pretend to have a security clearance with access to secret documents. That is illegal, and is a felony.



NA to intellectual property law at all. And who is going to prosecute him, her or them? Nobody.

Quote:
If he filed a lawsuit, all of that would come to light because he would have to explain how Alienware got the documents. That means he would probably get sent to jail for impersonating a federal agent.



NA again and you are dreaming... not a chance.

Quote:
Also, he would have to prove that he lost money from Alienware's copywrite infringement. He didn't loose money... so he has no case.



You may know how to do creative work, I know about copyright law. I don't profess to know how to use lightwave, I suggest you don't profess to know how to sue for copyright infringement.

If a company the size of Dell is plastering your design all over their product and using it to market said product, as extensively as AlienWare is doing.. You have lost income and your design has been used to profit another company. This is lost income, believe me.

Quote:
Tomi, since nobody is coming forward and claiming ownership of the LAP then, WHY DON'T YOU? You can fake having the source, you can lie and say you created the LAP, and you can claim copywrite infringement against Alienware, and nobody would be able to prove you are not Isaac. So, if you think there is millions of dollars involved, why don't you pretend to be Isaac and sue Aleinware?



You're trivialising and distracting from facts. To apply for a copyright with the Library of Congress when infringement is the case requires a submission of proof of creation. Any human who created the LAP must be able to prove they created it in the original material they submit.

Quote:
The mundane truth is, the LAP is a piece of sh!t. It probably took the creator(s) a couple hours to make at least. To them, it's an expendable piece of art. Worthless.



So much a pos that AlienWare has incorporated it into their product design and marketing.. that's a wealth of pos for you .. smiley

Quote:
Hey, I could sue Google. I have a website with copywrite images that show up on Google Images.... Nope, wont work. It's called "Fair Use".

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



Fair use is not what is happening with Alienware using the LAP to the extent it is doing, if they were contested by the originator of the LAP. Believe me or not. Ask a good Intellectual Property Rights lawyer.

Quote:
I'm surprise with your "expertise", Tomi, that you never heard of "Fair Use"....



Is Alienware profiting by marketing their computers with the imagery of the LAP used in the product design as well as the marketing? Yes. How is that fair use, esquire?
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by tommi01 on Oct 1st, 2009, 03:44am

on Sep 30th, 2009, 10:29pm, Radi wrote:
Yes and you know that AW lawyers will capitalize on this very aspect.....Jury or judge will frown upon this also and then the case is pretty much lost because they have no creditability and are just that criminals.....


Not a chance. Not applicable at all.
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by tommi01 on Oct 1st, 2009, 03:49am

on Oct 1st, 2009, 12:50am, Klatunictobarata wrote:
Look, I have been following this for so long that my head hurts at times.

The whole Alienware shtick is highly overrated.

First of all, who the HELL would go out and buy an expensive computer for its cute alien head logo motif OR the 'mysterious' CARET/LAP diagramming or cool alien alphabet that is not really that impressive at all? Children perhaps?



I'm getting sick of arguing my point. But this is an important aspect to consider at this point in the drone saga.

Quote:
Notice that the "mysterious' graphics and LAP/alphabet are only imprinted on the actual product line...as if the words ISAAC and CARET has to be steered clear of for fear of violating some copyright or servicemark.



The words "Isaac and Caret" have NOTHING to do with the LAP design as a creative work.

Quote:
And consider the highly overrated use of private investigators as a way to add value to this affair.



Again, this has nothing to do with copyright law infringement.


Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by tommi01 on Oct 1st, 2009, 04:12am

When copyright infringement has occured the creator of said work uses a different process to register their work with the Library of Congress as quickly as possible.

The Library of Congress has every process in place to assist the submitter in expiditing the registration process. It costs (if I remember correctly) about 800 dollars to process each submission in this way.

The personnel in the Library of Congress are extremely knowlegable and able to qualify the submission personally for you.

An important point I'm trying to make here is that extreme remedies are in place for copyright violation and this includes seizure orders on products, after the lawsuit is served. Sue the manufacturer and the distributors and this gets their attention immediately. It ceases the marketing of the product quite effectively.

Why, if the LAP was done by human hands, should the creators not seek compensation from Dell? Public domain precidents aside, with enough profit motive, as now occuring in the AlienWare use of the LAP design, a NY law firm would be interested in this case due to the deep pockets involved and extensive use of the design.
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by Gort on Oct 1st, 2009, 06:31am

Starting to think Nineteenth Amendment should be reviewed. Holy crapo batman, like describing the color purple to a blind person.
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by Jeddyhi on Oct 1st, 2009, 06:34am

Tomi, you are NA lol! grin

What is your main point for bringing up the AW connection again? I mean why are we on this road yet one more time? The Las Vegas Convention isn't for more than a month. Can't we all just take a break instead of rehashing old stuff just for your amusement. There will be plenty to post about after the Convention, I'm sure!
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by Sheepdog on Oct 1st, 2009, 07:11am

Because no one has come forward with a claim means there may be no hoaxers and this is real.
If I'm incorrect, I know I will be corrected by Tomi.
But that's my take on what I think she's getting at.
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by tommi01 on Oct 1st, 2009, 07:35am

on Oct 1st, 2009, 07:11am, StaffLetter666 wrote:
Because no one has come forward with a claim means there may be no hoaxers and this is real.
If I'm incorrect, I know I will be corrected by Tomi.
But that's my take on what I think she's getting at.


No, it is just an important point to consider. When weighing the reality of this drone saga.

Why is money not an issue for those who executed this "hoax" if that is what it is. Why?

Why would a group of people or even more remarkable, one or several individuals, who created this LAP, leave it all to be used exploitedly by a computer company like Dell without capitalising on it. Why?


Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by Marvin on Oct 1st, 2009, 07:38am

Using your words and logic:


on Sep 30th, 2009, 3:51pm, tomi01uk wrote:
Let's examine this reasoning for a minute...



on Sep 30th, 2009, 6:49pm, tomi01uk wrote:
OMG.... first of all... who ever did this is beyond being a "designer", the group behind this is showing no profit motive whatsoever so far..




So I will respond to this statement with your words again…


on Sep 30th, 2009, 3:55pm, tomi01uk wrote:
Get me the evidence.



How do you know if there is or isn’t any profit motive? Are you on the inside of this group?

(Looking ahead to your response to this…)

If you do not know the answer to that, then why make a statement that flies in the face of reason? There can be… and likely is… a profit motive involved. People are already making money off of it. grin


Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by Jeddyhi on Oct 1st, 2009, 07:52am

on Oct 1st, 2009, 07:35am, tomi01uk wrote:
No, it is just an important point to consider. When weighing the reality of this drone saga.

Why is money not an issue for those who executed this "hoax" if that is what it is. Why?

Why would a group of people or even more remarkable, one or several individuals, who created this LAP, leave it all to be used exploitedly by a computer company like Dell without capitalising on it. Why?



Suppose the drones are government disinfo. Is the government going to scrap the disinfo campaign just to sue AW?

Suppose the hoaxer has made money as a result of the hoax...That is illegal. What if LMH, C2C, and WHitley Streiber were behind the hoax and each of them profited from the hoax with increased subscriptions, book sales, etc.....Would they come forward to face prosecution in order to sue AW?

Suppose that the drones are just an internet hoax by a group of unknowns who wish to remain anonymous. Would they come forward and expose the whole thing just to sue AW? Would the suit even be worth it? The LAP was presented as being Alien in origin, therefore owned by nobody but the Aliens. Submitted anonymously to the public domain as Alien in origin.....that simple fact would have to have an impact on the legality of any copyright infringement.

There are to many 'what if' scenarios and numerous reasons why the hoaxer(s) could still remain anonymous.

Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by Sheepdog on Oct 1st, 2009, 07:54am

on Oct 1st, 2009, 07:35am, tomi01uk wrote:
No, it is just an important point to consider. When weighing the reality of this drone saga.

Why is money not an issue for those who executed this "hoax" if that is what it is. Why?

Why would a group of people or even more remarkable, one or several individuals, who created this LAP, leave it all to be used exploitedly by a computer company like Dell without capitalising on it. Why?

People's values differ and cash is not everything.
The scrutiny and exposure may not be worth the cash.
These are plausible whys.

Maybe you are putting a higher value on their worth then others.
You can ask why are Dell/Alienware using them if not of value: because they can and want to.
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by tommi01 on Oct 1st, 2009, 07:59am

on Oct 1st, 2009, 07:38am, Marvin wrote:
Using your words and logic:

If you do not know the answer to that, then why make a statement that flies in the face of reason? There can be… and likely is… a profit motive involved. People are already making money off of it. grin



Marvin, what logic tells you that AlienWare produced the drone saga just to benefit by using the LAP design?
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by tommi01 on Oct 1st, 2009, 08:17am

on Oct 1st, 2009, 07:52am, Jeddyhi wrote:
Suppose the drones are government disinfo. Is the government going to scrap the disinfo campaign just to sue AW?



Exactly.. All points to consider. Once you take in as fact what I'm trying to tell you here.
About copyright issues.

Quote:
Suppose the hoaxer has made money as a result of the hoax...That is illegal.



ummmm not illegal. Copyright law does not apply here.

Quote:
What if LMH, C2C, and WHitley Streiber were behind the hoax and each of them profited from the hoax with increased subscriptions, book sales, etc.....



I think drdil has shown sufficient evidence that this is not the case, them being the creators of this for increased subscription rates.. seriously?? You are way underestimating the efforts and convienently too to make a point that is quite disproportionate to returns..
as would be creating this saga for increased subscriptions..

Meanwhile, AlienWare's market value and their Errors and Omissions insurance deep pockets is what I'm talking about. No subscriptions are ever going to come close to that kind of renumeration.

Quote:
Would they come forward to face prosecution in order to sue AW?



For what? What law has been broken by the hoaxers that would be applicable to federal prosecution? or even state prosecution for that matter?

Quote:
Suppose that the drones are just an internet hoax by a group of unknowns who wish to remain anonymous. Would they come forward and expose the whole thing just to sue AW? Would the suit even be worth it?



Definately it would be worth it. Dell computer using your designs all over their product line and in their multiple media marketing campaign? You serious?

Quote:
The LAP was presented as being Alien in origin, therefore owned by nobody but the Aliens. Submitted anonymously to the public domain as Alien in origin.....that simple fact would have to have an impact on the legality of any copyright infringement.



When Isaac made the request that all material be reproduced in whole not utilised or marketed separately, he was establishing a very loose yet plausible condition of use... this may be the key a good firm would use to overcome the public domain aspect of this work after it has been so blatently exploited for marketing purposes... just thinking here..

But I believe that will not even be necessary as the fortune city website in reality may be construed as a fictious story.. one that is not to be exploited by the marketing efforts of a major company for their computer product line.

Quote:
There are to many 'what if' scenarios and numerous reasons why the hoaxer(s) could still remain anonymous.


Nope.. not IMO when a fat settlement for use and damages is considered....
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by Jeddyhi on Oct 1st, 2009, 08:22am

It is illegal to make money from a hoax. Do you dispute that?
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by tommi01 on Oct 1st, 2009, 08:25am

on Oct 1st, 2009, 08:22am, Jeddyhi wrote:
It is illegal to make money from a hoax. Do you dispute that?


Show me which laws apply.

edit to add: Intellectual property law is a completely separate domain from other avenues of law. Completely separate.
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by Jeddyhi on Oct 1st, 2009, 08:31am

on Oct 1st, 2009, 08:25am, tomi01uk wrote:
Show me which laws apply.

edit to add: Intellectual property law is a completely separate domain from other avenues of law. Completely separate.


If a hoax starts scamming people's money, it becomes fraud, which is illegal. This of course is more than enough reason for a hoaxer to not come forward unless they have no problem being prosecuted.

A hoax in general is only illegal if it involves profiting from the hoax, which then becomes fraud. You can't defraud people of their money.....its illegal.
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by tommi01 on Oct 1st, 2009, 08:33am

on Oct 1st, 2009, 08:31am, Jeddyhi wrote:
If a hoax starts scamming people's money, it becomes fraud, which is illegal.


You are getting into civil law here. A whole nuther ballpark. And one that would be very difficult to persuade a law firm to consider as well. Law firms are interested in deep pockets or they aren't interested in taking a case on. In a civil matter like this you would be whistleing dixie before anyone would file a lawsuit for you..
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by Jeddyhi on Oct 1st, 2009, 08:39am

You're missing the point. You wanted to know why somebody hasn't come forward to sue AW. I just gave you one of many reasons.
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by TheShadow on Oct 1st, 2009, 08:41am

on Oct 1st, 2009, 08:39am, Jeddyhi wrote:
You're missing the point. You wanted to know why somebody hasn't come forward to sue AW. I just gave you one of many reasons.


We have all given her many reasons........and i can assure you it is one of the reasons mentioned......with the exception of tomis ridiculous "Its because they are alien" theory!
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by tommi01 on Oct 1st, 2009, 08:46am

on Oct 1st, 2009, 08:39am, Jeddyhi wrote:
You're missing the point. You wanted to know why somebody hasn't come forward to sue AW. I just gave you one of many reasons.


Are you honestly going to argue that whoever (hypothetically) went to the effort of creating the LAP would be afraid to engage a team of NY IPR lawyers to assert his rights over the usage of that design when it is being used to market a computer line around the world. Are you serious?

Which brings me back to my original point.
There is no federal, state or civil laws baring asserting one's copyrights in this kind of situation. Certainly none that would justify allowing the blatant commercialisation of your work for corporate benefit without due recompense.

Now, why is this happening? Why is profit not a motive in this saga.... which so far it obviously isn't for the creators of it. That we can detect anyway....


Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by TheShadow on Oct 1st, 2009, 08:54am

on Oct 1st, 2009, 08:46am, tomi01uk wrote:
Are you honestly going to argue that whoever (hypothetically) went to the effort of creating the LAP would be afraid to engage a team of NY IPR lawyers to assert his rights over the usage of that design when it is being used to market a computer line around the world. Are you serious?

Which brings me back to my original point.
There is no federal, state or civil laws baring asserting one's copyrights in this kind of situation. Certainly none that would justify allowing the blatant commercialisation of your work for corporate benefit without due recompense.

Now, why is this happening? Why is profit not a motive in this saga.... which so far it obviously isn't for the creators of it. That we can detect anyway....



Why can it not sink into your brain that whoever created the LAP and drones was associated with Alienwarehuh Is that more far fetched in your opinion than the drones being real??
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by Jeddyhi on Oct 1st, 2009, 09:05am

on Oct 1st, 2009, 08:46am, tomi01uk wrote:
Are you honestly going to argue that whoever (hypothetically) went to the effort of creating the LAP would be afraid to engage a team of NY IPR lawyers to assert his rights over the usage of that design when it is being used to market a computer line around the world. Are you serious?


I'm only saying that if the hoaxer defrauded anyone out of their money with the drone hoax, then they are open to prosecution. Especially if they came forward and exposed their identity in order to get more money from AW.

And AW, if they are not the source of the LAP, would only have to claim that the LAP came from the public domain having been posted anonymously and attributed to being Alien in origin. I think that would clear them of any liability.
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by TheShadow on Oct 1st, 2009, 09:19am

It was mentioned before but i think it is worth suggesting again.

Tomi, since you feel so strongly that there are millions to be made by a lawsuit, why dont you get a lawyer (although perhaps with your vast knowledge you could do it yourself...LOL) and file a suit against alienware on Isaacs behalf?

Im sure he would give you half of the millions he receives!!!

Oh wait nevermind.......if you and your friends spent your money wisely the truth would be learned and we all know that isnt what you want!!
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by tommi01 on Oct 1st, 2009, 09:26am

on Oct 1st, 2009, 09:05am, Jeddyhi wrote:
I'm only saying that if the hoaxer defrauded anyone out of their money with the drone hoax, then they are open to prosecution. Especially if they came forward and exposed their identity in order to get more money from AW.



Who did they defraud? What laws would apply here?
Certainly none criminal that I can see.

And civil law has absolutely nothing to do with IPR law. Nothing ! They are completely separate areas of law.

Quote:
And AW, if they are not the source of the LAP, would only have to claim that the LAP came from the public domain having been posted anonymously and attributed to being Alien in origin. I think that would clear them of any liability.


Yes, this is the gray area. But as I just gave you plaintiff assertions above off the top of my head, I can assure you that a good NY City IPR firm would have many more. Meanwhile, like I said... the fact you have the copyright registration numbers will put the odds in your favor to stop all marketing and production till this little gray area can be decided.. Now what company wants to do that? Settlement is waiting in this case for the creator of the LAP. It is the only way this case would be approached. No company like Dell would fight this case if the LAP was copyrighted.
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by Double Nought Spy on Oct 1st, 2009, 09:26am

She knows she's spewing BS. That's her job. For my part, I am embarrassed that I was again dragged down to her level. Yikes, this whole idiot "question" is lame beyond belief. See y'all later.
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by tommi01 on Oct 1st, 2009, 09:31am

on Oct 1st, 2009, 09:19am, TheShadow wrote:
It was mentioned before but i think it is worth suggesting again.

Tomi, since you feel so strongly that there are millions to be made by a lawsuit, why dont you get a lawyer (although perhaps with your vast knowledge you could do it yourself...LOL) and file a suit against alienware on Isaacs behalf?

Im sure he would give you half of the millions he receives!!!

Oh wait nevermind.......if you and your friends spent your money wisely the truth would be learned and we all know that isnt what you want!!


Shads, you are very funny. But you are creating a diversion from the point I'm trying to make. I think I summed it up in the last post.

You and the boys out here have a lot of experience with design creation etc, I have experience in what I'm talking about first hand and over many years. It is the one area I can confidently put some experience in to try help analyse what the hell is behind this drone saga.

And when I say that there is a case here and how it could be played, believe me I know what I'm talking about.
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by TheShadow on Oct 1st, 2009, 09:33am

on Oct 1st, 2009, 09:31am, tomi01uk wrote:
Shads, you are very funny. But you are creating a diversion from the point I'm trying to make. I think I summed it up in the last post.

You and the boys out here have a lot of experience with design creation etc, I have experience in what I'm talking about first hand and over many years. It is the one area I can confidently put some experience in to try help analyse what the hell is behind this drone saga.

And when I say that there is a case here and how it could be played, believe me I know what I'm talking about.


No diversion and you know it! If you truly believe what you are saying then put up or shut up!!

Belleve you!! Thats freaking hilarious.......you are more full of it than a US politician!!



Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by tommi01 on Oct 1st, 2009, 09:51am

on Oct 1st, 2009, 09:33am, TheShadow wrote:
No diversion and you know it! If you truly believe what you are saying then put up or shut up!!

Belleve you!! Thats freaking hilarious.......you are more full of it than a US politician!!




Yeah, well put some proof where your words are then. Find me anything to prove I'm wrong in what I'm saying here about copyright law. You won't, because I speak from first hand knowledge and experience.
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by TheShadow on Oct 1st, 2009, 09:53am

on Oct 1st, 2009, 09:51am, tomi01uk wrote:
Yeah, well put some proof where your words are then. Find me anything to prove I'm wrong in what I'm saying here about copyright law. You won't, because I speak from first hand knowledge and experience.


You are the one claiming there are millions to be made by a lawsuit! You are the one that believes Isaac is real! You are the one claiming such vast knowledge of this issue.....i believe the burden of proof lies with you!!

So why not file a suit?? With your vast experience in the field it should be a slam dunk!!
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by tommi01 on Oct 1st, 2009, 10:09am

on Oct 1st, 2009, 09:53am, TheShadow wrote:
You are the one claiming there are millions to be made by a lawsuit! You are the one that believes Isaac is real! You are the one claiming such vast knowledge of this issue.....i believe the burden of proof lies with you!!

So why not file a suit?? With your vast experience in the field it should be a slam dunk!!


What is the motivation behind something as stupid as the above remark? Except to deflect from any real consideration of what is going on in this saga?

Obviously I can't claim copyright over the LAP and only the creator (s) of that design can assert their rights with AlienWare or Dell. But I can bring it to everyone's attention that this is not being done, and ask why not?


Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by Radi on Oct 1st, 2009, 10:24am

on Oct 1st, 2009, 10:09am, tomi01uk wrote:
What is the motivation behind something as stupid as the above remark? Except to deflect from any real consideration of what is going on in this saga?

Obviously I can't claim copyright over the LAP and only the creator (s) of that design can assert their rights with AlienWare or Dell. But I can bring it to everyone's attention that this is not being done, and ask why not?



Again round and round she goes..........Tomi again you demand everyone to show proof but you have none...SHOW FIGURES ON WHAT YOU CLAIM TO BE A MULITMILLION DOLLAR LAWSUIT....EVERYONE HAS GIVING YOU REASONS WHY THEY DO NOT COME FORWARD FOR THIS LAWSUIT....YOUR POINTS ARE UNDERSTOOD...WHY PERSIST WITH IT...SHOW WHY THEY COULD NOT BE PROSECUTED FOR FRAUD.....SHOW WHY THEY ARE NOT CRIMINALS...DON"T YOU THINK THAT THESE WOULD BE BROUGHT UP IN COURT...ITS CALLED DISCREDIT THE PERSON SUING.....IF AW HAD BEEN SUED FOR LOTS OF MONEY I AM POSITIVE THEY WOULD SEEK EVERY AVENUE POSSIBLE TO NOT SHELL OUT THAT MONEY...
YOUR LOGIC IS STARTING TO SOUND LIKE YOUR ILLUSTRATOR ARGUEMENTS.........

Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by Gort on Oct 1st, 2009, 10:28am

Aliens have no need for laptops?
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by tommi01 on Oct 1st, 2009, 10:28am

on Oct 1st, 2009, 10:24am, Radi wrote:
Again round and round she goes..........Tomi again you demand everyone to show proof but you have none...SHOW FIGURES ON WHAT YOU CLAIM TO BE A MULITMILLION DOLLAR LAWSUIT....EVERYONE HAS GIVING YOU REASONS WHY THEY DO NOT COME FORWARD FOR THIS LAWSUIT....YOUR POINTS ARE UNDERSTOOD...WHY PERSIST WITH IT...SHOW WHY THEY COULD NOT BE PROSECUTED FOR FRAUD.....SHOW WHY THEY ARE NOT CRIMINALS...DON"T YOU THINK THAT THESE WOULD BE BROUGHT UP IN COURT...ITS CALLED DISCREDIT THE PERSON SUING.....IF AW HAD BEEN SUED FOR LOTS OF MONEY I AM POSITIVE THEY WOULD SEEK EVERY AVENUE POSSIBLE TO NOT SHELL OUT THAT MONEY...
YOUR LOGIC IS STARTING TO SOUND LIKE YOUR ILLUSTRATOR ARGUEMENTS.........


I'm not going to jump through hoops to prove my points to you.

If you created the LAP, just what laws would you have broken that were criminal?

What would you feel entitled to in compensation and damages if Dell computers hitched a whole product line to your design work?
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by Radi on Oct 1st, 2009, 10:42am

on Oct 1st, 2009, 10:28am, tomi01uk wrote:
I'm not going to jump through hoops to prove my points to you.

If you created the LAP, just what laws would you have broken that were criminal?

What would you feel entitled to in compensation and damages if Dell computers hitched a whole product line to your design work?

AND I AM NOT GOING TO JUMP THROUGH HOOPS TO PROVE THE POINTS TO YOU......YOU ARE THE ONE THAT BROUGHT ALL THIS UP...HOW MUCH DO YOU FEEL? COURTS DO NOT GO BY FEELING....PROOF OF MONEY LOST IS THE NUMBER ONE...IF COURTS WENT BY FEELING THERE WOULD BE MORE RICH PEOPLE IN THE WORLD........

YOU DEFEND THIS SO MUCH THAT YOU EITHER KNOW THE HOAXER AND ARE TRYING TO FIND SOME SYMPATHY...OR THIS IS YOUR BABY AND DON"T WANT TO ADMIT IT.....BECAUSE NO ONE WOULD DEFEND IT THIS MUCH...
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by TheShadow on Oct 1st, 2009, 10:50am

on Oct 1st, 2009, 10:09am, tomi01uk wrote:
What is the motivation behind something as stupid as the above remark? Except to deflect from any real consideration of what is going on in this saga?

Obviously I can't claim copyright over the LAP and only the creator (s) of that design can assert their rights with AlienWare or Dell. But I can bring it to everyone's attention that this is not being done, and ask why not?



Honestly the motivation is to get you to put up or shut up!! Neither of which is gonna happen!

Why couldnt you or your vast network of friends file a suit on behalf of isaac? If for no other reason to get some answers. Take some of that PI $$$ and hire an attorney that needs a little publicity. Hell there are frivilous lawsuits filed everyday for any number of reasons.

We all know why.....because you know the truth and simply want to push you BS agenda!

Please answer this....which is more likely

1 Alienware was involved in the creation of the drones and LAP

2. The drones and LAP are alien in nature?
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by tommi01 on Oct 1st, 2009, 10:52am

on Oct 1st, 2009, 10:50am, TheShadow wrote:
Honestly the motivation is to get you to put up or shut up!! Neither of which is gonna happen!

Why couldnt you or your vast network of friends file a suit on behalf of isaac? If for no other reason to get some answers. Take some of that PI $$$ and hire an attorney that needs a little publicity. Hell there are frivilous lawsuits filed everyday for any number of reasons.

We all know why.....because you know the truth and simply want to push you BS agenda!


Why don't you educate yourself about the points I've made before you dismiss off hand what are facts.

And before you make preposterous suggestions as well..

What is there in any of this that you don't like? I'm not saying it's not a hoax... so you can't attack me there.

What is it now that disturbs you so greatly about the point I've made of no copyright claims being made?

What do you hope to win in this? I'm just posturing something which needs to be put out for consideration. What is your problem with this if you are interested in the truth as you so rabidly express from time to time.. ??
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by Radi on Oct 1st, 2009, 10:57am

on Oct 1st, 2009, 10:52am, tomi01uk wrote:
Why don't you educate yourself about the points I've made before you dismiss offhand what are facts.

And before you make preposterous suggestions as well..

Anything you bring up Tomi is preposterous.........You have made your points so why keep pushing the points...To keep talking about them...To keep talking about this for the PIs and gain more for their uhh TOUR........
Or are you talking about it because its something you seen at your ex-members website..................And no-body wants to discuss it there....
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by tommi01 on Oct 1st, 2009, 11:01am

on Oct 1st, 2009, 10:50am, TheShadow wrote:
Please answer this....which is more likely

1 Alienware was involved in the creation of the drones and LAP

2. The drones and LAP are alien in nature?


If those are your only two plausible explainations then I think you might need to practice thinkng a bit more often.. than spouting out critcisms without engaging brain.
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by TheShadow on Oct 1st, 2009, 11:01am

on Oct 1st, 2009, 10:52am, tomi01uk wrote:
Why don't you educate yourself about the points I've made before you dismiss off hand what are facts.

And before you make preposterous suggestions as well..

What is there in any of this that you don't like? I'm not saying it's not a hoax... so you can't attack me there.

What is it now that disturbs you so greatly about the point I've made of no copyright claims being made?

What do you hope to win in this? I'm just posturing something to consider which needs to be put out for consideration. What is your problem with this if you are interested in the truth as you so rabidly express from time to time.. ??


My problem with this is you babble just to babble and make absolutely no sense whatsoever! It has been explained to you seven ways to Sunday reasons why and you still insist you are right and all of us are wrong. You are making a damn fool of yourself on a daily basis bringing up crap just to keep this HOAX alive!!

ALIENWARE is obviously involved!!! CAN YOU NOT SEE THAT!!! THERE IS NO POSSIBLE WAY THEIR LAWYERS WOULD ALLOW THEM TO RISK A LAWSUIT IF THEIR BUTTS WERENT COVERED!!!! It is not rocket science and you do not need to be an expert to realize this.

My point is you claim to want answers I am suggesting a venue for you to get them! Just becase your dumb ass cant comprehend reality is not my problem!
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by TheShadow on Oct 1st, 2009, 11:06am

on Oct 1st, 2009, 11:01am, tomi01uk wrote:
If those are your only two plausible explainations then I think you might need to practice thinkng a bit more often.. than spouting out critcisms without engaging brain.


Did i say these were the only answers?? NO!!!

I asked which do you believe is more likely.....but i see as usual reason cant pass threw that thick numb skull of yours!!
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by tommi01 on Oct 1st, 2009, 11:28am

on Oct 1st, 2009, 11:01am, TheShadow wrote:
[quote]

ALIENWARE is obviously involved!!! CAN YOU NOT SEE THAT!!! THERE IS NO POSSIBLE WAY THEIR LAWYERS WOULD ALLOW THEM TO RISK A LAWSUIT IF THEIR BUTTS WERENT COVERED!!!! It is not rocket science and you do not need to be an expert to realize this.



Ok so you are saying then that given the facts about copyright law that I've posted here, you find conclusive proof positive that Dell computers division called AlienWare put the drone saga into play? So, that they could one day utilise the LAP?

This is your reasoning? Your proof??


Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by tommi01 on Oct 1st, 2009, 11:35am

on Oct 1st, 2009, 11:01am, TheShadow wrote:
THERE IS NO POSSIBLE WAY THEIR LAWYERS WOULD ALLOW THEM TO RISK A LAWSUIT IF THEIR BUTTS WERENT COVERED!!!!!


Calculated risks exist in business as in everything. I'm sure their lawyers have contingency plans in place. The reality of the situation will be different though and the lawyers know this. The company will want the insurance company to settle, the insurance company will want to contend the case, there will be a pass the buck phase in all of this where Dell/AlienWare is at odds with their insurance company.. it gets complicated...

edit to add: Whenever a lawsuit is initiated at this level the claims in the lawsuit will always be sure to include sufficient known grounds to trip the defendents insurance coverage. This is how it is done.
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by Marvin on Oct 1st, 2009, 11:39am

on Sep 30th, 2009, 6:49pm, tomi01uk wrote:
OMG.... first of all... who ever did this is beyond being a "designer", the group behind this is showing no profit motive whatsoever so far..


How do you know if there is or isn’t any profit motive? Are you on the inside of this group?


on Oct 1st, 2009, 07:59am, tomi01uk wrote:
Marvin, what logic tells you that AlienWare produced the drone saga just to benefit by using the LAP design?



I do not recall discussing AlienWare... heck, the PIs are making money off of this stuff (and others too), not just AW.



But that whole line of questioning is to totally miss my point... the point of knowing the hoaxer is not making any money from this deal. How do you know this information?

How do you know there isn't a "back door" deal where... if "this group" can "fool the public" with the BB Drones (photos, art work and story line) and keep it going for an extended period of time... there isn't something (profitable) in it for the group?

How you say there is no profit (as if it were a fact)?



Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by tommi01 on Oct 1st, 2009, 11:56am

on Oct 1st, 2009, 11:39am, Marvin wrote:
How do you know if there is or isn’t any profit motive? Are you on the inside of this group?



Of course not.

Quote:
I do not recall discussing AlienWare... heck, the PIs are making money off of this stuff (and others too), not just AW.



A negligible amount of money if you suggest tickets to a convention or a subscription to a website or the pay given to the PI's would be worth the investment of deploying the drone saga. IMO.

Quote:
But that whole line of questioning is to totally miss my point... the point of knowing the hoaxer is not making any money from this deal. How do you know this information?



How do you consider money is being made off the drone saga except for the relatively insignificant revenues mentioned above? Except by Dell computers that is...

Quote:
How do you know there isn't a "back door" deal where... if "this group" can "fool the public" with the BB Drones (photos, art work and story line) and keep it going for an extended period of time... there isn't something (profitable) in it for the group?



Like I'm trying to point out, there has to be some motive.. And if it is money it's not coming to light from what? That would be my first instinct, follow the motive and the motive is usually money. But subscription sales and door tickets, teeshirt and mugs and forum hits are not where I would start with the motivation to create this kind of saga.

Quote:
How you say there is no profit (as if it were a fact)?




Where is money being made? Obviously there has to be some compensation coming to someone for not exploiting the copyright legal claims re: the exploited LAP by Dell.
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by DrDil on Oct 1st, 2009, 12:02pm

on Oct 1st, 2009, 09:51am, tomi01uk wrote:
Yeah, well put some proof where your words are then. Find me anything to prove I'm wrong in what I'm saying here about copyright law. You won't, because I speak from first hand knowledge and experience.

on Sep 30th, 2009, 5:56pm, tomi01uk wrote:
AlienWare created a trademark when they used a derivative work from the LAP. That would normally trigger a response, but it didn't. They slowly incorporated more and increasing replications of the design into their products and the marketing of their products. Assured possibly by no longer having the 2 year limit of contesting copyright to fear, they have gone full use with many original elements of the design.

on Sep 30th, 2009, 6:59pm, tomi01uk wrote:
Because the whole identity of that line and their marketing is now built on almost exact replication of the LAP.

Whoop, there it is!!

"ALMOST"

on Sep 30th, 2009, 8:38pm, tomi01uk wrote:
Impossible. The LAP is a creative work that stands on its own merit.

As is Alienware's font and they HAVE corroborated this in WRITING, haven't they?

Everyone has offered their reasons and they are in fact many, but if you're waiting for confirmation that you're right Tomi it just isn't coming as no-one believes this is so.

on Sep 30th, 2009, 9:08pm, tomi01uk wrote:
This is why, earlier, when AlienWare was just using a little of the LAP in the case design I thought it not significant enough to overcome the public domain aspect, but now, they are going full hog and I suspect that puts them right where a NY law firm would be interested....

on Sep 30th, 2009, 8:57pm, tomi01uk wrote:
AlienWare now building the entire personna of a line of computers and its marketing on the LAP is not substancial? hmmmmm wonder what is then rolleyes

on Oct 1st, 2009, 03:38am, tomi01uk wrote:
If a company the size of Dell is plastering your design all over their product and using it to market said product, as extensively as AlienWare is doing.. You have lost income and your design has been used to profit another company. This is lost income, believe me.
Fair use is not what is happening with Alienware using the LAP to the extent it is doing

As I said many, many posts ago, AW have copied a couple of similarly looking schematics on the inside of their aurora cases, where is this full marketing campaign centered around the LAP that you speak of?

Cheers. smiley

Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by tommi01 on Oct 1st, 2009, 12:13pm

Derivative work is where the elements of the original creative work are sporatically utilised or changed in a significant way in order to render the new design significantly original in its own right.

This is not the case with what I've seen recently with Alienware's marketing. There is no signficant alteration from the original design. In fact, quite the opposite.. which is what inspired me to point out the fact they are in violation at this point of fully utilising the design of the LAP to their own benefit.
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by DrDil on Oct 1st, 2009, 12:27pm

on Oct 1st, 2009, 12:13pm, tomi01uk wrote:
Derivative work is where the elements of the original creative work are sporatically utilised or changed in a significant way in order to render the new design significantly original in its own right.

This is not the case with what I've seen recently with Alienware's marketing. There is no signficant alteration from the original design. In fact, quite the opposite.. which is what inspired me to point out the fact they are in violation at this point of fully utilising the design of the LAP to their own benefit.

Edited for clarity: M’kay but I think that both are derivatives.....

Anyway what are you looking at to justify this mass-marketing implementation of the LAP, is it just the duplicated (i.e. the same on both machines) imprint on the inside of the new cases? (Using their OWN ‘trade-marked font)?

Cheers. smiley

Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by tommi01 on Oct 1st, 2009, 12:55pm

When I saw the pictures of their display at the convention and the inside of the desktop machines, there was little if any real derivative work IMO and mostly a copy albeit slightly stylised in some areas.

The point is, that all along they have taken greater liberties with incorporating into their marketing more and more elements of the LAP.

Here is a website on marketing commenting on that:

http://www.wireworldmedia.co.uk/news/space-alien-technology-or-viral-marketing-campaign-
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by redlite on Oct 1st, 2009, 1:53pm

The Premise: Inserting 100lbs of steaming hooey into a 10lb sack.

Anonymity is fun! Coward Issac thinks so too...

The last post day-before-yesterday @ 11:49PM was Blackwaters' question 'how do you kill a hoax?'. Easy, don't give it any attention, especially if it ended over 2 years ago. Only the spinners have added to 'The Premise' above.

A few minutes later, the very first post in yesterdays circus was DNS saying 'lots of dairy activity' happening, who then proceeds to drop 33 steaming posts in 24 hours, only to be outdone by tomi with 53 posts, Shadow at 22 posts, etc., etc. for a total of 166 piles on 11 pages! Un-friken-believable! LMH and Strib trying to keep this alive? Yeah right, jobs already being done @ UCB. Good job, though, on 'The Premise'.

'Yeah, but we don't want this hoax to go down as true'.....Pfffff, go sell that somewhere else cause we ain't buying, just like no one else is buying this hoax as being for real. Except maybe someone from the "Hollow Head Society". More addition to 'The Premise'.

Hall 7 should include UCB with yesterdays 24 hours of shame- lock, stock and barrel- for pandering to this hoax. Not one thing of value was uttered yesterday, IMO, except to help 'The Premise'. Wait, Donkeykong had the only post with substance.

Someone should check to see if anyone was hospitalized or even killed by excessive laughter yesterday, as it could only be that scumby Issac......

Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by TheShadow on Oct 1st, 2009, 2:01pm

on Oct 1st, 2009, 1:53pm, redlite wrote:
The Premise: Inserting 100lbs of steaming hooey into a 10lb sack.

Anonymity is fun! Coward Issac thinks so too...

The last post day-before-yesterday @ 11:49PM was Blackwaters' question 'how do you kill a hoax?'. Easy, don't give it any attention, especially if it ended over 2 years ago. Only the spinners have added to 'The Premise' above.

A few minutes later, the very first post in yesterdays circus was DNS saying 'lots of dairy activity' happening, who then proceeds to drop 33 steaming posts in 24 hours, only to be outdone by tomi with 53 posts, Shadow at 22 posts, etc., etc. for a total of 166 piles on 11 pages! Un-friken-believable! LMH and Strib trying to keep this alive? Yeah right, jobs already being done @ UCB. Good job, though, on 'The Premise'.

'Yeah, but we don't want this hoax to go down as true'.....Pfffff, go sell that somewhere else cause we ain't buying, just like no one else is buying this hoax as being for real. Except maybe someone from the "Hollow Head Society". More addition to 'The Premise'.

Hall 7 should include UCB with yesterdays 24 hours of shame- lock, stock and barrel- for pandering to this hoax. Not one thing of value was uttered yesterday, IMO, except to help 'The Premise'. Wait, Donkeykong had the only post with substance.

Someone should check to see if anyone was hospitalized or even killed by excessive laughter yesterday, as it could only be that scumby Issac......


Well I have to say you are ABSOLUTELY 1000% CORRECT!

From this point forward I will not engage tomi's stupidity and feed this ridiculous hoax fodder any longer.

I would suggest my comrades follow suit and let her argue with herself!!

Thanks for ONE intelligent and coherent post!
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by Radi on Oct 1st, 2009, 2:02pm

on Oct 1st, 2009, 1:53pm, redlite wrote:
The Premise: Inserting 100lbs of steaming hooey into a 10lb sack.

Anonymity is fun! Coward Issac thinks so too...

The last post day-before-yesterday @ 11:49PM was Blackwaters' question 'how do you kill a hoax?'. Easy, don't give it any attention, especially if it ended over 2 years ago. Only the spinners have added to 'The Premise' above.

A few minutes later, the very first post in yesterdays circus was DNS saying 'lots of dairy activity' happening, who then proceeds to drop 33 steaming posts in 24 hours, only to be outdone by tomi with 53 posts, Shadow at 22 posts, etc., etc. for a total of 166 piles on 11 pages! Un-friken-believable! LMH and Strib trying to keep this alive? Yeah right, jobs already being done @ UCB. Good job, though, on 'The Premise'.

'Yeah, but we don't want this hoax to go down as true'.....Pfffff, go sell that somewhere else cause we ain't buying, just like no one else is buying this hoax as being for real. Except maybe someone from the "Hollow Head Society". More addition to 'The Premise'.

Hall 7 should include UCB with yesterdays 24 hours of shame- lock, stock and barrel- for pandering to this hoax. Not one thing of value was uttered yesterday, IMO, except to help 'The Premise'. Wait, Donkeykong had the only post with substance.

Someone should check to see if anyone was hospitalized or even killed by excessive laughter yesterday, as it could only be that scumby Issac......


hehe... laugh laugh
This is Tomis job and why she posts here about things that have been discussed long ago.....Trying to bring uo the subjects only here cause she knows this is where she will gets responses to the questions that she can keep spinning round and round...Keeping it or at least making it look like someone gives a Rats behind about the subject or the matter at hand........IMHO waiting for her to slip....hehe
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by DrDil on Oct 1st, 2009, 2:09pm

Hi again Tomi,

Just forget it because it seems as if as I suspected that all of this was brought about by the following two images:

User Image
User Image

And to be honest I find the earlier designs just as telling:

User Image

I honestly didn’t know and thought there was something else that piqued your interest -other than this- but if this has been the reason behind your marketing speak and grandiose statements concerning AW and how they have based their current portfolio of machines around the LAP then I fear there really is no point because while I respect your experience I completely disagree, and especially about AW paying undisclosed millions to any subsequent claimant or the fact that IF true you think this would be a no-brainer for the hoaxers and they’d take the money and run…..

Cheers.

Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by Jeddyhi on Oct 1st, 2009, 2:16pm

on Oct 1st, 2009, 1:53pm, redlite wrote:
The Premise: Inserting 100lbs of steaming hooey into a 10lb sack.

Anonymity is fun! Coward Issac thinks so too...

The last post day-before-yesterday @ 11:49PM was Blackwaters' question 'how do you kill a hoax?'. Easy, don't give it any attention, especially if it ended over 2 years ago. Only the spinners have added to 'The Premise' above.

A few minutes later, the very first post in yesterdays circus was DNS saying 'lots of dairy activity' happening, who then proceeds to drop 33 steaming posts in 24 hours, only to be outdone by tomi with 53 posts, Shadow at 22 posts, etc., etc. for a total of 166 piles on 11 pages! Un-friken-believable! LMH and Strib trying to keep this alive? Yeah right, jobs already being done @ UCB. Good job, though, on 'The Premise'.

'Yeah, but we don't want this hoax to go down as true'.....Pfffff, go sell that somewhere else cause we ain't buying, just like no one else is buying this hoax as being for real. Except maybe someone from the "Hollow Head Society". More addition to 'The Premise'.

Hall 7 should include UCB with yesterdays 24 hours of shame- lock, stock and barrel- for pandering to this hoax. Not one thing of value was uttered yesterday, IMO, except to help 'The Premise'. Wait, Donkeykong had the only post with substance.

Someone should check to see if anyone was hospitalized or even killed by excessive laughter yesterday, as it could only be that scumby Issac......


Nice accurate critique! wink

But, after all, it is a discussion forum and for all intents and purposes, this is a debate fueled by what I like to call 'intentional ignorance' and lots of frustrated logic. The hoax is dead. Died long ago......just a few geologists left sifting through the rubble and discussing the ruins.

I thought the thread would die down until the Vegas Convention. grin


Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by DrDil on Oct 1st, 2009, 2:24pm

on Oct 1st, 2009, 1:53pm, redlite wrote:
<snip>

A few minutes later, the very first post in yesterdays circus was DNS saying 'lots of dairy activity' happening, who then proceeds to drop 33 steaming posts in 24 hours, only to be outdone by tomi with 53 posts, Shadow at 22 posts, etc., etc. for a total of 166 piles on 11 pages! Un-friken-believable!

<snip>

I agree completely, well I’d never of believed someone would actually count individual posts just to highlight their lack of content.....
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by neveleeleven on Oct 1st, 2009, 2:33pm

Once again Tomi shows her lack of knowledge, and her ignorance.

I think she spent her whole day making 3 pages of replies that were nothing but bullcrap.

Tomi, what part of "Fair Use" do you not understandhuh
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use

User Image
User Image
User Image

See the images above? They are not the complete LAP. They are very small sections of the LAP that were cut out and used.

Alienware did this so they could stay within "Fair Use" laws.

Quote:
Amount and substantiality

The third factor assesses the quantity or percentage of the original copyrighted work that has been imported into the new work. In general, the less that is used in relation to the whole, e.g., a few sentences of a text for a book review, the more likely that the sample will be considered fair use.


Alienware protected themselves by using a small percentage of the original copyrighted work. They are protected by Fair Use.

So gladly, STFU already. You are always wrong for some reason and people are getting sick of correcting you.
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by tommi01 on Oct 1st, 2009, 2:34pm

on Oct 1st, 2009, 2:09pm, DrDil wrote:
Hi again Tomi,

while I respect your experience I completely disagree, and especially about AW paying undisclosed millions to any subsequent claimant or the fact that IF true you think this would be a no-brainer for the hoaxers and they’d take the money and run…..

Cheers.


Well, Drdil, it is TRUE and that is exactly my point. It is a no-brainer and I thank you for helping me further establish this premise.


Here is a little except about "derivative works" from a site in the UK, but the definition holds in the US as well:

http://www.copyrightservice.co.uk/copyright/p22_derivative_works.en.htm

Copyright in the derivative work
Provided it is significantly different to the original work the derivative work will be subject to copyright in it's own right, and you will own copyright to the new content you have created as a result of your actions. Bear in mind that to be subject to copyright the creation of the derivative work must itself be an original work of skill, labour and judgement; minor alterations that do not substantially alter the original would not qualify.




Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by tommi01 on Oct 1st, 2009, 2:37pm

on Oct 1st, 2009, 2:33pm, neveleeleven wrote:
Once again Tomi shows her lack of knowledge, and her ignorance.


Your ignorance about copyright law is staggering but I guess that would be expected because you can't hope to know everything could you??

Just so you know... "Fair Use" is the absolute LAST defense that could be applied here.
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by Jeddyhi on Oct 1st, 2009, 2:43pm

on Oct 1st, 2009, 2:37pm, tomi01uk wrote:
Your ignorance about copyright law is staggering but I guess that would be expected because you can't hope to know everything could you??

Just so you know... "Fair Use" is the absolute LAST defense that could be applied here.


I can't help but ask......what about the defense that the material in question was anonymously submitted to the public domain with the proclamation that is was ET in origin? Wouldn't that mean anything? It was given to the public domain with no strings attached, so to speak
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by neveleeleven on Oct 1st, 2009, 2:49pm

on Oct 1st, 2009, 2:37pm, tomi01uk wrote:
Your ignorance about copyright law is staggering but I guess that would be expected because you can't hope to know everything could you??

Just so you know... "Fair Use" is the absolute LAST defense that could be applied here.


Tomi, seriously, every time you speak you prove how unintelligent you are.

You have no clue about my knowledge of copyright law.

Actually, I own several websites with personally created art, all of them protected by copyright, and showing legal notices. I have created pages and pages of computer code (computer programs) that are also copyright protected. I own my own business name and icons with Trademark protection.

I am an artist, and a web developer, and a business owner. We are the ones that know about copyright law. All you are is a self proclaimed expert who doesn't know the first thing about Fair Use.

-edit to add- Alienware probably knows ten times more about Fair Use and copyright laws than you and I combined.

Get a freaking clue, Fair Use is the first thing Alienware is going to claim.

Holy crap you are clueless.

Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by DrDil on Oct 1st, 2009, 2:51pm

on Oct 1st, 2009, 2:09pm, DrDil wrote:
Hi again Tomi,

while I respect your experience I completely disagree, and especially about AW paying undisclosed millions to any subsequent claimant or the fact that IF true you think this would be a no-brainer for the hoaxers and they’d take the money and run…..

Cheers.

on Oct 1st, 2009, 2:34pm, tomi01uk wrote:
Well, Drdil, it is TRUE and that is exactly my point. It is a no-brainer and I thank you for helping me further establish this premise.


Pleased to be of assistance and I didn't know it was true, but as it is (true) then what proof do you have of payment of these millions?

Or the other question you've repeatedly ignored about AW building a marketing scheme around these laptops desktops based entirely on the LAP? It just seems as if you’re attaching far more importance here then is actually there so the entire copyright issue is as moot as it was back when AW first used it.

The constant claims you have made about how AW are marketing the machines via the LAP is, exactly that, i.e. claims as there’s no evidence to suggest this. Or if there is bring it on and if not then nothing has changed with this recent addition to the AW catalogue, as at the minute I still disagree with what you've shown to date to substantiate this claim.

Cheers.

Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by tommi01 on Oct 1st, 2009, 2:51pm

on Oct 1st, 2009, 2:43pm, Jeddyhi wrote:
I can't help but ask......what about the defense that the material in question was anonymously submitted to the public domain with the proclamation that is was ET in origin? Wouldn't that mean anything? It was given to the public domain with no strings attached, so to speak


I already addessed that in a previous post:


"When Isaac made the request that all material be reproduced in whole not utilised or marketed separately, he was establishing a very loose yet plausible condition of use... this may be the key a good firm would use to overcome the public domain aspect of this work after it has been so blatently exploited for marketing purposes... just thinking here..

But I believe that will not even be necessary as the fortune city website in reality may be construed as a fictious story.. one that is not to be exploited by the marketing efforts of a major company for their computer product line."

The point I'm trying to make is that the longer this carries on by AlienWare, the more likely someone is to file copyright on the LAP. Providing it was created by humans that is.

If you or I sold posters of it, copied perfectly from Isaac's posts, no real legal threat would probably interfere, because nobody is going to go after little mom and pop shops selling this design.

But with the deep pockets of Dell, there is every reason for a NY IPR firm to take this case and once they do, as I've said already...
The manufacturer gets served along with the distributors and the importers of these computers. The marketing halts, the product is seized. The cost of implimenting this is null compared to the immediate effect. Deep pockets is all the Law Firm is concerned with.


Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by tommi01 on Oct 1st, 2009, 2:56pm

on Oct 1st, 2009, 2:49pm, neveleeleven wrote:
Tomi, seriously, every time you speak you prove how unintelligent you are.

You have no clue about my knowledge of copyright law.

Actually, I own several websites with personally created art, all of them protected by copyright, and showing legal notices. I have created pages and pages of computer code (computer programs) that are also copyright protected. I own my own business name and icons with Trademark protection.

I am an artist, and a web developer, and a business owner. We are the ones that know about copyright law. All you are is a self proclaimed expert who doesn't know the first thing about Fair Use





Whoopee ... that makes you a copyright expert!! LOL
Have you ever had the experience of what I'm describing first hand? How many companies have you served on the basis of what I'm talking about?
How many times have you prevailed in court? How many settlements have you negociated?

Let's hear it....



Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by tommi01 on Oct 1st, 2009, 3:03pm

on Oct 1st, 2009, 2:51pm, DrDil wrote:
Or the other question you've repeatedly ignored about AW building a marketing scheme around these laptops desktops based entirely on the LAP? It just seems as if you’re attaching far more importance here then is actually there so the entire copyright issue is as moot as it was back when AW first used it.


I bookmarked AlienWares flicker web page for their last convention. In that collection of pictures I can see numerous reproductions of the LAP on screens and in marketing material. When evidence like this is combined with the lithographed interiors of the desktops as well as the symbols used extensively in the same manner as the LAP... you got problems...
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by DrDil on Oct 1st, 2009, 3:07pm

on Oct 1st, 2009, 3:03pm, tomi01uk wrote:
I bookmarked AlienWares flicker web page for their last convention. In that collection of pictures I can see numerous reproductions of the LAP on screens and in marketing material. When evidence like this is combined with the lithographed interiors of the desktops as well as the symbols used extensively in the same manner as the LAP... you got problems...
Someone has (got problems) and from my -apparently limited- standpoint it’s certainly not Alienware, Dell or the hoaxers.

Good luck!! grin

Cheers.

Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by neveleeleven on Oct 1st, 2009, 3:08pm

on Oct 1st, 2009, 2:56pm, tomi01uk wrote:
Whoopee ... that makes you a copyright expert!! LOL
Have you ever had the experience of what I'm describing first hand? How many companies have you served on the basis of what I'm talking about?
How many times have you prevailed in court? How many settlements have you negociated?

Let's hear it....




I never claimed to be an expert, I claimed to have a lot of knowledge in that area because I deal with it a lot as a content creator. As a content creator, you have to know what is legal and illegal. You have to know what you can use and what you can't use in your work.

For instance, one company I create content for as a subcontractor always checks my work to make sure it is not breaking any copyright laws. They do this because they use the work in their virtual world and don't want to deal with lawsuits. So as a content creator, I have to know how to walk that fine line of legal or illegal when I want to parody a real life object.


You don't have to have actual settlements or actual court hearings in order to have knowledge, or experience, in a field.

You are the only one who claimed to be an expert "first hand". So why don't you tell use how many settlements and court hearings you have been to?

Once again, your ignorance is incredibly blinding.

http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html
Quote:
The 1961 Report of the Register of Copyrights on the General Revision of the U.S. Copyright Law cites examples of activities that courts have regarded as fair use: “quotation of excerpts in a review or criticism for purposes of illustration or comment; quotation of short passages in a scholarly or technical work, for illustration or clarification of the author’s observations; use in a parody of some of the content of the work parodied; summary of an address or article, with brief quotations, in a news report; reproduction by a library of a portion of a work to replace part of a damaged copy; reproduction by a teacher or student of a small part of a work to illustrate a lesson; reproduction of a work in legislative or judicial proceedings or reports; incidental and fortuitous reproduction, in a newsreel or broadcast, of a work located in the scene of an event being reported.”


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

Seriously, sit down, and stfu now. Isaac can not sue Alienware, he will loose for multiple reasons.








Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by tommi01 on Oct 1st, 2009, 3:10pm

on Oct 1st, 2009, 3:07pm, DrDil wrote:
Someone has (got problems) and from my -apparently limited- standpoint it’s certainly not Alienware, Dell or the hoaxers.

Good luck!! grin

Cheers.


Well look, does this look like a "derivative work" to you based on all definitions that will allow for their own independent copyright... I don't think so..

In which case.. they potentially have problems, as even described by numerous other publications out on the web linking Alienware to using the LAP design.
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by tommi01 on Oct 1st, 2009, 3:18pm

on Oct 1st, 2009, 3:08pm, neveleeleven wrote:
Once again, your ignorance is incredibly blinding.

http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parody
Isaac can not sue Alienware, he will loose for multiple reasons.



Parody? You are serious here? Use of the LAP in marketing a product for profit will eclipse any parody except your reasoning .. lol.

How many times have I prevailed legally in copyright claims ? 13 times all settled to my favor. With 5 or 6 (can't remember exactly) copyright registrations.

Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by neveleeleven on Oct 1st, 2009, 3:29pm

on Oct 1st, 2009, 3:18pm, tomi01uk wrote:
Parody? You are serious here? Use of the LAP in marketing a product for profit will eclipse any parody except your reasoning .. lol.


Use of the LAP?? They didn't use the LAP. They used very very small sections of the LAP. That is covered by Fair Use.

Pay attention...

I own a website ok? I created an image and it is protected by copyright. If I go to Google Images, and search, I can find an exact copy of the work on their web page. I can also find an exact copy that is a smaller thumbnail on Google's servers, and I can find an exact replica of my entire website on their Google Cache.

There is no doubt that Google makes money from its search engines..... and their search engines potentially stop people from going to my website directly....but do you know why I can't sue Google?? FAIR USE.

They have an EXACT COPY, and they are STILL protected by fair use. Alienware hardly even has small bits of the LAP, they are certainly protected by fair use.

So kindly, get a clue.


on Oct 1st, 2009, 3:18pm, tomi01uk wrote:
How many times have I prevailed legally in copyright claims ? 13 times all settled to my favor. With 5 or 6 (can't remember exactly) copyright registrations.


Ok LHM, nobody cares how many people copied your crappy website.

You could be talking out of your ass for all we know, you certainly don't have any proof of what you say.
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by SiddReader on Oct 1st, 2009, 3:32pm

Thanks for your post redlite,

I did not dare to say it, because I consider most here as friends. The speed here of talking about nothing has made it impossible to read all that repeated... stuff.

But if I am honest... I just see that all the boys here enjoy to throw sand at that big mouthed girl in the sandbox.

Okay, not all the boys... But most of them. And they get even more angry, when that big mouthed girl does not stop, even with a mouth full of sand.

Okay, let's see, how quickly these next 100 pages are filled with nothing - or sand - and get into the next round.
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by tommi01 on Oct 1st, 2009, 3:42pm

on Oct 1st, 2009, 3:29pm, neveleeleven wrote:
Use of the LAP?? They didn't use the LAP. They used very very small sections of the LAP. That is covered by Fair Use.



Not if you are lithographing the design onto your products it is not fair use, it is called "marketing".
Can you say that word? Marketing? 3 syllables..

Quote:
Pay attention...

I own a website ok? I created an image and it is protected by copyright. If I go to Google Images, and search, I can find an exact copy of the work on their web page. I can also find an exact copy that is a smaller thumbnail on Google's servers, and I can find an exact replica of my entire website on their Google Cache.

There is no doubt that Google makes money from its search engines..... and their search engines potentially stop people from going to my website directly....but do you know why I can't sue Google?? FAIR USE.

They have an EXACT COPY, and they are STILL protected by fair use. Alienware hardly even has small bits of the LAP, they are certainly protected by fair use.

So kindly, get a clue.



You will get a clue and fast if one of your "designs" gets made into a trademark, a marketing campaign, is printed on the products and also stamped on the cases...
Lets hear you say "fair use" after that.. rolleyes


Quote:
Ok LHM, nobody cares how many people copied your crappy website.

You could be talking out of your ass for all we know, you certainly don't have any proof of what you say.


If you want to think so that is fine with me. Of course I could be telling the truth and if you ask any IPR lawyer about the points of law I've mentioned, the method of approach, the insurance involved and other fine points I've mentioned, he will tell you I know the territory. Which I do, because I've gone through it.
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by neveleeleven on Oct 1st, 2009, 4:10pm

Tomi, it clearly shows that you have no clue about the difference between a Trademark, and a Copyright.

A copyright is protecting the property as a WHOLE. 100%.

Taking 5% of the LAP, like a small symbol, is legal under Fair Use. Even if they use it for marketing.

Since a symbol within the LAP itself is not Trademarked, Alienware can use it in their marketing.

A shape, an icon, a symbol, is not protected by copyright law. You can not protect basic geometry with copyright. That is like putting stars in your copyright image, and then trying to sue USA for having stars on their flag.

Only a Trademark can protect a shape, an icon, or symbol. I'm pretty sure Isaac didn't Trademark every single symbol within the LAP.

Plus, you still haven't proven that Alienware used exact copies. To me they look like fake reproductions (a parody) that come really close to looking the same, but aren't.

Either way, you failed.




Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by Radi on Oct 1st, 2009, 4:15pm

on Sep 30th, 2009, 4:37pm, DrDil wrote:
“A computer line designed after it”?

What, from the five original accounts, the varying Drone designs and the many-worded explanation and images of alleged alien technology (antigrav device etc.) that Isaac proffered they copied what is best described as a schematic including known bastardized fonts and this is your idea of “Designed after it”?

I guess I really am in the minority here as I disagree with everyone about the viral angle but also with you about basing their design on it, or more specifically exclusively based on it as it seems you’re implying with “Designed after it”. Strangely the reasons I disagree with both theories are similarly themed but as for the copyright issue I still don’t think anyone has answered about claiming of such as surely whichever way you look at it it’s of no massive importance?

First scenario:
If Isaac is telling the truth (meh) then only Caret or one of the many alien races (according to Isaac anyway) could possibly claim copyright and if either were to do so then it’s game over as the fabled ‘disclosure’ would be upon us.

User Image


Second scenario: If it’s all lies, and as (when considering this theory) Isaac has, you have purposefully deceived from the outset (as well as waived copyrights,) plus there is no trademark registered, and most of the designs have been around as individual items in some form or another for long before Isaac claimed them, e.g.:


User Image

User Image

(Heh, heh, even the Drones themselves had their predecessors.

What about this one, it’s one of my my favourites.
User Image
From a Lightwave tutorial no less..... grin


All of these examples pre-date the Drones and I agree that the LAP was an inspired combination and subsequent representation of them (intentionally, subconsciously or otherwise), but unique?

Anyway when considering the above then would/does/could even intellectual copyright be argued? I.e. when already waived and there has been no one willing to be identified and we’re now past the two year mark? As I’ve stated previously this isn’t like a pseudonym as this was someone claiming anonymity and asking for no payment or recompense as well as asserting no ‘real’ copyright (in fact the exact opposite)?

But back to your original question about the design thing, as Masker has pointed out then a couple of prints on the INTERNAL board components are the only difference from the earlier designs, isn’t it? Well, apart from a vague screen-shot on the desktop on the main page for the desktops (note, NOT notebooks).

So regarding: “Considering the new way Alienware has incorporated even greater amounts of the LAP design into its products.. it bears considering this I think.” There may be an extra couple of representations of the schematic ‘under the hood’ but I still don’t get the implications of such as surely it’s just the same as the SCC, or bioware, or Serenity, isn’t it?

IF they were the originators then surely this would have been claimed instead of appearing to plagiarise the LAP, and as you said the earlier inclusion of the symbols in the original MX’s was perhaps just testing the water before printing another couple of representations on the inside of the new aurora’s?

I still don’t see why this is of any real relevance?

After all, this IS Alienware.

Remember the one with the iconic aliens head as a trademark?
That was around for many moons before they slightly altered and claimed it, wasn’t it?
Hmm, I wonder if Whitley has a case with Alienware?
Or come to that if the Crowley estate has just cause against Whitley regarding Crowley’s “LAM”?

But back to Alienware, you know, the one that has hardware named after famous & misidentified UFO events (aurora, Area51) and is futuristic in design, what better way than to try and tie it in with reversed alien technology be it legitimate or merely claimed as legitimate (i.e. alien-tech)?

I guess I'm on my own in thinking this way but never mind as it's not the first time and I'm sure it won't be the last.....

Cheers. smiley


Remember who copied whom...the LAP is not so original it is a derivative of others work also... laugh laugh laugh
So more FAIR USE or reproduction......Perhaps IHEA can sue ISSAC....According to Tomis logic...
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by tommi01 on Oct 1st, 2009, 4:36pm

I'm tired of arguing.

The important point is established that I tried to make that drdil summed up with saying: "or the fact that IF true you think this would be a no-brainer for the hoaxers and they’d take the money and run….."

I'm sorry none of you believe me. I hope someday you will have the chance to run these 20 pages or so by an IPR lawyer and get his/her insights. I'm sure that the IPR lawyer will back me up on the points I've made here.

Never, the trademark value, you misinterpreted. I never suggested the LAP had a trademark, only that a trademark was created using design elements from the LAP. Regardless, it is a moot point, in this matter. What matters is this:

"or the fact that IF true you think this would be a no-brainer for the hoaxers and they’d take the money and run….." This is the point. Check it out if you care to.



Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by Jeddyhi on Oct 1st, 2009, 4:53pm

on Oct 1st, 2009, 4:36pm, tomi01uk wrote:
I'm tired of arguing.

The important point is established that I tried to make that drdil summed up with saying: "or the fact that IF true you think this would be a no-brainer for the hoaxers and they’d take the money and run….."

I'm sorry none of you believe me. I hope someday you will have the chance to run these 20 pages or so by an IPR lawyer and get his/her insights. I'm sure that the IPR lawyer will back me up on the points I've made here.

Never, the trademark value, you misinterpreted. I never suggested the LAP had a trademark, only that a trademark was created using design elements from the LAP. Regardless, it is a moot point, in this matter. What matters is this:

"or the fact that IF true you think this would be a no-brainer for the hoaxers and they’d take the money and run….." This is the point. Check it out if you care to.



Dr dil actually said:

"while I respect your experience I completely disagree, and especially about AW paying undisclosed millions to any subsequent claimant or the fact that IF true you think this would be a no-brainer for the hoaxers and they’d take the money and run….."

Nobody thinks that is true except you. Apparently not even the hoaxers who may have a better understanding of copyright and fair use than you do. grin
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by neveleeleven on Oct 1st, 2009, 5:00pm

The IPR Lawyer would probably put it in layman's terms for you Tomi, because you don't get it.

Copyright.....COPYright..... COPY....right....

Alienware didn't COPY anything. They made a replica, a parody, their own version of it that looks similar.

Trademark.....TRADEmark.....TRADE...MARK....

Since Isaac didn't have the symbols Trademarked, Alienware has the right to do it first. Then they can use it as a mark for their trade (market).

Geeezzz

You seriously think Alienware and it's hired content creators don't know copyright and trademark laws? You think they don't know a way to tip toe around them?

You are not the brightest crayon in the crayon box.


Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by SiddReader on Oct 1st, 2009, 5:09pm

BlahblahCopyrightsYaddaNoNewsBlahYaddah? huh undecided lipsrsealed
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by neveleeleven on Oct 1st, 2009, 5:21pm

on Oct 1st, 2009, 5:09pm, SiddReader wrote:
BlahblahCopyrightsYaddaNoNewsBlahYaddah? huh undecided lipsrsealed


If you read between the lines, some good info can be found.


on Oct 1st, 2009, 4:53pm, Jeddyhi wrote:
Nobody thinks that is true except you. Apparently not even the hoaxers who may have a better understanding of copyright and fair use than you do. grin


I actually see a similarity between the hoaxers', and Tomi's understanding of copyright law.

They both thought that the message Isaac included about copyright infringement would actually change copyright, fair use, and trademark laws.
They were both wrong.

For all we know, Tomi is a part of the hoax and was recently studying the Isaac vs Alienware/Dell scenario, and using us to see if she has a real case or not.

Thinking she had a case, and using it to some how add credibility to the LAP is beyond any normal logic.

She is truly in her own little world.

Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by tommi01 on Oct 1st, 2009, 5:34pm

LOL grin

Never... I was going to leave this conversation, but you have yet again baited me, and I'll take a bite ..

Tell me, ol wise one:
On your planet,
when a substancial number of elements of a "creative work" is used by a commercial company for their marketing of their product; for a trademark, a convention display, brochures, websites, background images and even lithographed on the interior of the product case as well as stamped in the exterior casing..
and on your planet all this is considered "fair use"..
Where does infringement begin.. ?
eh?


Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by SiddReader on Oct 1st, 2009, 5:35pm

on Oct 1st, 2009, 5:21pm, neveleeleven wrote:
If you read between the lines, some good info can be found.


Sorry 1111,

you were the first, who showed the wrongs in the Raj photo. And you were right.
But as a detective you are very bad. You even had me on the list once.

You said, you could show more inconsistencies in those other Raj photos. Better talk about this, than about that copyright/"you are a hoaxer"-nonsense.

I don't want to join this "You are the hoaxer"-debate at all. But if you tell me, Tomi is THE candidate, than I would say, you are the better candidate.

Hehe, imagine, this could be true... Funny thought, isn't it? wink
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by neveleeleven on Oct 1st, 2009, 5:56pm

on Oct 1st, 2009, 5:34pm, tomi01uk wrote:
LOL grin

Never... I was going to leave this conversation, but you have yet again baited me, and I'll take a bite ..

Tell me, ol wise one:
On your planet,
when elements of a design is used by a commercial company for marketing purposes; for a trademark, a convention display, brochures, websites, background images and even lithographed on the interior of the product case as well as stamped in the exterior casing..
and on your planet all this is considered "fair use"..
Where does infringement begin.. ?
eh?



You are going to have to set a scenario first before you talk about any type of infringement. Your example is inconclusive....

You are aware of the "four pillars" of the Fair Use laws right?

1) The purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes

2) The nature of the copyrighted work

3) The amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole

4) The effect of the use upon the potential market for, or value of, the copyrighted work


Where did the original content come from? Did the original content have Trademarked symbols? Did the original content have a valid copyright? Was the original content fact or fiction? Was the original content in public domain? Did the original content inspire a recreation? Was it an exact copy and paste, or was it a replication?

There are several things you need to know....

So lets talk about your planet... A guy claims to have photocopied stolen secret government property from aliens, and then he claims a copyright on them... LOL..

Please tell me how someone can claim a copyright on a copy of government property, on your planet?


That is like copying a copyright protected government owned user manual for an F-22, and then claiming copyright on the copy.

Wow Tomi, can you even fathom how dumb your world is?

Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by Jeddyhi on Oct 1st, 2009, 6:08pm

on Oct 1st, 2009, 5:56pm, neveleeleven wrote:
So lets talk about your planet... A guy claims to have photocopied stolen secret government property from aliens, and then he claims a copyright on them... LOL..

Please tell me how someone can claim a copyright on a copy of government property, on your planet?


That is like copying a copyright protected government owned user manual for an F-22, and then claiming copyright on the copy.

Wow Tomi, can you even fathom how dumb your world is?


I believe she is asserting that because no hoaxers have confessed to the hoax and attempted litigation against AlienWare, then it must not be a hoax for why would they not confess and sue AlienWare for millions. That is the crux of her argument.
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by tommi01 on Oct 1st, 2009, 6:09pm

on Oct 1st, 2009, 5:56pm, neveleeleven wrote:
Please tell me how someone can claim a copyright on a copy of government property?

That is like copying a copyright protected government owned user manual for an F-22, and then claiming copyright on the copy.



shocked OMG.. rolleyes You will stoop to even calling it an alien artifact to escape this one !! LOL

Your points 1 through 4 speak for themselves, proving my point that commerical use is not considered "fair use". Etc. etc.. so what do you do? You stoop to calling it an alien artifact stolen from the government..
Gotta hand it to never, you never fail to deliver ..
what I'm not sure... rolleyes
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by neveleeleven on Oct 1st, 2009, 6:15pm

on Oct 1st, 2009, 5:35pm, SiddReader wrote:
Sorry 1111,

you were the first, who showed the wrongs in the Raj photo. And you were right.



smiley I know... I even remote viewed the Raj pole location and drew a picture of what I saw, and it had tons of similarities to the actual location.

I even remote viewed a test picture someone gave me to see if I can guess the time of day, and was correct within less than 30 minutes. LOL


on Oct 1st, 2009, 5:35pm, SiddReader wrote:
But as a detective you are very bad. You even had me on the list once.


Well I had everyone on the list because I don't trust anyone.

If you think I am a bad detective, and I took you off the list, are you trying to say I should put you back on the list?

Or am I a good enough detective to take you off the list using unheard-of tactics via internet?

on Oct 1st, 2009, 5:35pm, SiddReader wrote:
You said, you could show more inconsistencies in those other Raj photos. Better talk about this, than about that copyright/"you are a hoaxer"-nonsense.


Yes, but I would rather not teach the hoaxers how to fix their work. So I will keep the Raj info private. What I have said is already enough.

Quite frankly, I don't trust Tomi at all. So I will accuse her until she can prove herself.

on Oct 1st, 2009, 5:35pm, SiddReader wrote:
I don't want to join this "You are the hoaxer"-debate at all. But if you tell me, Tomi is THE candidate, than I would say, you are the better candidate.


I believe this drone hoax was done by a team. Not one person. I believe Tomi could be a part of this team, playing dumb, acting, and just playing along. So far she shows to be doing just that.

I am not a better candidate, because I am not anonymous. I'm not trying to hide. If I trust someone enough, I will tell them my name. I have already told people my location. I told Manny some very good information that could track me down.

I could prove with a doubt I am not the hoaxer.

I can't even find any logic in someone making a hoax and then going through all the effort to debunk it.... I guess it could be like a disguise, but it would be smarter to not say anything at all. It would be smarter to be silent, than a debunker.

on Oct 1st, 2009, 5:35pm, SiddReader wrote:
Hehe, imagine, this could be true... Funny thought, isn't it? wink


Stupid funny maybe, but not funny funny.

If I was the hoaxer, I wouldn't have made the mistakes that I have been pointing out in the Raj images.

Anyway... I am leaving to the race track right now to ride motox... If anyone wants to say "Hi", I will be at Milestone MX park from 7:00pm to 10:00pm.

http://www.milestonemx.com/

Talk to you later!
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by tommi01 on Oct 1st, 2009, 6:16pm

on Oct 1st, 2009, 6:08pm, Jeddyhi wrote:
I believe she is asserting that because no hoaxers have confessed to the hoax and attempted litigation against AlienWare, then it must not be a hoax for why would they not confess and sue AlienWare for millions. That is the crux of her argument.


Jeddyhi, I'm asserting that there must be a reason why nobody has "confessed" to the Library of Congress while they register the LAP and then "confess" to a NY IPR Law Firm...

I have no idea why.. btw.. but there must be a reason.

Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by neveleeleven on Oct 1st, 2009, 6:26pm

on Oct 1st, 2009, 6:09pm, tomi01uk wrote:
shocked OMG.. rolleyes You will stoop to even calling it an alien artifact to escape this one !! LOL



Sorry I was under the impression that you still believe the LAP isn't a hoax. That is why I said ON YOUR PLANET.

It's ok, you have like 2 active brain cells, I didn't expect you to understand.

on Oct 1st, 2009, 6:09pm, tomi01uk wrote:
Your points 1 through 4 speak for themselves, proving my point that commerical use is not considered "fair use". Etc. etc.. so what do you do? You stoop to calling it an alien artifact stolen from the government..
Gotta hand it to never, you never fail to deliver ..
what I'm not sure... rolleyes


Those are not my points. Those are the 4 tests for Fair Use, all of them are explained here:

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

Point 1 explains the "parody" rule.
Point 2 explains the "fact or fiction" rule.
Point 3 explains the "percentage of and partial usage of" rules.
Point 4 explains the "actual amount Isaac lost" rules.

All of them are explained, but you are just way to freaking dumb to understand.

You are now accusing me of not delievering...LOL.... hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha... I single handedly debunked the entire drone hoax.

I was calling it an alien artifact because I was talking about YOUR PLANET. Not mine... On YOUR PLANET you actually think the LAP is real, which means you actually think is a photocopy from alien design. LOL


Holy f**K how do you even survive being that freaking clueless?




Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by Radi on Oct 1st, 2009, 6:30pm

on Oct 1st, 2009, 6:16pm, tomi01uk wrote:
Jeddyhi, I'm asserting that there must be a reason why nobody has "confessed" to the Library of Congress while they register the LAP and then "confess" to a NY IPR Law Firm...

I have no idea why.. btw.. but there must be a reason.

Well perhaps this is a reason and just like your assumption that they registered the LAP I will make an assumption....PERHAPS THE LAP CREATORS ARE NOT FROM THE USA and rather not care to deal with a different country and its laws... wink laugh

Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by tommi01 on Oct 1st, 2009, 6:34pm

on Oct 1st, 2009, 6:26pm, neveleeleven wrote:
Sorry I was under the impression that you still believe the LAP isn't a hoax. That is why I said ON YOUR PLANET.

It's ok, you have like 2 active brain cells, I didn't expect you to understand.



Those are not my points. Those are the 4 tests for Fair Use, all of them are explained here:

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

Point 1 explains the "parody" rule.
Point 2 explains the "fact or fiction" rule.
Point 3 explains the "percentage of and partial usage of" rules.
Point 4 explains the "actual amount Isaac lost" rules.

All of them are explained, but you are just way to freaking dumb to understand.

You are now accusing me of not delievering...LOL.... hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha... I single handedly debunked the entire drone hoax.

I was calling it an alien artifact because I was talking about YOUR PLANET. Not mine... On YOUR PLANET you actually think the LAP is real, which means you actually think is a photocopy from alien design. LOL


Holy f**K how do you even survive being that freaking clueless?





How you can misconstrue those 4 points, (which I was already aware of) into the logic that you have employed is beyond me.. but don't take my word for it, ask an IPR lawyer...
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by Sheepdog on Oct 1st, 2009, 6:42pm

on Oct 1st, 2009, 6:16pm, tomi01uk wrote:
Jeddyhi, I'm asserting that there must be a reason why nobody has "confessed" to the Library of Congress while they register the LAP and then "confess" to a NY IPR Law Firm...

I have no idea why.. btw.. but there must be a reason.

Why do you think money is that important to everyone?
It is not.
You seem unable to even accept that as a reason.
Privacy and not being hounded (including possible dragging family and children along) for years could be more important.
You want your identity and personal matters plastered all over the web?
They may not even think it's a slam dunk as you do.
This discussion is pointless.
You are getting blinded like a deer in the headlights with all these what if's, has to be a reason and what not.
You simply can't accept any reason and never will.
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by neveleeleven on Oct 1st, 2009, 6:42pm

on Oct 1st, 2009, 6:34pm, tomi01uk wrote:
How you can misconstrue those 4 points, (which I was already aware of) into the logic that you have employed is beyond me.. but don't take my word for it, ask an IPR lawyer...


You asked me at what point does it become "infringement"? However you asked me without explaining the origins of the original content. So I showed you those 4 points (which are blatantly short and are described in the link I provided) that the original content must meet before I could tell you if it is infringement or not. That is why I followed up with several questions that you have failed to answer.

So I gave you 4 points that are described in the Fair Use link I gave you. Those 4 points will explain at what point it becomes "infringement".

I figured you already "knew" about the reality of the four points and how unclear they are. But the reality is, you don't have a freaking clue...

Tomi, you are the dumbest person I have ever talked to.
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by redlite on Oct 1st, 2009, 7:18pm

Shadow, thanks and good to see your talents and sharp wit will not be wasted until something of substance is posted. LV is coming....

Radi, it was your post a few days ago on the 5 page thread on another forum that got the wheels turning. Full of arrogance and transparent manipulation by another coward, Lev. Got his hinney kicked and had to tuck 'tale' and slink off. It was cool, thanks. Of interest was that tomi almost got banned from that thread for being a skeptic of Lev's crap.....And the thread is about 2 years old!

Jed, thanks and I completly share your frustration at the 'intentional ignorance', seems to be the standard bearer for this thread. Kinda draws ya in and gets all balled up in a 'mid-air'.....

Sidd, your welcome and your observation that this place is like a grade school play yard is spot on. Never liked the bullies and came home sore more than once. I'll be honest, though, that post sat on my screen for more than 45 minutes before I hit 'post'. I like friends too, but enough is enough....Your new posts have the fire.....

Doc, the post would have been a weak sister without the numbers, at best. It gave the post weight, since numbers don't lie and the rest was opinnion. Took 15 minutes of 'research' to establish the data. The 'lack of content', unfotunately, extends beyond yesterday and I should have done a better job at conveying that. Less smartass and more to the point..... just one more shot...

I'm going to follow Shadows lead and bid farewell to this thread, so carry on and on and on and on........
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by Klatunictobarata on Oct 1st, 2009, 7:34pm

Now just look and see what you have done, Tomi!

angry cheesy cheesy grin
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by Radi on Oct 1st, 2009, 9:44pm

on Oct 1st, 2009, 7:18pm, redlite wrote:
Radi, it was your post a few days ago on the 5 page thread on another forum that got the wheels turning. Full of arrogance and transparent manipulation by another coward, Lev. Got his hinney kicked and had to tuck 'tale' and slink off. It was cool, thanks. Of interest was that tomi almost got banned from that thread for being a skeptic of Lev's crap.....



hehe sorry about wink But yes its always a great read.. grin
I would post other things as well but we'd have to put up with Tomi posting more senseless arguments trying to bury the posts...

on Oct 1st, 2009, 7:18pm, redlite wrote:
I'm going to follow Shadows lead and bid farewell to this thread, so carry on and on and on and on.........

Eventually there will be no one for Tomi to argue with... undecided
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by tommi01 on Oct 2nd, 2009, 01:20am

on Oct 1st, 2009, 6:42pm, neveleeleven wrote:
You asked me at what point does it become "infringement"? However you asked me without explaining the origins of the original content. So I showed you those 4 points (which are blatantly short and are described in the link I provided) that the original content must meet before I could tell you if it is infringement or not. That is why I followed up with several questions that you have failed to answer.

So I gave you 4 points that are described in the Fair Use link I gave you. Those 4 points will explain at what point it becomes "infringement".

I figured you already "knew" about the reality of the four points and how unclear they are. But the reality is, you don't have a freaking clue...

Tomi, you are the dumbest person I have ever talked to.


Never, you are so full of bluster and bs that no wonder you don't trust anyone else. Anyone with half a brain who looks at what you have written with any scope at all in this subject, will know you are talking rubbish.

And when you are so simple minded that you have to resort to personal attacks instead, it says more about you than I could say back in retaliation myself.

My point about the LAP being used by AlienWare to market their computers has resulted in the following opinions which can not all be correct:

Their use is "derivative work".
Their use is a "parody". (a joke in itself)
The creators of the LAP were contracted by AlienWare.
The creators of the LAP have already "settled" with Alienware.
The creators of the LAP are benevolent souls who wish to donate this work to Dell computers.
The LAP is a government document as Isaac said it was.
The hoaxers are more interested in keeping their secret than profiting from their creation...

Now who is right?

The irony of this whole thing is that I have had the experience in my days of being in business over in the states of having to sue 13 companies and settle with each of them, in the manner prescribed for remedy as I have just described in these pages, for copyright infringement. Who else here has had to go through that? Any IPR lawyer who reads what I have written here about the process, the procedure and the remedies available including seizure of product and the insurance policy which kicks in, will know I am speaking from first hand experience. That is the irony.
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by YourWorstNightmare on Oct 2nd, 2009, 08:21am

Wow, that is Substantive based on your say so? The others can provide documentation, can you? where is yours , what company, what court docket, Where on Planet Karen?They here and everywhere else are verifiable, and their findings scientifically sound and even unchallenged such as at OMF and elsewher..The same basis and methodology, a little bit more substantive than your myopic and fixed ideations .You jhave a short memory..These people asked question , they took notes, they tested their proof and statements..You on other hand..forget when which you avoided then and now..for example..on sound suggestions such as that University Professor, who could discern even from scans, ann obstacle tooted by many, and chided talking to experts like Syd Miers from Hollywoods Blade runner, "embarassing and shameful, or seeking any well qualified authority. But you talked to "your friends in the graphic business" just who are they?whereas these are people well into the graphics and film business such as Torvald, ,as the way to help..resolve the case.
Now we have tihis as your basis ..Because Tomi says so and she had it tuff..

Again, prima facie proof you are a willfull LIAR, not merely absent minded..along with numbers.
From a shellac distributor and brochures, and handouts maker to small company computer consultant , listed and untraceable..anywhere..UK under yours name or any other.now .a self appointed..copyright attorney?

From watching start trek to learn science to watching Judge Judy as well as traffic court on TV now to learn law.

The problem here Tomi and the mountain of lying blather with that icing you just provided is you forgot your case..because Legally or even at a bar of attorneys, or a bar with drunks..thats a fact tomi..you and your friends..have no case , never had a case to begin with...

I agree and join with others,Until you bring something concrete..verifiable on any statement, you lack standing for any credibility

So it was well suggested..until then..
You simply remain with just the status..of a full fledged and Proverbial ....Pest .

G'day


Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by Jeddyhi on Oct 2nd, 2009, 08:23am

on Oct 2nd, 2009, 01:20am, tomi01uk wrote:
My point about the LAP being used by AlienWare to market their computers has resulted in the following opinions which can not all be correct:

Their use is "derivative work".
Their use is a "parody". (a joke in itself)
The creators of the LAP were contracted by AlienWare.
The creators of the LAP have already "settled" with Alienware.
The creators of the LAP are benevolent souls who wish to donate this work to Dell computers.
The LAP is a government document as Isaac said it was.
The hoaxers are more interested in keeping their secret than profiting from their creation...

Now who is right?


Question for Tomi.......If you had created the LAP and were part of the drone hoax and Dell started using the Alien Language on their computers, how would you go about proving that you created it?

Since the work was submitted anonymously and touted as being Alien in origin, what do you think you could do to prove that you really created it and not someone else? With no registered copyright on file, the burden of proof would be on you to provide tangible evidence that you, and no one else created it. How would you, or whoever really created it, prove that in a court of law to the satisfaction of the court to rule in their favor?

Any Tom, Dick or Harry could make the claim. Proving it would another matter, no?

So someone with common sense who has actually worked on creating the LAP for the drone hoax would surely realize this. Compromise the hoax for a fleeting chance at sueing Dell.....or just let the hoax keep running?
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by tommi01 on Oct 2nd, 2009, 08:39am

on Oct 2nd, 2009, 08:21am, YourWorstNightmare wrote:
Wow, that is Substantive based on your say so? The others can provide documentation, can you? where is yours , what company, what court docket, They are verifiable, and their findings scientifically sound and even unchallenged such as at OMF and elsewhere G'day



You know what sys? I'm GRATEFUL you don't believe me. cool Any good lawyer from from an IPR firm can confirm what I say anyway.
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by Sheepdog on Oct 2nd, 2009, 08:45am

If you got all the best IP lawyers the world offers and put them in a room “today”, could they add anything of value regarding the reality of Isaac et al?

I like Jeddyhi’s question to Tomi about proving ownership.
Maybe we can get off the endless “why this?, why that?”

Would the material have to have been known or used beforehand by verifiable sources?
One can easily predate files.
Fortune City and LMH (gaa…) would be key in this, I’d think.

Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by tommi01 on Oct 2nd, 2009, 08:48am

on Oct 2nd, 2009, 08:23am, Jeddyhi wrote:
Question for Tomi.......If you had created the LAP and were part of the drone hoax and Dell started using the Alien Language on their computers, how would you go about proving that you created it?

Since the work was submitted anonymously and touted as being Alien in origin, what do you think you could do to prove that you really created it and not someone else? With no registered copyright on file, the burden of proof would be on you to provide tangible evidence that you, and no one else created it. How would you, or whoever really created it, prove that in a court of law to the satisfaction of the court to rule in their favor?

Any Tom, Dick or Harry could make the claim. Proving it would another matter, no?

So someone with common sense who has actually worked on creating the LAP for the drone hoax would surely realize this. Compromise the hoax for a fleeting chance at sueing Dell.....or just let the hoax keep running?


Funny, earlier today I was thinking about all this becoming similiar to the Alien Autopsy..
Where someone reading my posts about this decides to check out what I'm saying, realises I'm right, and starts trying to re-create the original work necessary to fool the Library of Congress that they were the creator of the original work.

Actually though, it's very simple to prove that you are the author of the original creation. Everyone has piece work of the final creation, early drafts, early drawings, all material that went into the final work must be submitted along with the final work.

Like I said, when there is a looming infringement issue ahead, you pay the extra money and someone will personally work though the qualifying process and materials needed to satisfy their opinion that you were the creator. A file date can be changed by setting a previous date into the computer, so this is not as valid as showing work in progress towards the final product.
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by Jeddyhi on Oct 2nd, 2009, 08:51am

on Oct 2nd, 2009, 08:48am, tomi01uk wrote:
Funny, earlier today I was thinking about all this becoming similiar to the Alien Autopsy..
Where someone reading my posts about this decides to check out what I'm saying, realises I'm right, and starts trying to re-create the original work necessary to fool the Library of Congress that they were the creator of the original work.

Actually though, it's very simple to prove that you are the author of the original creation. Everyone has piece work of the final creation, early drafts, early drawings, all material that went into the final work must be submitted along with the final work.

Like I said, when there is a looming infringement issue ahead, you pay the extra money and someone will personally work though the qualifying process and materials needed to satisfy their opinion that you were the creator. A file date can be changed by setting a previous date into the computer, so this is not as valid as showing work in progress towards the final product.


What? Your answers are almost always self serving. There are works out there that the LAP was most likely derived from. DrDil posted a good example.

User Image

How would the creator prove that he created the LAP and not someone else? How could he prove that he didn't derive the concept from somewhere else? There is a ton of research concerning the LAP that could all be predated and used as evidence of creation? "Early drafts" could also be predated to appear like early drafts. The proof of creating the LAP and not someone else being the creator would be almost impossible. If you deny this, then your agenda is starting to show once again. One would have to prove they created it and submitted it to the public domain anonymously and then labeled it as Alien in origin. Any plaintiff, even the actual creator, would be giggled out of court. You know this as well as I do. Your argument is hollow and self serving. And monotonous.
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by Gort on Oct 2nd, 2009, 08:57am

on Oct 2nd, 2009, 08:39am, tomi01uk wrote:
You know what sys? I'm GRATEFUL you don't believe me. cool Any good lawyer from from an IPR firm can confirm what I say anyway.


Lets ask the two infamous PIs if they covered this?
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by Sheepdog on Oct 2nd, 2009, 08:59am

on Oct 2nd, 2009, 08:48am, tomi01uk wrote:
Actually though, it's very simple to prove that you are the author of the original creation. Everyone has piece work of the final creation, early drafts, early drawings, all material that went into the final work must be submitted along with the final work.

Is Library of Congress photo/CGI experts?
Is their decision open to question at later stages of litigation?
It'd be a hoot if no drafts or earlier pieces of work were saved.
Or lost.
Or Library of Congress was duped.
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by Radi on Oct 2nd, 2009, 09:25am

on Oct 2nd, 2009, 08:51am, Jeddyhi wrote:
What? Your answers are almost always self serving. There are works out there that the LAP was most likely derived from. DrDil posted a good example.



It would be very hard to show the ORIGINAL PROOF OF CONCEPT since all these other examples are clearly the ones that the LAP were derived from...
User Image

And wouldn't you know it this was a software interface that controled different funtions on that ship...hehe wink
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by YourWorstNightmare on Oct 2nd, 2009, 09:30am

Yes Radi thesame hollywood shelf drawers and people....Perhaps she can get he Warners AW legal beagles to weigh in..She can't back up the case in the manner burdens of proof require.much less substantiate her own personal experiences or name one of thitrteen companies she tooted.., such a lucky number.Perhaps shes's gambling some take her attempts at a real inquiry and honest discussion..seriously.

I can find where the people behind shat moon hoax used a company to sue a dozen others for patent infringement and itself was a part of a very profitable investment group registerred in Texas.a convenient federal court venue for them...just to get the people they sued, like HP and IBM, to settle. It was unsuccesful..but others gamble and win. Maybe Todd..hes a lawyer..whats he think now..professionally..
In fact even Atto hosted that very same company behind Spaceheroes.org.. ..as he does a lot of that web hosting stuff..

Why he even claimed infringement himself at ATS. Nobody bougt it.. Lets not get into his direct connections with LEV

Here there no such infringement..It was all duly licensed and trademarked iits respective use ntellectual property..which AW has already admitted.

I certainly hope Tomi did not represent herself in court in her "case"..for indeed she would truly have a fool for a client.





Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by tommi01 on Oct 2nd, 2009, 09:52am

I suggest you leave these worries, concerns and extreme conclusions to the people qualified to make these decisions at the Library of Congress.

And while you're at it, try to figure out what a creative work is in copyright terms.. that would be helpful. smiley

edit to add: FYI Vector circular brushes have nothing to do with or take away from the LAP being an original creative work. Anyone who really created it, will have no problems providing proof with their submission. They will work with the creator to assure that.


Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by YourWorstNightmare on Oct 2nd, 2009, 10:20am

Ouch, he hit a nerve..At leats he is familiar with Reliable information, even if its the "gummint " and where to get reliable information unlike your say so's..Tomi. You havent added one iota..
And Which like your litigation of thirteen companies, Thirteen...yes.. ..which is the number of a Bakers Dozen, not really 12..or the Building floor not there either....Nice touch.
Give us something that is there and germane..something "substantive", that unlike your position, is there, someone can stand on and not run around like a three legged Giraffe.
It must be terrrible not having any proof..cool Take it to Lourdes in France, perhaps it will grow a new..leg
This describes your "case"
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by Radi on Oct 2nd, 2009, 10:48am

on Oct 2nd, 2009, 09:52am, tomi01uk wrote:
I suggest you leave these worries, concerns and extreme conclusions to the people qualified to make these decisions at the Library of Congress.

And while you're at it, try to figure out what a creative work is in copyright terms.. that would be helpful. smiley

edit to add: FYI Vector circular brushes have nothing to do with or take away from the LAP being an original creative work. Anyone who really created it, will have no problems providing proof with their submission. They will work with the creator to assure that.


And AW will have no problem showing theirs...Also like the SCC episode when they used LAP designs.....
Just circles and lines connected together...just like the LAP is an artist representation of old sci-fi and tech circles..
The AW art is also the same.... wink
Baseless and empty arguments once again...
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by tommi01 on Oct 2nd, 2009, 10:54am

on Oct 2nd, 2009, 10:48am, Radi wrote:
Well guess I will pass this info along so when you file a claim they will be ready.. laugh laugh


The problem for who ever did the LAP to assert their copyrights is that they/he/she needs to defend it.

Copyright law frowns on opportunists who allow the illegitimate use of their creative work to go uncontested to the point where the use has greater market value before attempting to assert their rights.

Because this is not being done, there will be a gray area for Dell to use in defense. IMO
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by Radi on Oct 2nd, 2009, 11:05am

on Oct 2nd, 2009, 10:54am, tomi01uk wrote:
The problem for who ever did the LAP to assert their copyrights is that they/he/she needs to defend it.

Copyright law frowns on opportunists who allow the illegitimate use of their creative work to go uncontested to the point where the use has greater market value before attempting to assert their rights.

Because this is not being done, there will be a gray area for Dell to use in defense. IMO


One more time with the sand then I am done..TOMI IF YOU ARE SO CONCERNED WITH THIS.....WHICH YOU SEEM TO BE IN YOUR TRANSPARENT WAY....FIND THE CREATOR OF THE LAP AND TELL IT TO THEM OR CONTACT THEM AND GIVE THEM THE INFO INSTEAD OF POSTING YOUR BLATHER FILLING THE MASSES WITH BS MUCH LIKE YOUR FRIEND LEV HAS IN THE PAST.......
YOU ARE POSTING USELESS BS FOR PAGES NOW THAT HAVE NO WEIGHT IN GOLD OR HORSE DROPPINGS...THE ONLY PERSON YOU SHOULD BE RELAYING THIS INFO TO IS THE CREATOR OF THE LAP.....PEROID............ rolleyes tongue kiss
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by Jeddyhi on Oct 2nd, 2009, 11:13am

on Oct 2nd, 2009, 09:52am, tomi01uk wrote:
edit to add: FYI Vector circular brushes have nothing to do with or take away from the LAP being an original creative work. Anyone who really created it, will have no problems providing proof with their submission. They will work with the creator to assure that.


Once again you are wrong. Suppose I make up a song and my friend hears me singing it. Two years later I hear my song on the radio and my friend is the credited song writer. He heard my lyrics, wrote them down and got a copyright for them. I pull out an old yellowed piece of napkin where I wrote the words down originally. Guess what, my friend retains copyright ownership because I can't prove if I wrote the words down yesterday on an old napkin or years ago on a fresh napkin. The first party to copyright has the ball in their court. It is one thing to sue for copyright infringement (meaning somebody is violating your existing copyright) but it is an altogether different story to say "Hey, thats my original concept and work that somebody registered before I could."

The burden then falls upon the plaintiff in a such a case to prove that the Library of Congress was wrong in issuing a copyright. They must show beyond doubt that they had created the work prior to the copyright being issued. Also in question would be the fact of the material being uploaded to the internet, offered freely to the public and proclaimed to be of ET origin. This does not sound like the actions of one concerned with copyright ownership and would surely weigh heavily on the decision making process.

There are two years of LAP research to consider. The LAP has spread to a lot of hands. All the research could be predated or made to look like original concept drafts.

In all actuality, AW owns a copyright that would be hard to dispute. The hoaxers and/or LAP creator realizes this even as you do not.

If you knew half of what you think you know, you would still be one brick shy of a full load.
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by tommi01 on Oct 2nd, 2009, 11:34am

on Oct 2nd, 2009, 11:13am, Jeddyhi wrote:
Once again you are wrong. Suppose I make up a song and my friend hears me singing it. Two years later I hear my song on the radio and my friend is the credited song writer. He heard my lyrics, wrote them down and got a copyright for them. I pull out an old yellowed piece of napkin where I wrote the words down originally. Guess what, my friend retains copyright ownership because I can't prove if I wrote the words down yesterday on an old napkin or years ago on a fresh napkin. The first party to copyright has the ball in their court. It is one thing to sue for copyright infringement (meaning somebody is violating your existing copyright) but it is an altogether different story to say "Hey, thats my original concept and work that somebody registered before I could."



You are looking at civil litigation and copyright law in this case.

Quote:
Also in question would be the fact of the material being uploaded to the internet, offered freely to the public and proclaimed to be of ET origin. This does not sound like the actions of one concerned with copyright ownership and would surely weigh heavily on the decision making process.



Yes I agree. No defense of copyright in this period of time. However, this aspect has had me thinking....
(sorry guys.. wink) Suppose, hypothetically, that a group was involved in the creation of the LAP. Two years, a lot of things can go pear shaped.

Suppose the stipulation that Isaac made about all the material reproduced in its entirety was a sophisticated means of "protecting" the fictitious story line as it continued to unfold from infringements.. by Dell using the material in its marketing, it has forced a defense of the copyrights....

Hear me out.. also consider the possibility that the group involved initially has collapsed, leaving loose ends and uncompensated partners. The creators of the LAP were not locked into a written assignment of ownership to the others who have left the group...

This is one plausible explaination that would provide a reasonable defense against lost time in defending the copyright.







Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by tommi01 on Oct 2nd, 2009, 11:40am

on Oct 2nd, 2009, 11:13am, Jeddyhi wrote:
In all actuality, AW owns a copyright that would be hard to dispute.


Jeddyhi, the original creator(s) of the LAP own the copyright. It was theirs on creation of the design. Not AW. The version of the LAP reproduced by AW would not stand on its own as distinctively different significantly enough from the original LAP.
A stylized reproduction is not original work.

Here is a clarification again:


3.Copyright in the derivative work
Provided it is significantly different to the original work the derivative work will be subject to copyright in it's own right, and you will own copyright to the new content you have created as a result of your actions. Bear in mind that to be subject to copyright the creation of the derivative work must itself be an original work of skill, labour and judgement; minor alterations that do not substantially alter the original would not qualify.

Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by Radi on Oct 2nd, 2009, 11:43am

on Oct 2nd, 2009, 11:34am, tomi01uk wrote:
You are looking at civil litigation and copyright law in this case.



Yes I agree. No defense of copyright in this period of time. However, this aspect has had me thinking....
(sorry guys.. wink) Suppose, hypothetically, that a group was involved in the creation of the LAP. Two years, a lot of things can go pear shaped.

Suppose the stipulation that Isaac made about all the material reproduced in its entirety was a sophisticated means of "protecting" the fictitious story line as it continued to unfold from infringements.. by Dell using the material in its marketing, it has forced a defense of the copyrights....

Hear me out.. also consider the possibility that the group involved initially has collapsed, leaving loose ends and uncompensated partners. The creators of the LAP were not locked into a written assignment of ownership to the others who have left the group...

This is one plausible explaination that would provide a reasonable defense against lost time in defending the copyright.







OK one more time......Hmmm this is the same thing TOMI......Are you hinting that you didn't get paid and now want to sue AW........I am done listining to you...You ask to Hear You out and all you do is post what you think you know without posting anything to back up your claim or your work that you have done when you are known to have a special place for a liar.......nop I will not hear you anymore...................
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by Radi on Oct 2nd, 2009, 11:44am

on Oct 2nd, 2009, 11:40am, tomi01uk wrote:
Jeddyhi, the original creator(s) of the LAP own the copyright. It was theirs on creation of the design. Not AW. The version of the LAP reproduced by AW would not stand on its own as distinctively different significantly enough from the original LAP.
A stylized reproduction is not original work.


Nope as I posted before the shows picture that I posted about had the LAP concept first..That was the early 90s.....The LAP IS A RIP-OFF OF THAT SHOWS concept plain and simple....
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by tommi01 on Oct 2nd, 2009, 11:46am

on Oct 2nd, 2009, 11:43am, Radi wrote:
OK one more time......Hmmm this is the same thing TOMI......Are you hinting that you didn't get paid and now want to sue AW........I am done listining to you...You ask to Hear You out and all you do is post what you think you know without posting anything to back up your claim or your work that you have done when you are known to have a special place for a liar.......nop I will not hear you anymore...................


Don't get weird on me Radi. I'm just coming up with one senerio in my imagination that would explain a delay yet allow the creators to register the LAP.
Just my imagination Radi... That's all. Have a good weekend guys ! I've argued all I can about it.
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by Radi on Oct 2nd, 2009, 11:54am

on Oct 2nd, 2009, 11:46am, tomi01uk wrote:
Don't get weird on me Radi. I'm just coming up with one senerio in my imagination that would explain a delay yet allow the creators to register the LAP.
Just my imagination Radi... That's all. Have a good weekend guys ! I've argued all I can about it.

Then otherwise stop posting this stuff as if it is real otherwise remember what I had said before..YOU POST LEGAL ADVICE AND SOMEONE USES THAT AND LOSES THEIR CASE THEY CAN TURN AROUND AND SUE YOU....I THINK THEY WOULD HAVE A HARD TIME AT IT BUT THEY WOULD TRY IF THEY HAD ENOUGH MONEY AND A SHADY LAWYER TYPE wink
SO YOU MIGHT WANT TO PUT IN IANAL or at least say this is just your imagination.... grin
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by DrDil on Oct 2nd, 2009, 11:57am

on Oct 2nd, 2009, 11:46am, tomi01uk wrote:
<snip>

Have a good weekend guys ! I've argued all I can about it.

You have (need!! grin) a good weekend as well Tomi!! smiley

Cheers. wink
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by YourWorstNightmare on Oct 2nd, 2009, 12:04pm

on Oct 2nd, 2009, 11:57am, DrDil wrote:
You have (need!! grin) a good weekend as well Tomi!! smiley

Cheers. wink


I heard the South of France is very nice this time of year...


Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by DrDil on Oct 2nd, 2009, 12:10pm

on Oct 2nd, 2009, 12:04pm, YourWorstNightmare wrote:
I heard the South of France is very nice this time of year...


Great, more hearsay & rumour….. laugh
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by YourWorstNightmare on Oct 2nd, 2009, 12:21pm

Maybe Nemo can share with us..It is said though...believe half what you see..nothing what you hear..hehehe
I hearrd of miracles at Lourdes..lots of crutches hanging..but no one has left with a new leg yet.wink Hope springs eternal
Cheers
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by Radi on Oct 2nd, 2009, 12:30pm

on Oct 2nd, 2009, 12:10pm, DrDil wrote:
Great, more hearsay & rumour….. laugh


grin grin cheesy laugh
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by SiddReader on Oct 2nd, 2009, 1:37pm

on Oct 1st, 2009, 6:15pm, neveleeleven wrote:
I even remote viewed a test picture someone gave me to see if I can guess the time of day, and was correct within less than 30 minutes. LOL


laugh It was not really that close. When I later checked my camera's time, I saw, that it WAS put on summertime, so we have one hour to substract. But still I found it very impressive, especially, since I never had expected, you would give it a try.

Quote:
Well I had everyone on the list because I don't trust anyone.


I know, that's why I offered you friendship. It's not nice to mistrust each and everybody.

Quote:
Or am I a good enough detective to take you off the list using unheard-of tactics via internet?


Like interpreting something into my daughter's song? cool

Quote:
I could prove with a doubt I am not the hoaxer.


With a doubt? wink

Quote:
I can't even find any logic in someone making a hoax and then going through all the effort to debunk it.... I guess it could be like a disguise, but it would be smarter to not say anything at all. It would be smarter to be silent, than a debunker.


Now, okay, let's spin this thought a little further: The hoaxer IS a debunker. He clearly stated that he chose C2C and LMH, because they were the only ones, who would know how to handle it. He chose them as targets. He also tried MUFON and UCB, but they did not bite like the first mentioned. And he tried it on OMF, but he did not like the outcome and fled.

Secondly the hoaxer has a big ego, as all hoaxers have. Appearing at OMF showed, that he enjoyed the plot and wanted to go on with that.

It WOULD be smarter to stay silent, but he could not resist back than. It was too good. He learned from this and he chose the silent path, but still this does not hinder him to take part in the discussion.

Fits all to you, too. If there wasn't this one:

Quote:
Stupid funny maybe, but not funny funny.


The hoaxer has a lot of humour.

How was it at Milestone? Looks like a lot of fun!


Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by Double Nought Spy on Oct 2nd, 2009, 1:58pm

on Oct 1st, 2009, 1:53pm, redlite wrote:
The Premise: Inserting 100lbs of steaming hooey into a 10lb sack.

Anonymity is fun! Coward Issac thinks so too...

The last post day-before-yesterday @ 11:49PM was Blackwaters' question 'how do you kill a hoax?'. Easy, don't give it any attention, especially if it ended over 2 years ago. Only the spinners have added to 'The Premise' above.

A few minutes later, the very first post in yesterdays circus was DNS saying 'lots of dairy activity' happening, who then proceeds to drop 33 steaming posts in 24 hours, only to be outdone by tomi with 53 posts, Shadow at 22 posts, etc., etc. for a total of 166 piles on 11 pages! Un-friken-believable! LMH and Strib trying to keep this alive? Yeah right, jobs already being done @ UCB. Good job, though, on 'The Premise'.

'Yeah, but we don't want this hoax to go down as true'.....Pfffff, go sell that somewhere else cause we ain't buying, just like no one else is buying this hoax as being for real. Except maybe someone from the "Hollow Head Society". More addition to 'The Premise'.

Hall 7 should include UCB with yesterdays 24 hours of shame- lock, stock and barrel- for pandering to this hoax. Not one thing of value was uttered yesterday, IMO, except to help 'The Premise'. Wait, Donkeykong had the only post with substance.

Someone should check to see if anyone was hospitalized or even killed by excessive laughter yesterday, as it could only be that scumby Issac......


A good deal of the information we have pertaining to who is behind this mess, including the low level pawns, has come from the pawns themselves when they are angry and spewing. It ain't pretty work, but it is effective. Several of us have mentioned this over the years (yup, years) so I'm not giving away any trade secrets. As I said somewhere before, we don't have many tools, and some of them are crude. But they work. Watching Tomi make up stupid crap is even fun for a while, so it's not all work! We picked up a couple of interesting leads in the past few days. Maybe they will be useful, maybe not. We are patient.
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by masker33 on Oct 2nd, 2009, 2:00pm

I doubt Dell/Alienware has a thing to worry about. The LAP design segments are placed in very good places.

Silence is golden in some cases.
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by YourWorstNightmare on Oct 2nd, 2009, 2:56pm

Ahh..the relief team is in..
I love Dell and Alienware, , AWs Owners, and partners of the other parites in past campaigns, .Dell has plenty on every designer of its standard and latest custom products before and after The AW design incorporation. Everyone except that particular model..the mx15 ....now why is that..rather a nasty gaping hole in an otherwise sterling lineup.
Yes silence is golden..but it at times speaks, if not screams volumes.The licensing with them is only one of the revenue streams..that warners Fox and Halcyon worked on..
This is about and includes..the dangling participles like LMH and C2c and whitley, hardly victims..in this racket..not these crumbsnatchers hired for spin and damage control.. and run interference for them....that are dangled like puppets by the same people..and promote their movies films and books.willingly..and with prior knowldge, just examining their timeline. .

The machine that got hiccups..
They say a good scare will stop Hiccups .indeed one is on the horizon ...
Sidd..you once told me everyone had their role to play..is so accurate..

There used to be the giant Gold Fickled Finger of Fate Award..
It really needs to be reinstated....
When Whitley, with his own movie concerns, who gave us instant witnesses to new sightings as well as the devoted and fawning fan and engineer Reyes, from his forum also..reflected in winter 2008 in a rare and unforgettable l moment, removed his thumb from an unspekable place, recanted his sighting..and said paraphrasing from memory..well if it was a dream it was one doozy of a dream.. certainly..deserves the first one..




Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by redlite on Oct 2nd, 2009, 3:14pm

Fair enough, DNS, point taken. And a mess it is, good luck at finding who.....I just don't want to 'make his (its) day' with 'Real Housewives of UCB' style dialogue, if you get my drift....

Thanks, by the way, for that excellent line on dairy products, heheheh, I could't resist. Your wit is wasted on this thread.....but nailing this charlatan would be sweet......
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by Double Nought Spy on Oct 2nd, 2009, 5:12pm

"nailing this charlatan would be sweet......"

That's what keeps us coming back! grin
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by tommi01 on Oct 3rd, 2009, 09:25am

on Oct 2nd, 2009, 2:00pm, Masker33 wrote:
The LAP design segments are placed in very good places.

Silence is golden in some cases.


Not on contingency... wink
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by SiddReader on Oct 3rd, 2009, 2:17pm

But well in this case. Let's meet next month again, when the PIs have told their story. Either they impress us or they will make us laugh.

Somehow I got the feeling, the latter is the case.

So, impress us, Tom and Frank!
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by TheShadow on Oct 3rd, 2009, 3:16pm

on Oct 3rd, 2009, 2:17pm, SiddReader wrote:
But well in this case. Let's meet next month again, when the PIs have told their story. Either they impress us or they will make us laugh.

Somehow I got the feeling, the latter is the case.

So, impress us, Tom and Frank!


Lets face this fact. IF the PIs have been cooperated with by LMH (as tomi claims) and have TOTAl access to everything possibly available (IPs, Witness Phone #s, etc...) they know and have known who is behind this! That is assuming they are even a third as good as the DRT claims!

Now whether or not they reported this to Mr or Mrs Moneybags is another guess
and we all know regardless, that info will never be released to us!!
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by Radi on Oct 3rd, 2009, 3:36pm

on Oct 3rd, 2009, 3:16pm, TheShadow wrote:
Lets face this fact. IF the PIs have been cooperated with by LMH (as tomi claims) and have TOTAl access to everything possibly available (IPs, Witness Phone #s, etc...) they know and have known who is behind this! That is assuming they are even a third as good as the DRT claims!

Now whether or not they reported this to Mr or Mrs Moneybags is another guess
and we all know regardless, that info will never be released to us!!


It might be like when interviewers interview a celebrity with a tell-all book....They will save all the juicy parts for the or a book They won't say anything during the interveiw... cheesy laugh
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by SiddReader on Oct 3rd, 2009, 4:11pm

Honestly, I just expect them to say BlahblahblahYaddaYaddaYadda. But why should we here write their text, before they speak for themselves? wink
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by Katterfelto on Oct 3rd, 2009, 4:33pm

Gotta luv it. Pi in the sky! grin
User Image
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by Gort on Oct 3rd, 2009, 5:50pm

Maybe tomi will be an expert speaker as well, derivitive, area under the curve, calculus as I recall. As x aproaches y
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by SiddReader on Oct 3rd, 2009, 8:04pm

Hehe, yes, she is Frank, not Franky! Common! Let's get serious again!
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by DrDil on Oct 4th, 2009, 12:15pm

Quote:
PRANKS AND GEEKS

As readers of my articles well realize, I am convinced that ET has visited Earth. But I am also a critical thinker. I recognize the role that pranks and hoaxes have played when it comes to things UFO. I am not happy to report the results of my investigation- but it is a story that must be told. It is an obligation to history and truth. The compulsion to prank is a reality we must always bear in mind in evaluating all UFO reports.

Neil Steinburg's classic study on college pranks, "If At All Possible Involve a Cow: The Book of College Pranks" is very instructive relative to the Socorro hoax. Steinburg's hypothesis is that college pranks happen because there are many young creative minds that feel "stifled." And these minds are looking for release- a little fun. And there is a "geek" connection. Complicated and sophisticated pranks are often pulled off by engineering or science students who have the technical know how. The many well-known stunts by students at MIT and Caltech show that the grander the stunt- the more highly educated the students. The "fun" of such pranks does not come from admission to them, it comes from the reaction to them.

I recall two pranks that were pulled off by others during my own college days when living in Boston. MIT students had perfected two stunts that were mind-boggling. The first involved taking an enormous promotional prop "cow statue" (weighing a quarter-ton) from the lawn of a suburban steakhouse. Somehow the students were able to hoist the huge cow figure on top of the famous MIT "dome buiding." They removed it the following day -and returned it to the steakhouse lawn- without anyone ever having seen them. To this day, no one has ever owned up to the prank- and no one has ever come forward stating that they saw the stunt being carried out. It is still unknown how this was accomplished without use of a heavy construction crane. The second prank involved a high-tech catapult. Somehow the MIT students were able to hurl large clear water balloons made of very thin material up and over two city streets. The water balloons were sent careening across the block with precision to land exactly at the entrance of another college's building. When people went to open the door, invisible "water bombs" hit them out of nowhere- causing them to get soaked. Visibly stunned, they had no idea where the water burst came from- and had to go to class soaking wet.

THE SOCORRO HOAXERS TODAY

Great jokes can be carried out with great planning and calculation. But great jokes can also backfire. Perhaps the Socorro UFO hoaxers continue to get a "big laugh" over the whole thing and revel in their prank done decades ago. But it is more likely that the New Mexico Tech pranksters -who perhaps became famous scientists- are today oldsters in retirement struggling with what they did. They played a trick on a community, a nation and the world. They are keenly aware that they had involved the Air Force, media, scientists and many others. They know that Zamora's life was made difficult by the event. He was made a spectacle and suffered hugely from the unwanted attention. They must ponder their youthful folly- and how much time, effort and money was expended in the prank's long aftermath. It was "a prank gone wild." It had escalated beyond what they could ever have imagined. Often pulling off a brilliant prank "traps" the pranksters. They create the illusion, but they never receive the "credit." And no credit was ever sought by those who engineered one of the greatest hoaxes in UFO history.

(Source)

Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by YourWorstNightmare on Oct 4th, 2009, 12:44pm

The only mystery, and many would love for it to stay a "Mystery", like an Agatha Christy or even Ms Marples mystery.is How many of these can we pass around..
Probably will have some leftovers .after two years..
You have to keep lickin if you wanna keep it tickin..


User Image

enjoy


Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by tommi01 on Oct 4th, 2009, 2:20pm

Interesting.. Even Fortunecity seems to have picked up on the act:

http://current.com/items/75983442_linguistic-analysis-primer.htm

(this is copyrightable, but not the name!.. IMO)


Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by DrDil on Oct 4th, 2009, 2:30pm

on Oct 4th, 2009, 2:20pm, tomi01uk wrote:
Interesting.. Even Fortunecity seems to have picked up on the act:

http://current.com/items/75983442_linguistic-analysis-primer.htm

(this is copyrightable, but not the name!.. IMO)


Not sure what you mean about ‘picked up on the act’?

Hot-linking has always been displayed like this by FC and this was posted by current.com member *T.Palmer* who states his reasoning for asking, “Tell me why this is interesting” as:

Quote:
I'm not sure but I think Ive seen this before and not on that wacko Issac's site either, Like in a cartoon or something, I can't remember.
Anyways that's why it's interesting to me.

So, what ‘act’?

Cheers.

*Edit FT to FC (FortuneCity rolleyes)
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by tommi01 on Oct 4th, 2009, 2:49pm

I'm just saying it looks they are using the CARET LAP design and to me it would be a copyrightable derivative work, remotely suggestive of the original LAP.
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by SiddReader on Oct 4th, 2009, 3:06pm

I am just watching a political talk show. The (female) moderator just asked a member of the CDU, if Angela Merkel wanted to set a signal to the liberals, wearing a read jacket, telling the liberals (yellow) that she also could continue the work with the social democrats (red).

His answer: Your question overstrains me now!

Maybe this is what is happening here, too. grin

But Tomi made me aware today, that Elijah's site is gone. I just looked for it again, and now it says, they are under construction.

I am looking forward to the new outfit. Will it still show dronish letters? I don't think so. But let's see...
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by DrDil on Oct 4th, 2009, 3:19pm

on Oct 4th, 2009, 2:49pm, tomi01uk wrote:
I'm just saying it looks they are using the CARET LAP design and to me it would be a copyrightable derivative work, remotely suggestive of the original LAP.

?

I’m sorry Tomi I don’t know what you mean; they ARE using the LAP as they tried to hotlink to Isaac’s original (fullsize) image. But of course as FC is free-hosting then they can’t serve their adverts via hot-links and this is why I said that hot-links to FC are always displayed this way.

What do you mean by ‘they’? Do you mean the current.com user and if so how is this different to the re-posting of the images across the entire internet? Or by people like us who dissect and post parts of them?

Perhaps the more revealing line of questioning would be why are you determined to prove your point about copyright to the extent that as above you post a link to someone who has posted a link to Isaac’s page and cite this as ‘remotely suggestive’ when its nothing of the sort and is actually the exact image that Isaac posted?

I guess I must be missing something Tomi? undecided

on Oct 4th, 2009, 3:06pm, SiddReader wrote:
But Tomi made me aware today, that Elijah's site is gone. I just looked for it again, and now it says, they are under construction.

I am looking forward to the new outfit. Will it still show dronish letters? I don't think so. But let's see...

Lucky for you I had to discover it by myself!! grin

The last cache I could find was for the 22nd Sep, but the page currently showing is usually for when a site is gone for good, not an update per se, it could be but I doubt it. Incidentally I fired an email away to Virgil Crow and to the IA-info address a few days ago asking about this and while none have replied strangely the IA one DIDN'T bounce which it should have done if the site is gone completely (i.e. the servers are empty due to no pre-paid hosting) as it's not a default catch-all email address.

Cheers.

*Edit FT to FC (FortuneCity rolleyes)
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by tommi01 on Oct 4th, 2009, 3:40pm

on Oct 4th, 2009, 3:19pm, DrDil wrote:
I guess I must be missing something Tomi? undecided



Uh huh... I think you are reading too much into me finding a design similar to the LAP and commenting on it...

Quote:
Lucky for you I had to discover it by myself!! grin




Oh... sad Well.. gee.. thanks... for letting me know..
( what is this pick on Tomi all the time stuff ..) kiss

Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by DrDil on Oct 4th, 2009, 3:52pm

on Oct 4th, 2009, 3:40pm, tomi01uk wrote:
Uh huh... I think you are reading too much into me finding a design similar to the LAP and commenting on it...

Not at all I still don’t understand what you were trying to say as you have less than skilfully avoided answering my only real question, i.e. what do you mean?

(It's not similar, and for the third time IT IS Isaac's!! kiss)


on Oct 4th, 2009, 3:40pm, tomi01uk wrote:
Oh... sad Well.. gee.. thanks... for letting me know..
( what is this pick on Tomi all the time stuff ..) kiss

Sorry Tomi I thought that perhaps quoting Sidd would make it obvious that I was speaking to him and it was no more than friendly banter, you remember that don’t you? (Hence the grinning smiley grin).

I’m a little disappointed that you would infer I’m picking on you by merely questioning your post so as I may understand what you mean and then to highlight me having a friendly joke with an old friend to further allude to this fact. kiss

Cheers. wink

Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by tommi01 on Oct 4th, 2009, 4:05pm

on Oct 4th, 2009, 3:52pm, DrDil wrote:
Not at all I still don’t understand what you were trying to say as you have less than skilfully avoided answering my only real question, i.e. what do you mean?

(It's not similar, and for the third time IT IS Isaac's!! kiss)



Sorry Tomi I thought that perhaps quoting Sidd would make it obvious that I was speaking to him and it was no more than friendly banter, you remember that don’t you? (Hence the grinning smiley grin).

I’m a little disappointed that you would infer I’m picking on you by merely questioning your post so as I may understand what you mean and then to highlight me having a friendly joke with an old friend to further allude to this fact. kiss

Cheers. wink


Yeah.... sigh... hilarious grin tongue

Regarding the previous 3 questions.. I'm sorry but it was so inconsequencial can we please forget about it..

Otherwise it could take too much boring crap to explain something that absolutely means nothing worth commenting further about..
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by SiddReader on Oct 4th, 2009, 4:06pm

However. I found this news about Internalastronaut more interesting than all that chitchat about copyrights. Maybe our member Elijah Tome could explain what happened in his polite manner. Or his opposite hand Virgil Crow can throw in some harsh words...

My first idea - as Tomi knows - was, that there was a cease-and-desist letter. If so, it would be interesting, from where it came.
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by DrDil on Oct 4th, 2009, 4:13pm

on Oct 4th, 2009, 4:05pm, tomi01uk wrote:
Yeah.... sigh... hilarious grin tongue

Aww Tomi,

Playing the martyr really doesn’t become you but I guess whatever makes you comfortable…..

on Oct 4th, 2009, 4:05pm, tomi01uk wrote:
Otherwise it could take too much boring crap to explain something that absolutely means nothing worth commenting further about..

Finally!!

Is that common ground I can see. User Image

Cheers. grin

Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by tommi01 on Oct 4th, 2009, 4:29pm

grin grin grin grin grin cool
see I do have a sense of humor.. wink
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by DrDil on Oct 4th, 2009, 4:41pm

on Oct 4th, 2009, 4:06pm, SiddReader wrote:
However. I found this news about Internalastronaut more interesting than all that chitchat about copyrights. Maybe our member Elijah Tome could explain what happened in his polite manner. Or his opposite hand Virgil Crow can throw in some harsh words...

My first idea - as Tomi knows - was, that there was a cease-and-desist letter. If so, it would be interesting, from where it came.

I appreciate that’s an intriguing thought and while I admit it’s a possibility I think the fact that the registration information still shows:

===================
Registrant:
Virgil / Rred Crow / Walker
1313 mockingbird lane
Clearwater, FL 33675
US

Registrar: DOTREGISTRAR
Domain Name: INTERNALASTRONAUT.COM
Created on: 03-JAN-07
Expires on: 03-JAN-12
Last Updated on: 29-DEC-08
===================

Which when coupled with the email that DIDN’T bounce as I mentioned earlier and because the WHOIS registrars for *DOTCOM* sites are particularly stringent and on the WIKI page specifically state that:

Quote:
Law and policy

WHOIS has generated policy issues in the United States federal government. As noted above, WHOIS creates a privacy issue which is also tied to free speech and anonymous speech. However, WHOIS is an important tool for law enforcement officers investigating violations like spam and phishing to track down the holders of domain names. Law enforcement officers become frustrated when WHOIS records are filled with rubbish. As a result, law enforcement agencies have sought to make WHOIS records both open and verified:

• The Federal Trade Commission has testified about how inaccurate WHOIS records thwart their investigations.

• There have been congressional hearings that have touched on the importance of WHOIS in 2006, 2002, and 2001.

• The Fraudulent Online Identity Sanctions Act "make it a violation of trademark and copyright law if a person knowingly provided, or caused to be provided, materially false contact information in making, maintaining, or renewing the registration of a domain name used in connection with the violation, where the latter "violation" refers to a prior violation of trademark or copyright law.

The act does not make the submission of false WHOIS data illegal in itself, only if used to shield oneself from prosecution for crimes committed using that domain name.

If I were a betting man and any such proceedings had ‘forced’ a take-down of the site then this would be a more likely candidate as if it was the specific scattering of the symbols throughout the site then a few other websites (possibly me included) would have been issued similar ‘desist’ notices?

The last paragraph is as Tomi would say a 'technicality' and the important aspect is "The Fraudulent Online Identity Sanctions Act 'make it a violation of trademark and copyright law if a person knowingly provided, or caused to be provided, materially false contact information in making, maintaining, or renewing the registration of a domain name used in connection with the violation," which as neveleven pointed out a while ago could be used to issue a take-down notice.

Or.....

They could simply be changing servers and grossly miscalculated down-time as the new DNS is filtered through those internet tube thingys!! wink laugh

Cheers. grin

Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by SiddReader on Oct 4th, 2009, 5:35pm

Just changing flashfiles, I would suggest.
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by DrDil on Oct 4th, 2009, 5:46pm

on Oct 4th, 2009, 5:35pm, SiddReader wrote:
Just changing flashfiles, I would suggest.

Again while it’s a possibility I personally would create a landing page rather than the default parked page which means there is no landing page, i.e. *index.html* created which generally means (for whatever reason) that the full site has been taken down, which is in fact the case as the in-site links also bring the same -default- page up.

Of course just as it’s not how I would do it doesn’t mean that it’s not how everyone else would do it.

Cheers.

Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by SiddReader on Oct 4th, 2009, 6:04pm

Now, at least it is interesting, that Elijah got more private on the hotpanties-site:

http://whois.domaintools.com/hotfilthypanties.com

The old registration information has disappeared.

"Registrant Contact:
Enoch/Elijah Tome/Melchizedek ()
Fax:
333 Post-Mortem Way
Clearwater, FL 33755
US"

Now:

"Registrant Contact:
Whois Privacy Protection Service, Inc.
Whois Agent ()

Fax:
PMB 368, 14150 NE 20th St - F1
C/O hotfilthypanties.com
Bellevue, WA 98007
US"

Still I am looking forward, what Elijah has to present in the future. wink
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by tommi01 on Oct 4th, 2009, 6:29pm

on Oct 4th, 2009, 4:41pm, DrDil wrote:
If I were a betting man and any such proceedings had ‘forced’ a take-down of the site then this would be a more likely candidate as if it was the specific scattering of the symbols throughout the site then a few other websites (possibly me included) would have been issued similar ‘desist’ notices?



The way I understand it with the issue you raised, your use and most of the websites, even the ones of the drones entertainment (parody) comes under fair use.

Nobody would go after this kind of use, IA was a design use, not for financial gain, but would not qualify as fair use, however unless they have DEEP POCKETS wink buried in there somewhere with a good insurance company under them, a Law Firm would only bother Dell & Assoc.. However, hypothetically, IA could get caught in the cross fire if litigation began for sure.. JMHO..
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by blackwater on Oct 4th, 2009, 6:42pm

on Oct 4th, 2009, 2:20pm, tomi01uk wrote:
Interesting.. Even Fortunecity seems to have picked up on the act:

http://current.com/items/75983442_linguistic-analysis-primer.htm

(this is copyrightable, but not the name!.. IMO)



This was a real noggin scratcher, but I think what tomi was trying to say was that she sees a similarity between the LAP designs and the graphic FC is using with the little gear and 3 circles.

Fortune city has been using that graphic for as long as I can remember, I don't think they've "picked up" anything.

Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by tommi01 on Oct 4th, 2009, 6:53pm

on Oct 4th, 2009, 6:42pm, blackwater wrote:
This was a real noggin scratcher, but I think what tomi was trying to say was that she sees a similarity between the LAP designs and the graphic FC is using with the little gear and 3 circles.

Fortune city has been using that graphic for as long as I can remember, I don't think they've "picked up" anything.


Yes, you are right as well I'm sure, I've seen it before for a long time too but I only made the association to the LAP when I found someone else had made that association in the link I put up. That's all.. So, I assumed that ages ago probably, but after the IsaacCaret site went up, they may have changed their logo.. dunno.. but not a big deal.. sorry to confuse.. tongue
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by neveleeleven on Oct 4th, 2009, 7:28pm

So while Tomi continues to make a fool of herself by comparing a 10+ year old FC logo with a 2 year old UFO hoax, how about some more comedy?

Did any of you see LMH and Earthfiles make complete fools of themselves by hosting another hoax?

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread506330/pg1

Someone used an iPhone application that allows you to add UFO's to your pictures, and then sent the picture to Earthfiles claiming it is real. Earthfiles, and the original "witness" (a liar), still claim it is real after an exact match was found.

LMH and Earthfiles are a threat to UFOlogy..... Complete fools.

laugh






Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by tommi01 on Oct 4th, 2009, 7:42pm

Yep, you're right. My wrong:

http://web.archive.org/web/20001203131700/http://fortunecity.com/


Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by Jeddyhi on Oct 4th, 2009, 7:48pm

LMH doesn't lend any authenticity or credibility to the field of UFOlogy. In my opinion, her early endorsement of the drone case as actual sightings is par for the course in regards as to what she latches onto in order to sustain viewer subscriptions. rolleyes
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by Katterfelto on Oct 4th, 2009, 7:48pm

on Oct 4th, 2009, 7:42pm, tomi01uk wrote:
Yep, you're right. My wrong:

http://web.archive.org/web/20001203131700/http://fortunecity.com/


Yes you're wrong Tomi. rolleyes How a black gear and 3 colored balls are a derivative of the LAP defies logic and even imagination. You might as well say a . or a ~ is an infringement. rolleyes
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by Jeddyhi on Oct 4th, 2009, 7:53pm

on Oct 4th, 2009, 7:42pm, tomi01uk wrote:
Yep, you're right. My wrong:

http://web.archive.org/web/20001203131700/http://fortunecity.com/



That was undoubtedly the longest reach I've ever witnessed and I'm a fan of Mister Fantastic.

User Image
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by tommi01 on Oct 4th, 2009, 7:57pm

on Oct 4th, 2009, 7:48pm, Katterfelto wrote:
Yes you're wrong Tomi. rolleyes How a black gear and 3 colored balls are a derivative of the LAP defies logic and even imagination. You might as well say a . or a ~ is an infringement. rolleyes


I wasn't the one who associated it with it, the suggestion was there on the link. My imagination did see a similiarity and still could..but it is no big deal ?
And it has nothing to do with infringement and it would be a derivative copyrightable by the creator in my opinion if he was inspired by the LAP and created this logo from that design..

But it is obvious from that page in 2001 that the gear thingy is to describe the functions of the web site..
ok.. i'm sorry... rolleyes

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m7mIy97_rlo
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by TheShadow on Oct 4th, 2009, 8:14pm

on Oct 4th, 2009, 7:42pm, tomi01uk wrote:
Yep, you're right. My wrong:



As usual!!!




Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by Jeddyhi on Oct 4th, 2009, 8:27pm

on Oct 4th, 2009, 7:57pm, tomi01uk wrote:
I wasn't the one who associated it with it, the suggestion was there on the link. My imagination did see a similiarity and still could..but it is no big deal ?
And it has nothing to do with infringement and it would be a derivative copyrightable by the creator in my opinion if he was inspired by the LAP and created this logo from that design..

But it is obvious from that page in 2001 that the gear thingy is to describe the functions of the web site..
ok.. i'm sorry... rolleyes

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m7mIy97_rlo


Nope, you first suggested it even if you are to slow to realize it. This is why you are made fun of at times and also why you are found to be very confusing. DrDil tried to explain it to you without success.

I'll try. Here goes nothing...the logo on display at the link you provided was not what was being analyzed. The poster (T palmer) was attempting to display pg 120 from the Linguistic Analysis Primer....hence the name of the page and broken link which points to

http://isaaccaret.fortunecity.com/pacl-lang-analysis-p120-fullsize.jpg
(The above link also does not work but leads to the logo.)


If you go back to the link you provided and right click the Fortune city logo that you mistakenly thought the post was about and look at properties for that image, the address for the image is

http://isaaccaret.fortunecity.com/pacl-lang-analysis-p120-fullsize.jpg

Page 120 does show a three node junction. T Palmer couldn't link to it because you must view the image at the fortunecity Isaaccaret site exclusively unless you copy the image and host it somewhere else. T Palmer saw no relation between the logo and the LAP and was making no comparisons. He simply couldn't link to p120 and you thought the default logo was what he was talking about. You miscontrued it because you thought the logo was the topic, but it was not.

The fortune city logo pops up anytime you try to hot link one of their hosted images.

I will now do a hot link to page 120 to show you what happens. Right click on the image of the logo and check properties to see the address is correct but still shows the logo instead of the page 120

User Image

Basically this proves you are reaching for anything at this point and even convincing yourself that others see what you do.

The only reason I'm telling you this is because you apparently are still unaware of your actual mistake.
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by neveleeleven on Oct 4th, 2009, 9:11pm

on Oct 4th, 2009, 7:42pm, tomi01uk wrote:
Yep, you're right. My wrong:

http://web.archive.org/web/20001203131700/http://fortunecity.com/



That is the way it has always been.

The sad part is that I didn't even have to research that answer..

on Oct 4th, 2009, 8:27pm, Jeddyhi wrote:
The fortune city logo pops up anytime you try to hot link one of their hosted images.


Yes, that is because hot-linking images is a way to steal bandwidth. People would get a free fortunecity account and put their images and videos on it and then hotlink from their own web host so that the bandwidth was taken from fortunecity and not their own host.

I remember when Tomi claimed to "fix computers" for people or something.... I don't see how any type of advanced computer user could make the mistake Tomi made. Was she telling the truth?

Mistake after mistake... seems really fishy.


Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by murnut on Oct 5th, 2009, 12:07am

on Oct 4th, 2009, 7:28pm, neveleeleven wrote:
So while Tomi continues to make a fool of herself by comparing a 10+ year old FC logo with a 2 year old UFO hoax, how about some more comedy?

Did any of you see LMH and Earthfiles make complete fools of themselves by hosting another hoax?

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread506330/pg1

Someone used an iPhone application that allows you to add UFO's to your pictures, and then sent the picture to Earthfiles claiming it is real. Earthfiles, and the original "witness" (a liar), still claim it is real after an exact match was found.

LMH and Earthfiles are a threat to UFOlogy..... Complete fools.

laugh








I have to say I laughed at this...although I should not.


Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by tommi01 on Oct 5th, 2009, 04:07am

I was stealing a few hours away from work to search the Library of Congress records for any relevent name that could be applied to a copyright of the Isaac stuff.

A quick misinterpretation of something not terribly important and you can't let go? ...
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by tommi01 on Oct 5th, 2009, 04:17am

on Oct 4th, 2009, 9:11pm, neveleeleven wrote:
I remember when Tomi claimed to "fix computers" for people or something.... I don't see how any type of advanced computer user could make the mistake Tomi made. Was she telling the truth?




Ohhh give it a break will ya!! rolleyes

What has that got to do with quickly finding something "remotely" similiar to the LAPhuh??


Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by tommi01 on Oct 5th, 2009, 04:27am

Here's the latest addition to the RRR article:

http://ufocon.blogspot.com/2009/10/socorro-ufo-hoax-part-2-getting-closer.html
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by Radi on Oct 5th, 2009, 05:26am

on Oct 4th, 2009, 7:28pm, neveleeleven wrote:
So while Tomi continues to make a fool of herself by comparing a 10+ year old FC logo with a 2 year old UFO hoax, how about some more comedy?

Did any of you see LMH and Earthfiles make complete fools of themselves by hosting another hoax?

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread506330/pg1

Someone used an iPhone application that allows you to add UFO's to your pictures, and then sent the picture to Earthfiles claiming it is real. Earthfiles, and the original "witness" (a liar), still claim it is real after an exact match was found.

LMH and Earthfiles are a threat to UFOlogy..... Complete fools.

laugh






This is funny stuff..This always shows how much research LMH puts into anything she does......Absolutely hilarious........

on Oct 5th, 2009, 04:07am, tomi01uk wrote:
A quick misinterpretation of something not terribly important and you can't let go? ...

Its a freaking gear or as some will say a cog....
No wonder you come up with the BS you do...Its all misinterpretation....Mistakes will cost you in any court room........But you should know that already..
Then this is a description of the LAP and the formula used for the design...So perhaps they should be sent a take-down notice...........grin Heres a quote..
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/HolographicTerminal
Then of course this one..
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/InstantRunes
Quote:
If the situation calls for tension and drama, expect them to appear in a semi circle around a character displaying various important looking bars and graphs, the techie in question will usually spout some Techno Babble while randomly typing and "flipping switches" on different terminals. Basically the futuristic, floating, glowy equivalent of an officious clipboard and pen.

If they look especially complex, it evokes a sci-fi version of Instant Runes, and is usually included as a CG effect added in later. For extra oomph, it can be paired with Matrix Raining Code either in the terminal or around the character. To make it seem even more aesthetically pleasing, may take the form of a Design Student's Orgasm.
grin
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by Jeddyhi on Oct 5th, 2009, 06:32am

on Oct 4th, 2009, 7:57pm, tomi01uk wrote:
I wasn't the one who associated it with it, the suggestion was there on the link.


Like I said, you made the association by mistaking the default FC logo for the topic being discussed. And you still haven't acknowledged the mistake or that you understand what you did wrong.

on Oct 5th, 2009, 04:07am, tomi01uk wrote:
I was stealing a few hours away from work to search the Library of Congress records for any relevent name that could be applied to a copyright of the Isaac stuff.

A quick misinterpretation of something not terribly important and you can't let go? ...


Not when this example of your self confusing logic and deflection highlights your status quo. You now claim it is unimportant, but only because you were showed your mistake....until then I imagine you thought it was pretty important.

Do you understand that T Palmer was making no comparisons, that the FC logo was not being discussed, that your imagination ran away with you?

Your own credibility has somewhat diminished after this incredibile fiasco.
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by tommi01 on Oct 5th, 2009, 06:36am

on Oct 5th, 2009, 05:26am, Radi wrote:
Its a freaking gear or as some will say a cog....
No wonder you come up with the BS you do...Its all misinterpretation....Mistakes will cost you in any court room........But you should know that already..



IMHO...
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/InstantRunes

Would definately be IMO a separate creation similar to but singular enough to be copyrightable in its own right.

I appreciate you telling me someone is going to sue me, but... anyone stupid enough not to ask a lawyer, ain't gonna sue me.. and it is the last thing I would worry about. I can describe copyright litigation from my perspective and experience. I have nothing to worry about explaining what someone else can then go ask an IPR lawyer about.
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by tommi01 on Oct 5th, 2009, 06:40am

on Oct 5th, 2009, 06:32am, Jeddyhi wrote:
Do you understand that T Palmer was making no comparisons, that the FC logo was not being discussed, that your imagination ran away with you?

Your own credibility has somewhat diminished after this incredibile fiasco.


You know what Jeddiyh? I'm not going to argue this anymore, for starters.. If I look at that description myself and see a similiarity and nobody else does... so what?? Hang me for it ok?

Next.........
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by Radi on Oct 5th, 2009, 06:52am

on Oct 5th, 2009, 06:36am, tomi01uk wrote:
How pedantic can you get..... btw.. that:
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/InstantRunes

Would definately be IMO a separate creation similar to but singular enough to be copyrightable in its own right.

And stop telling me someone is going to sue me, anyone stupid enough not to ask a lawyer, ain't gonna sue me.. lol... And you think my reasoning is flawed??


OK lets examine this misinterpretation....Where in my post did I say anything about anyone suing you?......Was it this line....."Mistakes will cost you in any court room........But you should know that already.."

This means.......SINCE YOU SAID BEFORE THAT YOU HAVE BEEN THROUGH THE PROCESS OF COURTS AND LAWYERS DURING YOUR COPYRIGHTS CASES..SO YOU SHOULD KNOW HOW COURTS WORK RIGHT....SO THUS BY DEFAULT YOU SHOULD ALSO KNOW THAT MISTAKES IN ANY COURTROOM ARE TAKEN ADVANTAGE OF BY THE OPPOSING COUNSEL........OR AT LEAST ONE WOULD LOSE THE CONFIDENCE OF THE JUDGE AND THE JURY......
This is what was meant by this..........Talk about misinterpretation of anything.............You are starting to sound like LMH and her fantastic research abilities..... tongue
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by tommi01 on Oct 5th, 2009, 06:57am

Radi, as I said in this kind of copyright case, no company will go to court in this providing the claimants are willing to settle. The product line would die (in the meantime) at too great a cost to not settle. JMO
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by Radi on Oct 5th, 2009, 07:01am

on Oct 5th, 2009, 06:57am, tomi01uk wrote:
Radi, as I said in this kind of copyright case, no company will go to court in this providing the claimants are willing to settle. The product line would die (in the meantime) at too great a cost to not settle. JMO

Where did I bring this up...? I was talking about something different in my recent post...PAY ATTENTION TO WHAT IS POSTED TOMI AND YOU MIGHT LEARN SOMETHING...I THINK THAT OLD AGE IS KICKING IN......... grin
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by tommi01 on Oct 5th, 2009, 07:11am

on Oct 5th, 2009, 07:01am, Radi wrote:
I THINK THAT OLD AGE IS KICKING IN......... grin

grrrr,, I'm not going there.. you shouldn't either smiley

want to talk mosquitos??
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by Jeddyhi on Oct 5th, 2009, 07:21am

on Oct 5th, 2009, 06:40am, tomi01uk wrote:
You know what Jeddiyh? I'm not going to argue this anymore, for starters.. If I look at that description myself and see a similiarity and nobody else does... so what?? Hang me for it ok?

Next.........


Nobody wants to argue...there is nothing to argue about. How about just admitting you mistakenly thought the default FC logo was the topic of T Palmer's post though it was actually pg120 he was talking about and he couldn't successfully link the image. Admit that T Palmer didn't make any comparison between the logo and the LAP, that that is simply how you misunderstood it.

Man, oh man....I admit to mistakes quite easily and attempt to learn from them.....deflecting mistakes makes one look more like a fool.
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by tommi01 on Oct 5th, 2009, 07:25am

Jeddyhi,
It is of such little consequence to the big picture that I see in this subject of copyrights that I really haven't even taken the time to go and verify what you say.

But you are not usually one to let smaller details pass, and for that I'm always (when you aren't attacking me) grateful to have your opinions on things..

So... yes, without even verifying I'm willing to accept fully your opinion. And yes, I'm sure I gave it too scance a look with my mind focusing on a different aspect, as I said, I was researching the Lib of Congress records and happened to cross this in a flurry of web pages coming up..
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by Radi on Oct 5th, 2009, 07:35am

on Oct 5th, 2009, 07:25am, tomi01uk wrote:
Jeddyhi,
It is of such little consequence to the big picture that I see in this subject of copyrights that I really haven't even taken the time to go and verify what you say.


Tomis 101...The big picture....gezz you need some new material Tomi........The big picture in the drones laugh
If you were really that advanced on computers there would be nothing to verify...You would already know what is up with that logo being there.... rolleyes
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by Jeddyhi on Oct 5th, 2009, 07:37am

on Oct 5th, 2009, 07:25am, tomi01uk wrote:
Jeddiyh,
It is of such little consequence to the big picture that I see in this subject of copyrights that I really haven't even taken the time to go and verify what you say.

But you are not usually one to let smaller details pass, and for that I'm always (when you aren't attacking me) grateful to have your opinions on things..

So... yes, without even verifying I'm willing to accept fully your opinion. And yes, I'm sure I gave it too scance a look with my mind focusing on a different aspect, as I said, I was researching the Lib of Congress records and happened to cross this in a flurry of web pages coming up..


Verify what I say? Then you still don't understand your mistake?

Try this......go to Isaac's fortune city site, click on page 120 of the primer (the three node junction T Plamer was discussing, not the cog and three circle FC logo), when the image pops up, the entire address of the image will be available in the address bar. Copy and paste that into a post here on casebook. Add image brackets and watch what happens.

Pg 120 will not display....the default FC logo appears. You, for some reason, thought T Palmer was finding a similarity between the logo and pg120 but that was not the case at all. He didn't even have that idea or make such an assumption. You fully created a false scenario based out of misinterpretation of a post with a default FC logo in place of the image that was actually being linked....pg120 of the primer.

If you can't comprehend where you went wrong, then you need a vacation. You are like a source of disinfo that doesn't even know it is a source of disinfo lol. grin
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by tommi01 on Oct 5th, 2009, 07:45am

Jeddyhi
I really don't care! I accept your explaination and if I had paid enough attn to detail before I posted that fleeting little thought and image I came across, I suppose 10 posts later we wouldn't still be talking about it would wehuh
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by tommi01 on Oct 5th, 2009, 07:48am

on Oct 5th, 2009, 07:35am, Radi wrote:
Tomis 101...The big picture....gezz you need some new material Tomi........The big picture in the drones laugh
If you were really that advanced on computers there would be nothing to verify...You would already know what is up with that logo being there.... rolleyes


Radi, I'm not a minute detail person with something as "fleeting" as my HUGE MISTAKE at posting that logo in a moment of unchecked exuberance..
But I'm glad you are. rolleyes
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by Jeddyhi on Oct 5th, 2009, 08:07am

on Oct 5th, 2009, 07:48am, tomi01uk wrote:
Radi, I'm not a minute detail person with something as "fleeting" as my HUGE MISTAKE at posting that logo in a moment of unchecked exuberance..
But I'm glad you are. rolleyes


Your only mistake was in thinking that the default logo was meant to be there and was the topic of T Palmer's post. He was trying to post pg120 of the LAP but fortune city does not allow that and the FC logo pops up instead as a default image.

So no, Fortune city did not "pick up on the act"......you simply twisted a post to fit your reasoning......a bit of innocent disinfo perhaps? Or a coy attempt to prove your copyright knowledge as being not only correct but far superior to any one else's?
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by tommi01 on Oct 5th, 2009, 08:18am

Neither.....
I can only relate what I know from real experience.
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by Radi on Oct 5th, 2009, 08:28am

on Oct 5th, 2009, 08:18am, tomi01uk wrote:
Neither.....
I can only relate what I know from real experience.

Guess its not the web then..Did you log on to the internet for the first time ever when the drones came out..?
Since real experience would have shown you from the beginning what that logo represents..... laugh
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by tommi01 on Oct 5th, 2009, 08:45am

on Oct 5th, 2009, 08:28am, Radi wrote:
Guess its not the web then..Did you log on to the internet for the first time ever when the drones came out..?
Since real experience would have shown you from the beginning what that logo represents..... laugh


Radi... give it up.. ok?? Are you married? Too personal a question and I'm sorry, but if you are or were.. never try to make sense out of the machinations of a female brain that shows temporary unchecked exuberence.. wink
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by Radi on Oct 5th, 2009, 08:52am

on Oct 5th, 2009, 08:45am, tomi01uk wrote:
Radi... give it up.. ok?? Are you married? Too personal a question and I'm sorry, but if you are or were.. never try to make sense out of the machinations of a female brain that shows temporary unchecked exuberence.. wink


You were the one that thought the drones were real.. grin
and as it seems still try to give them some sort of reality....
You make mistakes like the previous and state things that are clearly untrue ie (FC site getting in on the act)
Then things I won't mention in the beginning of the drone saga let alone have a special place for a known liar....
But I guess this is only because you have a female brain....Quite an insult to the female brain.....
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by tommi01 on Oct 5th, 2009, 08:58am

on Oct 5th, 2009, 08:52am, Radi wrote:
You were the one that thought the drones were real.. grin
and as it seems still try to give them some sort of reality....
You make mistakes like the previous and state things that are clearly untrue ie (FC site getting in on the act)
Then things I won't mention in the beginning of the drone saga let alone have a special place for a known liar....
But I guess this is only because you have a female brain....Quite an insult to the female brain.....


Funny you should be their defender !! grin grin

Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by Radi on Oct 5th, 2009, 09:04am

on Oct 5th, 2009, 08:58am, tomi01uk wrote:
Funny you should be their defender !! grin grin
What you got on me Randi from the beginning here that is unmentionable?

Anywhere you posted... wink
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by Double Nought Spy on Oct 5th, 2009, 09:35am

I was just doing some reading last night in the archives of an old, defunct UFO list, just for the entertainment value, really. Oh there were a few interesting things in there that I don't recall ever hearing about, but mostly it was kind of a Jeraldo cartoon foodfight running melee of dingbats, flakes, mental patients and hucksters threatening lawsuits if this page wasn't removed immediately, or that slander was not retracted, and on and on. If my demands are not met, I will file suit at noon on Wednesday. Three weeks later, another angry email with nearly identical wording demanding damages, and so on. That was about the time Art Bell was suing some of his former guests and whoever else he thought had crossed him. It's funny to read that crap now. It reminded me of recent nonsense here, of course. Everybody is a lawyer all the sudden.

Tomi claims to be a high zoot IT troubleshooter (when she is not practicing law on the net) but made a rather absurd mistake. Now it is of no consequence and we are pissants for calling her on it. This crap will never end.

Speaking of never-ending crap, I see LMH has posted the perp's "response" to the revelation that his iPhone ufo is nothing but a joke, in an apparent attempt to finesse the reality of her touting an obvious fraud. She is hoping for the appearance of an "inconclusive" verdict. Sound familiar?
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by Radi on Oct 5th, 2009, 11:41am

on Oct 5th, 2009, 09:35am, Double Nought Spy wrote:
I was just doing some reading last night in the archives of an old, defunct UFO list, just for the entertainment value, really. Oh there were a few interesting things in there that I don't recall ever hearing about, but mostly it was kind of a Jeraldo cartoon foodfight running melee of dingbats, flakes, mental patients and hucksters threatening lawsuits if this page wasn't removed immediately, or that slander was not retracted, and on and on. If my demands are not met, I will file suit at noon on Wednesday. Three weeks later, another angry email with nearly identical wording demanding damages, and so on. That was about the time Art Bell was suing some of his former guests and whoever else he thought had crossed him. It's funny to read that crap now. It reminded me of recent nonsense here, of course. Everybody is a lawyer all the sudden.

Tomi claims to be a high zoot IT troubleshooter (when she is not practicing law on the net) but made a rather absurd mistake. Now it is of no consequence and we are pissants for calling her on it. This crap will never end.

Speaking of never-ending crap, I see LMH has posted the perp's "response" to the revelation that his iPhone ufo is nothing but a joke, in an apparent attempt to finesse the reality of her touting an obvious fraud. She is hoping for the appearance of an "inconclusive" verdict. Sound familiar?

That stuff is always funny as heck...Without going into detail (you can find it if you want) there was one site that I was on where myself and others were posting evidence of a company stealing software code from others and using for their own without the correct licenses...The owner of the company and supposed programmer..Kinda big at that time watched the fourm and even posting yelling at everyone and threatening to suing the fourms and each individual that was posting...When that didn't work that president of that company started posting personal/religious/made-up stuff about people posting....He got his butt kicked in court when it came down to it......hehe.......Silly stuff that was........

Just seen that LMH thing..More silly stuff....
grin
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by YourWorstNightmare on Oct 5th, 2009, 11:53am

Familar is an understatement just go back to July 2008 When Torvald a real Professional commented on just this repetitive scenario..type of thing on both Tomi and Numbers..Remember what Tomi said..Anybody Mess with Numbers..messes with her

How true that is literally and figuratively.
Page 11 to be specific..So we have a yacht and tugboat expert, Computer expert, Grapahics expert, and IP Lawyer..Really giving Masker/Lev group the one with a thousand faces and IPs, Virgils and Sebastians Hot Filthy Panties and The Munsters household address. Not even halloween..but perhaps in time for it.

Torvald to Numbers
page 11
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 47
Karma: 36
Re: a new perspective
« Reply #161 on Jul 28, 2008, 8:26pm »
angle of drone correct. attitude of drone correct. drone mockup is simple tube. sunlight on inside is not problem. problem is great big shadow under big arm.

you obvious do no have the education or experience to properly evaluate photographs. so who is ass(ume)? you or me smart guy?

so. question is how YOU miss something so obvious smart guy?


Jul 28, 2008, 6:47pm, 10538 Aka Latitude wrote:

You don't have the angle of the drone even close to correct. Check the photo. There is no sunlight hitting the inside of the ring. For such a smart guy, how could you miss something so obvious? Or did you simply jump to a conclusion the drone must be level with the ground and perpendicular with the pole? You know what happens when you assume?
(Yeah tell us Numbers what does happen?)
torvald
Full Member
***
member is offline

Torvald to Tomi and Company (sic)



Joined: May 2008
Posts: 47
Karma: 36
Re: a new perspective
« Reply #172 on Jul 28, 2008, 10:08pm »
@tomi01uk: i not testy. you are uneducated in basics of perspective and analysis. you think to educate self in five minutes by clicking links on topics you think are relative but are not. your knowing of these subjects are zero. this not insult. this fact.

@endzone: i educated just fine in my field. so i do not speak english to your satisfaction? this makes me ape man? did you do perspective analysis? no. did you create test scene with correct parameters? no. so to you be quiet.

@tomi01uk and endzone: i was called ass(ume) with snide remark and i can be no upset? ok the. i no be upset. see? is easy.

@everyone: here renders of test scene. attitude of drone, scale of drone, position of sun, direction, location, blah blah blah, all correct as test model. does not matter hard shadow soft shadow only where shadow! no matter reflections bounces or gi shadow under big arm there. accept it or not i finish with this study. is plain to see hoax at least if honest and accept fact not fantasy.

torvald
Full Member
***
member is offline

God Bless Torvald..!!
We Got it we know How come they still don't..They do..But we know they do..
Thus continuing trying to enlight someone hell bent on hoaxing the public like that Reed fella at OMF did..is useless..unless you bury it in the basement somewhere..where finally someone had the good sense to do..
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by tommi01 on Oct 5th, 2009, 3:54pm

on Oct 5th, 2009, 11:53am, YourWorstNightmare wrote:
So we have a yacht and tugboat expert, Computer expert, Grapahics expert, and IP Lawyer..Really giving Masker/Lev group the one with a thousand faces and IPs, Virgils and Sebastians Hot Filthy Panties and The Munsters household address. Not even halloween..but perhaps in time for it.

..


You forgot elephant keeper.. That was my favorite .. smiley
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by YourWorstNightmare on Oct 5th, 2009, 9:15pm

A circus indeed, and even an Art Critic
and an uncanny inability to discern authorship when confronted with the facts then
User Image

User Image

User Image

User Image

User Image

User Image

Its not an isolated incident..its a repeated pattern over and over again..the record is replete with it.
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by tommi01 on Oct 6th, 2009, 03:51am

Ahh Sys...

If only I had enough time and patience to round up all your dopefishes.. but... thanks for the flashbacks smiley
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by YourWorstNightmare on Oct 6th, 2009, 10:48am

Thats your comeback?
You mistake following leads in the light of day fin a case infused with deliberate dead ends like Crows websites, for all all to see and discuss versus paid investigators you hired working with you, in secrecy, that have provide nothing but cover for the principles involved. Using forums like these to promote but not disclose the true agendas, merely to promote..a mystery..While you focus keeping the attention here on yourself, I focused where each one lead to either something or nothing, their logical conclusion.That includes Tom Hall, That Pisces fellow, and countless other avenues..as the others would have as well, as anyone doing a serious inquiry would. These are two different things. If a policeman has several suspects, then you don't call his going down the list ..and crossing out leads fantasizing..
You really are mixing Apples and Orange Juice,
Unfortunate about the time...
So enjoy what little you have and, Drink up.
G'day.





Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by tommi01 on Oct 6th, 2009, 11:34am

grin grin grin grin grin

LOL You are hilarious.. seriously ...
unless you are serious, then... ummmm
you have serious problems rolleyes

edit to add: but reality is obviously not one of them.. undecided
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by Double Nought Spy on Oct 6th, 2009, 11:55am

Dope fish happens when one is trying to uncover what you are desperately trying to obscure. He is being kind to you with the apples-to-orange juice analogy. It's really more like bricks and basketballs.
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by Jeddyhi on Oct 6th, 2009, 12:01pm

The only one thats hilarious is you, tomi, for your embarrassing mistakes. Why do you come here to this thread? For what purpose? The truth? Thats hilarious in itself because you constantly attempt to obscure the truth. Find a hobby until the LV convention and give this board a break.
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by tommi01 on Oct 6th, 2009, 12:12pm

Having had the experience of copyright litigation that I've had, I think that makes me more qualified than you to make an assessment of the copyright aspects of the LAP. Now, lets hear more ideas about the case and less about me, because you are barking up the wrong tree. And if you can't tell that by now.. don't elevate your reasoning skills beyond anyone else here..


Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by Double Nought Spy on Oct 6th, 2009, 12:20pm

Nobody is buying your blather.

User Image

Now listen carefully:

The Lap is phony. It is an artistic creation. Nobody has sued. You have no argument.
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by Gort on Oct 6th, 2009, 12:30pm

But she gets paid
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by Jeddyhi on Oct 6th, 2009, 12:44pm

Wow...she is still harping about copyright stuff.... rolleyes
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by Radi on Oct 6th, 2009, 1:02pm

on Oct 6th, 2009, 12:12pm, tomi01uk wrote:
Having had the experience of copyright litigation that I've had, I think that makes me more qualified than you to make an assessment of the copyright aspects of the LAP. Now, lets hear more ideas about the case and less about me, because you are barking up the wrong tree. And if you can't tell that by now.. don't elevate your reasoning skills beyond anyone else here..


IMHO
hmmm Aren't you elevating your skills above anyone elses here.....That would mean you are doing what you ask others not to do.....When no one knows what you have done..You want others to take your word for it but show nothing and are shown to be less then trueful...and always mis-interpret what others say and post..Does not sound like a valid source of information...So please tell me about Creative Commons.. How do you feel about GPL and the way its affected by Patents and copyrights and how does it pertain to Pakistan and China.....wink
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by Jeddyhi on Oct 6th, 2009, 1:19pm

This thread is so quiet until she shows up.....then we all post about how she makes no sense. Is she and has she been trolling us all this time? grin
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by Radi on Oct 6th, 2009, 1:27pm

on Oct 6th, 2009, 1:19pm, Jeddyhi wrote:
This thread is so quiet until she shows up.....then we all post about how she makes no sense. Is she and has she been trolling us all this time? grin


Yep i like the phrase.."Dronie Troll"
Kinda distinguishes between the average internet troll...Which as we know are also fun to an extent...
Ruffles the feathers and gets under the skin..Unlike the Dronie Troll which is all of the above but does it to keep the talk alive of the drones even thou the conversations make no sense and have no value in any kind of form other then to keep the foucus on drones
This is what LEV was at one time but that was another level of the same thing above... wink
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by SiddReader on Oct 6th, 2009, 2:24pm

Hi, DrDil,

hope you hear me inmidest of all that noice on this party. You probably have seen that:

http://www.uforesponseteam.com/

What do you think? - I also would enjoy to read Elijah's interpretation.

And - of course - everybody's oppinion as soon as you have time to talk about anything else but Tomi. wink
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by Jeddyhi on Oct 6th, 2009, 2:50pm

Here is a Whois for the site....appears to be french owned?


WHOIS results for uforesponseteam.com

--- #YAML:1.0
# GANDI Registrar whois database for .COM, .NET, .ORG., .INFO, .BIZ, .NAME
#
# Access and use restricted pursuant to French law on personal data.
# Copy of whole or part of the data without permission from GANDI
# is strictly forbidden.
# The sole owner of a domain is the entity described in the relevant
# 'domain:' record.
# Domain ownership disputes should be settled using ICANN's Uniform Dispute
# Resolution Policy: http://www.icann.org/udrp/udrp.htm
# For inquiries about 'by policy' protection, please check directly
# with the appropriate registry (Eurid, AFNIC)
#
# Acces et utilisation soumis a la legislation francaise sur
# les donnees personnelles.
# Copie de tout ou partie de la base interdite sans autorisation de GANDI.
# Le possesseur d'un domaine est l'entite decrite dans
# l'enregistrement 'domain:' correspondant.
# Un desaccord sur la possession d'un nom de domaine peut etre resolu
# en suivant la Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy de l'ICANN:
# http://www.icann.org/udrp/udrp.htm
# Pour obtenir les informations en status 'Protected by policy', contactez
# directement le registre concerne (Eurid, AFNIC)
#
# 2009-10-06 19:40:45 CEST

domain: uforesponseteam.com
reg_created: 2009-05-23 23:40:49
expires: 2010-05-23 23:40:49
created: 2009-05-24 01:40:50
changed: 2009-05-24 01:40:50
transfer-prohibited: yes
ns0: a.dns.gandi.net
ns1: b.dns.gandi.net
ns2: c.dns.gandi.net
owner-c:
nic-hdl: SB5052-GANDI
organisation: ~
person: simon biasi
obfuscated: Obfuscated by Gandi
address: (Gandi) 15 place de la Nation
zipcode: (Gandi) 75011
city: (Gandi) Paris
country: (Gandi) France
phone: (Gandi) +33.170377666
fax: (Gandi) +33.143730576
email: 91d8eec10b62439ce5599339ff708ebf-962452@contact.gandi.net
lastupdated: 2009-05-24 01:38:25
admin-c:
nic-hdl: SB5052-GANDI
organisation: ~
person: simon biasi
obfuscated: Obfuscated by Gandi
address: (Gandi) 15 place de la Nation
zipcode: (Gandi) 75011
city: (Gandi) Paris
country: (Gandi) France
phone: (Gandi) +33.170377666
fax: (Gandi) +33.143730576
email: 91d8eec10b62439ce5599339ff708ebf-962452@contact.gandi.net
lastupdated: 2009-05-24 01:38:25
tech-c:
nic-hdl: SB5052-GANDI
organisation: ~
person: simon biasi
obfuscated: Obfuscated by Gandi
address: (Gandi) 15 place de la Nation
zipcode: (Gandi) 75011
city: (Gandi) Paris
country: (Gandi) France
phone: (Gandi) +33.170377666
fax: (Gandi) +33.143730576
email: 91d8eec10b62439ce5599339ff708ebf-962452@contact.gandi.net
lastupdated: 2009-05-24 01:38:25
bill-c:
nic-hdl: SB5052-GANDI
organisation: ~
person: simon biasi
obfuscated: Obfuscated by Gandi
address: (Gandi) 15 place de la Nation
zipcode: (Gandi) 75011
city: (Gandi) Paris
country: (Gandi) France
phone: (Gandi) +33.170377666
fax: (Gandi) +33.143730576
email: 91d8eec10b62439ce5599339ff708ebf-962452@contact.gandi.net
lastupdated: 2009-05-24 01:38:25




Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by Gort on Oct 6th, 2009, 2:53pm

Lets make a video

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ri-pqVlMHA&feature=player_embedded#
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by Jeddyhi on Oct 6th, 2009, 2:58pm

Also found their blog.

http://uforesponseteam.blogspot.com/
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by Double Nought Spy on Oct 6th, 2009, 3:42pm

grin grin

"We have been in operation for nearly 3 years."

What a remarkably low profile they have had...
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by SiddReader on Oct 6th, 2009, 4:01pm

grin Simon...

Here he goes:

http://younggeezer.com/

I think he wants my t-shirt design with the panda....
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by SiddReader on Oct 6th, 2009, 4:20pm

And California isn't far away:

http://www.levitatemediagroup.com/

Levitate? Funny...
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by DrDil on Oct 6th, 2009, 6:51pm

on Oct 6th, 2009, 2:24pm, SiddReader wrote:
Hi, DrDil,

hope you hear me inmidest of all that noice on this party. You probably have seen that:

http://www.uforesponseteam.com/

What do you think? - I also would enjoy to read Elijah's interpretation.

And - of course - everybody's oppinion as soon as you have time to talk about anything else but Tomi. wink

Hi Sidd,

I just had a quick look and there’s nothing of any importance and nothing really related to Isaac, well, obviously apart from the header (which is of a course a copyright infringing parody of a derivative work consisting entirely of pre-existing geometric forms and a bastardized katakana/sci-fi hybrid font, certain sequences of which are partially trademarked by a subsidiary of Dell and possibly intellectually copyrighted by Whitley Strieber in another dimension but alas, LMH is the gatekeeper/Master of the key and is demanding subscription fees in advance..... User Image)

But regarding the header (here) then as you can see below, it is merely full sections of the LAP rotated (and also using other small sections as filler for the header graphic):

User Image


And as you’ve seen from Jed who pointed out the whois information which if followed up shows that the registrar is *GANDI SAS* which is actually Gandi.net and is merely a domain registration business, and if you perform a whois from their site it also shows that the registrant details (except the name) are in fact theirs:

nic-hdl: SB5052-GANDI
organisation: ~
person: simon biasi
obfuscated: Obfuscated by Gandi
address: (Gandi) 15 place de la Nation
zipcode: (Gandi) 75011
city: (Gandi) Paris
country: (Gandi) France
phone: (Gandi) +33.170377666
fax: (Gandi) +33.143730576


Which coupled with the fact that their ‘vehicle’ has been spotted in several US states (read the comments here):

User Image


Then it would seem to suggest that they are US based and hazarding a wild guess then possibly a real-world viral marketing of sorts (while relying on curiosity & word of mouth to propagate through the internet)? Seems plausible if it’s a viral tie-in of sorts hence not adding the *.com* to their vehicle as it would be a little obvious. They’ve stopped traffic and pointed searchlights at the sky as well as parking up for long periods so as to seemingly advertise the name.

And the bumph from their site (source code on every page) reads:

Quote:

Public disclosure is authorized and civil recruiting is directed for U.F.O.R.T by the Executive Orders of the International Commission for the Preservation of the Collective Consciousness as established in Agreement IV 12.12.1887-314-8 and Directive 444 in the Treaty of the Assembly of Transnational Owners. Compelled by the high probability of severe performance incapability’s resulting from the exponential increase of various cross dimensional incidents; all initiatives of Directive 444 are required to instate the assistance, skill, and talent of individuals testing proficient to gateway clearance level.

All activities of U.F.O.R.T and all knowledge exchanged by U.F.O.R.T is subject to disclosure by discretion of U.F.O.R.T Officer or Adviser with a Gateway Clearance Level 0. Any unauthorized activities or invalid identification will immediately terminate access and be subject to response team.

Which after a couple of searches for key terms offer no results except their own site and as it’s what I would affectionately call Lev-speak (and just a little too obtuse for Isaac-speak) I’d place it on my “pay-no-mind” list, well as far as its related to Isaac & the Drones.

But as I’ve said many times before, I could be way off the mark, hence ‘opinion’….. wink

Cheers!! grin

Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by Gort on Oct 7th, 2009, 12:52pm

Now if I were to paint that on my car, is that a copyright infringement or a derivative? If I were to change it to UFOs response team, would that be legalhuh? Could I copyright thathuh Maybe get a patenthuh Use red letters, maybe Japanese? And then sue the originatorshuh
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by masker33 on Oct 7th, 2009, 1:31pm

No one will ever claim copyright infringement on the original Drone Photos or the Issac info or LAP designs. It will never be necessary since all that needed to be accomplished was accomplished.
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by Jeddyhi on Oct 7th, 2009, 1:59pm

on Oct 7th, 2009, 1:31pm, Masker33 wrote:
No one will ever claim copyright infringement on the original Drone Photos or the Issac info or LAP designs. It will never be necessary since all that needed to be accomplished was accomplished.


What exactly was accomplished? Seems like a hoax got busted and failed. The only accomplishment I can truly think of is that a bunch of gullible people banded together and invested a lot of money investigating a hoax on the premise that it might be real....is that what you are talking about?
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by masker33 on Oct 7th, 2009, 2:39pm

If you look closely into what you say, you can find that the results you say were accomplished might be sufficient for some. A study can take many forms and their analysis can be from many angles. As Masker33, I can only speak with the knowledge this poster would have and many here believe that it is limited. Therefore IMO the Drone saga is accomplished and little more can be learned, but much more can be sold. Now we move far from the original event.
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by YourWorstNightmare on Oct 7th, 2009, 3:08pm

on Oct 7th, 2009, 2:39pm, Masker33 wrote:
If you look closely into what you say, you can find that the results you say were accomplished might be sufficient for some. A study can take many forms and their analysis can be from many angles. As Masker33, I can only speak with the knowledge this poster would have and many here believe that it is limited. Therefore IMO the Drone saga is accomplished and little more can be learned, but much more can be sold. Now we move far from the original event.


Mission accomplished.?.I don't think so, despite this lingering trickling thread..and its hits..everywhere..the fact is Partizan got a whole lot more mileage.. Mission accomplished hardly..otherwise the same paid teams would not be here doing Damage control and misdirection..its now protection of identities not proof of reality thats the goal.
You have no choice..but to come and respond..the closer we get to exposing the rest of the crew.the fact is you all can't ever leave here..
Money is no object..in such scenarios..because big reputations are at stake..Even Banks keep their faces shut when they've been embezzled..imagine the screws turning on the embezzlers.
You are obligated now to stay..Patching breaches in the collapsing wall..just to make sure nothing new is added to what has been found.

That's Good for your behinds..
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by Radi on Oct 7th, 2009, 3:20pm

on Oct 7th, 2009, 2:39pm, Masker33 wrote:
As Masker33, I can only speak with the knowledge this poster would have and many here believe that it is limited.


So you are saying you are only a character or a player playing a part... wink
What if you speak with the knowledge that Lev would have...What about Lev6 or Lev666 or whomever you are this week.. cheesy
What about that character on BOT can you do that one.. wink
What about wiki puppets...I always liked those.. cheesy
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by masker33 on Oct 7th, 2009, 3:51pm

You are entitled to any opinion you wish as to any subject here. The Drones have done their job and Issac and the LAP for the most part have done theirs. I am no less a character than any of the rest of you, but I do know something. No response will ever come concerning any infringement of rights concerning the entire Drone Saga except from a true fake. Now take what I say or don't take what I say. We as children have watched and learned.
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by DrDil on Oct 7th, 2009, 3:55pm

on Oct 7th, 2009, 3:51pm, Masker33 wrote:
I am no less a character than any of the rest of you

I think the point was you could be considerably *more*…..
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by Jeddyhi on Oct 7th, 2009, 4:15pm

on Oct 7th, 2009, 3:51pm, Masker33 wrote:
I am no less a character than any of the rest of you, but I do know something. No response will ever come concerning any infringement of rights concerning the entire Drone Saga except from a true fake. Now take what I say or don't take what I say. We as children have watched and learned.


So if the hoaxer did come forward to claim his work, then he is a fake? rolleyes

No one will come forward because they have no case. When you submit something anonymously to the public domain and attribute the origin to ET, that is more or less an open invitation for anyone to use it as they see fit.

Now we join imaginary court proceedings.

Plaintiff- "No really, I created the LAP. See all my work and early drafts!"

Judge- "But you submitted it to the public domain under the pretense that it was ET in origin. That made everyone think it was safe to use it without fear of reprisal. Did you think you could sit back and wait until enough people took your bait and then file multiple copyright suits? It doesn't work that way , son! Case dismissed!"

Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by Gort on Oct 7th, 2009, 4:31pm

We should all file

We just might get paid off, what a hoot that would behuh
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by tommi01 on Oct 7th, 2009, 4:39pm

on Oct 7th, 2009, 4:15pm, Jeddyhi wrote:
So if the hoaxer did come forward to claim his work, then he is a fake? rolleyes

No one will come forward because they have no case. When you submit something anonymously to the public domain and attribute the origin to ET, that is more or less an open invitation for anyone to use it as they see fit.

Now we join imaginary court proceedings.

Plaintiff- "No really, I created the LAP. See all my work and early drafts!"

Judge- "But you submitted it to the public domain under the pretense that it was ET in origin. That made everyone think it was safe to use it without fear of reprisal. Did you think you could sit back and wait until enough people took your bait and then file multiple copyright suits? It doesn't work that way , son! Case dismissed!"


It will not go that way if it does happen. What you describe is not the process.
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by TheShadow on Oct 7th, 2009, 4:43pm

on Oct 4th, 2009, 7:42pm, tomi01uk wrote:
Yep, you're right. My wrong

Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by tommi01 on Oct 7th, 2009, 4:47pm

on Oct 7th, 2009, 4:43pm, TheShadow wrote:

Not in this case. You get a registration number for the copyrights by being vetted and submitting through the Library of Congress with attention paid to your submission personally by people with authority.

Once that registration number has been given, it is your right to this copyright.

The Law Firm would decide to take this case based on the realistic measure of overcoming that defense, which would be raised initially by the Plaintiffs lawyer in answering the claims in the lawsuit.
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by TheShadow on Oct 7th, 2009, 4:51pm

on Oct 7th, 2009, 4:47pm, tomi01uk wrote:
Not in this case. You get a registration number for the copyrights by being vetted and submitting through the Library of Congress with attention paid to your submission personally by people with authority.

Once that registration number has been given, it is your copyright.


Well since we are hearing it from you i am sure it will now put the matter to rest
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by masker33 on Oct 7th, 2009, 4:59pm

If any claim this as their work and seek copyright protection they will NOT be the original creators. The hoaxers maybe, but as to the originators of the work, fakes. Hoaxers can hoax without their own original material.
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by tommi01 on Oct 7th, 2009, 5:08pm

on Oct 7th, 2009, 4:59pm, Masker33 wrote:
If any claim this as their work and seek copyright protection they will NOT be the original creators. The hoaxers maybe, but as to the originators of the work, fakes. Hoaxers can hoax without their own original material.


Who created the design and why? What is the value of it beyond revenues from AW ?
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by Gort on Oct 7th, 2009, 5:08pm

on Oct 7th, 2009, 4:59pm, Masker33 wrote:
If any claim this as their work and seek copyright protection they will NOT be the original creators. The hoaxers maybe, but as to the originators of the work, fakes. Hoaxers can hoax without their own original material.


A copyright on an original fake

why not
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by neveleeleven on Oct 7th, 2009, 5:10pm

Jeddyhi is exactly right. Since "Isaac" said the LAP was of "alien" origin and put them in public domain, they fall under the "Scène à faire" doctrine.

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

The genre being "alien", they are not fully protected from copyright because weird symbols, geometry, and fonts are expected when depicting an alien scene.


Even then, they are protected under "Fair Use" because they only used less than 5% of the original design, and not even 90% or 100%. They can easily claim they were "inspired by" the LAP which is legal under Fair Use.

Once again.... no case Tomi, and Lev (Masker), no case.


Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by SiddReader on Oct 7th, 2009, 5:12pm

Hehe! grin

Indeed! I could admit, that it was mine now and nobody would believe me.

But I think, Kris said this already two years ago.

Maybe you believe me, that those cars are my cars. One should never give up and try again! wink
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by DrDil on Oct 7th, 2009, 5:13pm

on Oct 7th, 2009, 4:39pm, tomi01uk wrote:
It will not go that way if it does happen. What you describe is not the process.

Hi Tomi,

But as even the Drone believers suggested it’s not inconceivable that the hoaxer has at some point took part in the conversations and if what you allege about the multi0million dollar payout is remotely accurate then I think it’s fair to say Dell would rigorously pursue evidence to the contrary. In a court of law I suspect even the Isaac documentation could be proven to be after the fact as the alien-glyphs first appeared on the Chad craft. But my point being if as Gort suggested we were to file then certainly in my case my digital footprint across the internet is so inextricably connected to the discussing the Drones then I wholly expect that this would be used to cast reasonable doubt on any such claim. Realistically it would have to be argued that the creators were oblivious to the organic enigma the Drones became otherwise, and as already mentioned, you would have to provide a reasonable explanation as to why being so backward in coming forward to claim prior ownership. Somehow the originators of the Drone images don't strike me as people who are clueless when it comes to PC's & the internet.....

While I agree with you that it would likely never play out exactly as Jed joked about, i.e. that the physical scenario presented may never in actuality exist, the reasoning behind such a hypothetical conclusion would have to, wouldn’t it?

on Oct 7th, 2009, 4:59pm, Masker33 wrote:
If any claim this as their work and seek copyright protection they will NOT be the original creators. The hoaxers maybe, but as to the originators of the work, fakes. Hoaxers can hoax without their own original material.

Catch22 or yet another ‘get-out clause’?
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by tommi01 on Oct 7th, 2009, 5:17pm

on Oct 7th, 2009, 5:10pm, neveleeleven wrote:
Jeddyhi is exactly right. Since "Isaac" said the LAP was of "alien" origin and put them in public domain, they fall under the "Scène à faire" doctrine.

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

The genre being "alien", they are not fully protected from copyright because weird symbols, geometry, and fonts are expected when depicting an alien scene.


Even then, they are protected under "Fair Use" because they only used less than 5% of the original design, and not even 90% or 100%. They can easily claim they were "inspired by" the LAP which is legal under Fair Use.

Once again.... no case Tomi, and Lev (Masker), no case.



Never... never does a creative work go on a product line to market that line for profit and become "fair use".

DrDil, your use of the LAP, which is all I am are refering to in this copyright issue, would be considered fair use, IMO.

Getting caught in the crossfire won't even happen to you probably, because you are using examples of the LAP in your displays of commentary about it. IMO

I think both you and Jeddyih are right that the big defense from Dell will be that the LAP was put out into public domain. What Isaac said will be worthless, because only the copyright symbol would factor for the defense of the creators defending their work.

How this could be explained, I don't know, but the time limitation if I remember correctly is 2 years to defend and register from first infringement.. I may be wrong here in specifically how much time, but there is a statute of limitations for registering and defending.


Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by neveleeleven on Oct 7th, 2009, 5:22pm

on Oct 7th, 2009, 5:17pm, tomi01uk wrote:
Never... never does a creative work go on a product line to market that line for profit and become "fair use".


Ooooohhh really,

Prove it!!

I guess you know nothing about the T-Shirt industry. Nothing about the decal/sticker industry. Nothing about graphics, or advertising industry. Actually you just proved you know NOTHING about ANYTHING right now.

You are so clueless.

I can prove you wrong in a million ways right now, and in the future you will say "You are right, my wrong." AS USUAL.

Tomi it's time for you to check into a retirement home.
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by neveleeleven on Oct 7th, 2009, 5:26pm

Tomi, when someone looks at a creative work like the LAP, and they get inspired by it, and create something very similar but not exactly the same. That is Fair Use....

That new creative work they created while being inspired by the LAP is now their own property, and they can use it to advertise, market, or sell anything they want.

How the freak do you not understand that, and with your so called "knowledge" of copyright, how do you not know how this works?? My 10 year old nephew understands this.....

You know nothing Tomi, and you prove it every day.
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by tommi01 on Oct 7th, 2009, 5:27pm

on Oct 7th, 2009, 5:22pm, neveleeleven wrote:
Ooooohhh really,

Prove it!!

I guess you know nothing about the T-Shirt industry. Nothing about the decal/sticker industry. Nothing about graphics, or advertising industry. Actually you just proved you know NOTHING about ANYTHING right now.

You are so clueless.

I can prove you wrong in a million ways right now, and in the future you will say "You are right, my wrong." AS USUAL.

Tomi it's time for you to check into a retirement home.


Never.. go take your favorite version of Mickey Mouse and put him on tshirts and coffeecups then get back to me later after you see what happens .. ok?


Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by neveleeleven on Oct 7th, 2009, 5:31pm

Mickey Mouse is trademarked you idiot!

Do you still not know the difference??

Geeez you are so ignorant.
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by tommi01 on Oct 7th, 2009, 5:32pm

on Oct 7th, 2009, 5:26pm, neveleeleven wrote:
Tomi, when someone looks at a creative work like the LAP, and they get inspired by it, and create something very similar but not exactly the same. That is Fair Use....

That new creative work they created while being inspired by the LAP is now their own property, and they can use it to advertise, market, or sell anything they want.

How the freak do you not understand that, and with your so called "knowledge" of copyright, how do you not know how this works?? My 10 year old nephew understands this.....

You know nothing Tomi, and you prove it every day.


Bone up on what "fair use" is for and think about this as well:

3.Copyright in the derivative work
Provided it is significantly different to the original work the derivative work will be subject to copyright in it's own right, and you will own copyright to the new content you have created as a result of your actions. Bear in mind that to be subject to copyright the creation of the derivative work must itself be an original work of skill, labour and judgement; minor alterations that do not substantially alter the original would not qualify.


http://www.copyrightservice.co.uk/copyright/p22_derivative_works.en.htm
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by tommi01 on Oct 7th, 2009, 5:35pm

on Oct 7th, 2009, 5:31pm, neveleeleven wrote:
Mickey Mouse is trademarked you idiot!

Do you still not know the difference??

Geeez you are so ignorant.


Exactly the point.. You think you can take "creative work" that doesn't belong to you or you are not authorised to use and print it on tshirts to market and sell? You are seriously wrong here .. not me.
And if you have to resort to calling me names that just defines the limits of your small brain, IMO.
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by neveleeleven on Oct 7th, 2009, 5:38pm

3.Copyright in the derivative work
Provided it is significantly different to the original work the derivative work will be subject to copyright in it's own right, and you will own copyright to the new content you have created as a result of your actions. Bear in mind that to be subject to copyright the creation of the derivative work must itself be an original work of skill, labour and judgement; minor alterations that do not substantially alter the original would not qualify.


Now you are proving yourself wrong and you don't even realize it!

The symbols from Alienware ARE significantly different. There is nothing that suggests that it was a 100% copy and paste. They had to create the work with their own skill, labour, and judgement. They added their own style to it too.

When it says "minor alterations that do not substantially alter the original would not qualify" they are talking about taking the actual LAP itself, and changing 1 or 2 symbols and then using it.

What Alienware did, is they looked at the LAP, and they created an entirely knew LAP with their own setup, their own lines, their own FONT. The only similarity is that it is made of arcs, and gears/cogs, and geometric shapes.... There is absolutely NOTHING that is 100% the same.

Get a damn clue...


Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by tommi01 on Oct 7th, 2009, 5:42pm

on Oct 7th, 2009, 5:38pm, neveleeleven wrote:
3.Copyright in the derivative work
Provided it is significantly different to the original work the derivative work will be subject to copyright in it's own right, and you will own copyright to the new content you have created as a result of your actions. Bear in mind that to be subject to copyright the creation of the derivative work must itself be an original work of skill, labour and judgement; minor alterations that do not substantially alter the original would not qualify.


Now you are proving yourself wrong and you don't even realize it!

The symbols from Alienware ARE significantly different. There is nothing that suggests that it was a 100% copy and paste. They had to create the work with their own skill, labour, and judgement. They added their own style to it too.

When it says "minor alterations that do not substantially alter the original would not qualify" they are talking about taking the actual LAP itself, and changing 1 or 2 symbols and then using it.

What Alienware did, is they looked at the LAP, and they created an entirely knew LAP with their own setup, their own lines, their own FONT. The only similarity is that it is made of arcs, and gears/cogs, and geometric shapes.... There is absolutely NOTHING that is 100% the same.

Get a damn clue...



Your significant difference and mine may vary.. I see nothing significantly "original" in design from the design of the LAP.
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by neveleeleven on Oct 7th, 2009, 5:46pm

on Oct 7th, 2009, 5:35pm, tomi01uk wrote:
Exactly the point.. You think you can take "creative work" that doesn't belong to you or you are not authorised to use and print it on tshirts to market and sell?


No I never said that you freaking moron. Learn how to read.

I said you can look at "creative work", get inspired by it, and create your own work that looks similar. That falls under Fair Use.

However if the creative work is "TRADEMARKED" that means specific elements, precise measurements, can not be recreated.

Do you understand the difference between Trademark and Copyright? If you do, tell me then...I want to see if you know.

on Oct 7th, 2009, 5:35pm, tomi01uk wrote:
You are seriously wrong here .. not me.
And if you have to resort to calling me names that just defines the limits of your small brain, IMO.


Nope, I am right here, you are the clueless one.

Resorting to name calling does not define the limit of ones brain, thinking that means you know nothing about psychology either.

It defines the limit that one can withstand someones bullshit and ignorance before they feel the need to tell the other person they are bullshit and ignorant, stupid and fucking plain retarded.

How dare you even mention my brain, it is obvious I have knowledge in 1000 more subjects than you, and you will never be able to comprehend half the things I know.

You don't even know what a "Letigraphonate" is...hahahahahahahaha
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by neveleeleven on Oct 7th, 2009, 5:51pm

on Oct 7th, 2009, 5:42pm, tomi01uk wrote:
Your significant difference and mine may vary.. I see nothing significantly "original" in design from the design of the LAP.


Tomi, you are a blind old hag. You are decaying. Your mind is incapable of seeing true reality. You have no clue about light, or shadows.

I will prove it too...

Remember a long time ago I showed a picture of knife? I asked if it was real or fake... You said "it is obviously fake".... well guess what... it was a REAL KNIFE, and I took a picture of it on top of my washing machine to make it look like it was in a 3D environment. I even messed with all of your minds and told you true 3D graphics tricks to get your mind to see it different. Your mind is what controls your vision, and I know how to manipulate both. You got played.

You swore up and down it was a fake knife, but you were wrong. Completely wrong. It's funny I waited over a year to tell you that.

Get your eyes and mind checked.


Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by tommi01 on Oct 7th, 2009, 5:55pm

Look never, you are too out in left field and too nasty and vulgar in your arguments to even bother with.

"Every artist is a cannibel, every poet is a theif.."

fair use if use it in a headline to an article..
infringement if I print tshirts with it and sell them..

If I take the concept and reword it, I'm copyrighted if I publish...

Same with designs..


Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by masker33 on Oct 7th, 2009, 6:01pm

The real creators will never complain, so if someone wants to claim copyright and ask for a fee go for it. So easy to fan this flame.
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by neveleeleven on Oct 7th, 2009, 6:11pm

It's because someone needs to put you in your place.

You are too ignorant to understand basic concepts, to blind to make basic comparisons, and to dumb to comprehend simple laws.

The plain fact that you think you can sum up "Fair Use" in one sentence means you have no clue what it is for. All the professionals know "Fair Use" is not a clear cut law, and is open to many disputes..... Seriously read up on it, you need to.




Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by SiddReader on Oct 7th, 2009, 6:18pm

I don't see any difference between this discussion and people like LMH.

It's all the same.

I also don't see any difference to religious extremists. It's all the same.

Only that religion has some relation to real life.

By for now and to god be the glory!
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by tommi01 on Oct 7th, 2009, 6:19pm

on Oct 7th, 2009, 6:11pm, neveleeleven wrote:
It's because someone needs to put you in your place.

You are too ignorant to understand basic concepts, to blind to make basic comparisons, and to dumb to comprehend simple laws.

The plain fact that you think you can sum up "Fair Use" in one sentence means you have no clue what it is for. All the professionals know "Fair Use" is not a clear cut law, and is open to many disputes..... Seriously read up on it, you need to.





I'm ignorant? If you think you can mix up Trademark law with Copyright law you are whistleing dixie out of your keyhole.. yet again..

There is as wide a gulf between those two fields of IP law as you can get. The only thing I'm talking about here is copyright.
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by TheShadow on Oct 7th, 2009, 6:23pm

on Oct 7th, 2009, 5:27pm, tomi01uk wrote:
Never.. go take your favorite version of Mickey Mouse and put him on tshirts and coffeecups then get back to me later after you see what happens .. ok?



Funny you should mention this!

The following is 100% true and accurate!

Many moons ago in a previous life in the north of the USA I was a painter. A housepainter that moonlighted doing wall murals on the side. Disney characters were my bread and butter (this was back when Beauty and the Beast and The Little Mermaid were the rage) I was threatened by Disney lawyers but you know what......I changed enough of the character and Disney could not sue. All it took was to change the characters enough that they were not exact replicas. (ie: change the color of the Beasts jacket and make his fangs come from the top instead of the bottom and make the Little Mermaid's hair any color but red!) and Disney could not sue and win! I went round and round with their lawyers until they finally said i was right!!

End of story!

So tomi.....what do you say to this??
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by Katterfelto on Oct 7th, 2009, 6:26pm

on Oct 7th, 2009, 6:01pm, Masker33 wrote:
The real creators will never complain, so if someone wants to claim copyright and ask for a fee go for it. So easy to fan this flame.

Yes your flame is easy to fan and predict too Masker. Blah Blah Blah, the real creators are not of this world, have no need to claim the rights and you know some secret. There I said it for you.
This and the Tomi Show is getting boring as H E double toothpicks and painful as well. tongue
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by tommi01 on Oct 7th, 2009, 6:30pm

on Oct 7th, 2009, 6:23pm, TheShadow wrote:
Funny you should mention this!

Many moons ago in a previous life in the north of the USA I was a painter. A housepainter that moonlighted doing wall murals on the side. Disney characters were my bread and butter (this was back when Beauty and the Beast and The Little Mermaid were the rage) I was threatened by Disney lawyers but you know what......I changed enough of the character and Disney could not sue. All it took was to change the characters enough that they were not exact replicas. (ie: change the color of the Beasts jacket and make his fangs come from the top instead of the bottom and make the Little Mermaid's hair any color but red!) and Disney could not sue and win! I went round and round with their lawyers until they finally said i was right!!

End of story!

So tomi.....what do you say to this??


I'd say the wouldn't have let go of you so fast if you had a franchise going across many states... that's for sure..

They mess with insurance companies when they go after infringements, or they just nip what they can in the bud.

I'm not an IPR lawyer, I have in a previous life done the sue 13 companies for copyright infringement and prevailed.. all in the manner I've described here.
But that was products and a distribution chain, which is where firm law is established in precidents and sheppared through in procedures. Like I've described.
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by TheShadow on Oct 7th, 2009, 6:32pm

on Oct 7th, 2009, 6:30pm, tomi01uk wrote:
I'd say the wouldn't have let go of you so fast if you had a franchise going across many states... that's for sure..

They mess with insurance companies when they go after infringements, or they just nip what they can in the bud.

I'm not an IPR lawyer, I have in a previous life done the sue 13 companies for copyright infringement and prevailed.. all in the manner I've described here.
But that was products and a distribution chain, which is where firm law is established in precidents and sheppared through in procedures. Like I've described.


10% is the key to make it original! So you have been proven WRONG once again!! Why not drop it and move on to your next sanctioned diversion
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by neveleeleven on Oct 7th, 2009, 6:34pm

I'm just here to make Tomi shut up. Don't mind me. LOL

So what is the point of all this?

We all know it's a HOAX. We can prove it many different ways.

Who the heck cares about who and why? It's obvious the "Who" doesn't matter since they don't know anything. Nothing they said was true, nothing they ever will say in the future could ever be trusted. If they are trying to hoax people, they are just worthless, talentless, scumbags. Nothing they said was original and can be found in many sci-fi books and movies, nothing they did was important at all.

The only thing they accomplished was fooling a bunch of gullible people, and ANYBODY can do that! That's not an accomplishment, that is inevitability. Anyone can create an image that fools half the people that looks at it, and anybody can tell a lie that fools half the people that hear it, and anybody can create a bunch of fake documents to support a lie, it's done all the time.

They certainly accomplished pissing off the wrong people, that is for sure.

The Why? Since it is all a lie, and all a hoax, the why is certainly something mundane.

Seriously, the recent "Spain UFO hoax" cost more money than this drone hoax, and it was only for a tribute to someone.

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread505739/pg1

They go through all the trouble to make this Spain hoax, they fool hundreds of gullible people with the inability to see with their eyes correctly, and then later admit it was all a hoax. All for a tribute to someone....

The drone hoax is not even close to being as costly as the Spain UFO, so it must be something was less mundane.

Anyway, I'm going back to the sidelines before I'm tempted to illegally enter someones computer and compromise identities.



Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by TheShadow on Oct 7th, 2009, 6:35pm

on Oct 7th, 2009, 6:34pm, neveleeleven wrote:
I'm just here to make Tomi shut up.



If only that were possible!! grin
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by tommi01 on Oct 7th, 2009, 6:36pm

on Oct 7th, 2009, 6:26pm, Katterfelto wrote:
Yes your flame is easy to fan and predict too Masker. Blah Blah Blah, the real creators are not of this world, have no need to claim the rights and you know some secret. There I said it for you.
This and the Tomi Show is getting boring as H E double toothpicks and painful as well. tongue


It's not supposed to be the tomi show and I'm pretty bored of defending myself as well as what post..

All I wanted was a quiet conversation with Mask.. rolleyes
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by TheShadow on Oct 7th, 2009, 6:37pm

on Oct 7th, 2009, 6:36pm, tomi01uk wrote:
It's not supposed to be the tomi show and I'm pretty bored of defending myself as well as what post..

All I wanted was a quiet conversation with Mask.. rolleyes


I believe they invented this thing called a PM for that......oh and email as well!! You wanted controversy tomi Why lie??
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by tommi01 on Oct 7th, 2009, 6:39pm

on Oct 7th, 2009, 6:32pm, TheShadow wrote:
10% is the key to make it original! So you have been proven WRONG once again!! Why not drop it and move on to your next sanctioned diversion


Shads, there is no set measure, if so that would be the bar that everyone would reach for and 90% of the best tunes would be repeated with new words or vice versa..

Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by tommi01 on Oct 7th, 2009, 6:45pm

on Oct 7th, 2009, 5:51pm, neveleeleven wrote:

No, you decrepit mosquito...
If you had half a brain in that oversized hat you are wearing and speaking out of..
you would realise reading back that I am the one who called it real !! Yes I did.. I remember why as well.
the knife edge looked too real to me. look it up.
grin
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by neveleeleven on Oct 7th, 2009, 6:49pm

on Oct 7th, 2009, 6:19pm, tomi01uk wrote:
I'm ignorant? If you think you can mix up Trademark law with Copyright law you are whistleing dixie out of your keyhole.. yet again..

There is as wide a gulf between those two fields of IP law as you can get. The only thing I'm talking about here is copyright.


Tomi, you just tried to compare Mickey Mouse, a Trademarked character, with a public domain non-Trademarked LAP.

Do you understand how dumb that is?

..now YOU have the nerve to talk about mixing up the twohuh

Wow, if you are not paid to act this dumb then you have a serious problem.
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by TheShadow on Oct 7th, 2009, 6:49pm

on Oct 7th, 2009, 6:45pm, tomi01uk wrote:
No, you decrepit mosquito...
If you had half a brain in that oversized hat you are wearing and speaking out of..
you would realise reading back that I am the one who called it real !! Yes I did.. I remember why as well.
the knife edge looked too real to me. look it up.
grin


2 words for the expert

THUMPER DRONE!
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by neveleeleven on Oct 7th, 2009, 6:54pm

on Oct 7th, 2009, 6:45pm, tomi01uk wrote:
If you had half a brain in that oversized hat you are wearing and speaking out of.. you would realise reading back that I am the one who called it real !! Yes I did.. I remember why as well.
the knife edge looked too real to me. look it up.
grin



Quote:
Originally posted by tomiuk
Right, I believe it is CG and I think the edge gives it away.. imho smiley


http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/single/4597934.html

So, if Tomi thinks I have "half a brain", yet I remember her exact words about the knife.. Then what size brain does Tomi have when she can't even remember her own words, and even lies about them, and TRYS to insult me in the process?

LOL...............

Oh yes, I mentioned the knife in perfect timing wouldn't you say?
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by tommi01 on Oct 7th, 2009, 6:56pm

on Oct 7th, 2009, 6:49pm, neveleeleven wrote:
Tomi, you just tried to compare Mickey Mouse, a Trademarked character, with a public domain non-Trademarked LAP.

Do you understand how dumb that is?

..now YOU have the nerve to talk about mixing up the twohuh

Wow, if you are not paid to act this dumb then you have a serious problem.


This is it.. unless I get to talk to mask I've made my point, I rest my case.. lipsrsealed lipsrsealed lipsrsealed lipsrsealed

exception: Never, where do you get the idea that the disney images of mickey mouse are not copyrighted?
Which is what I'm talking about...
Trademark law and Copyright law are entirely different fields of specialisation and expertise and litigation.
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by TheShadow on Oct 7th, 2009, 7:00pm

on Oct 7th, 2009, 6:56pm, tomi01uk wrote:
This is it.. unless I get to talk to mask I've made my point, I rest my case.. lipsrsealed lipsrsealed lipsrsealed lipsrsealed

exception: Never, where do you get the idea that the disney images of mickey mouse are not copyrighted?
Which is what I'm talking about...
Trademark law and Copyright law are entirely different fields of specialisation and expertise and litigation.


The only point you've proven is that you are a total liar that has zero credibilty! If that was your intention then CONGRATS!!!
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by neveleeleven on Oct 7th, 2009, 7:06pm

Quote:
Never.. go take your favorite version of Mickey Mouse and put him on tshirts and coffeecups then get back to me later after you see what happens .. ok? -tomi



You just tried to compare a Trademarked cartoon icon with the non-Trademarked LAP.

Do you see how dumb you are?

Quote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mickey_Mouse
It is sometimes erroneously stated that the Mickey Mouse character is only copyrighted. In fact, the character, like all major Disney characters, is also trademarked, which lasts in perpetuity as long as it continues to be used commercially by its owner. So, whether or not a particular Disney cartoon goes into the public domain, the characters themselves may not be used as trademarks without authorization.


Do you know anything about Public Domain Tomi??

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





Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by Jeddyhi on Oct 7th, 2009, 7:08pm

Didn't all this just happen 20 pages ago. grin
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by Katterfelto on Oct 7th, 2009, 7:11pm

on Oct 7th, 2009, 6:56pm, tomi01uk wrote:
This is it.. unless I get to talk to mask I've made my point, I rest my case.. lipsrsealed lipsrsealed lipsrsealed lipsrsealed

That about says it all and will be your fate. Be careful what you ask for.
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by neveleeleven on Oct 7th, 2009, 7:14pm

on Oct 7th, 2009, 6:45pm, tomi01uk wrote:
If you had half a brain in that oversized hat you are wearing and speaking out of.. you would realise reading back that I am the one who called it real !! Yes I did.. I remember why as well.
the knife edge looked too real to me. look it up.
grin


Look....

Quote:
Originally posted by tomiuk
Right, I believe it is CG and I think the edge gives it away.. imho smiley


http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/single/4597934.html

So, if Tomi thinks I have "half a brain", yet I remember her exact words about the knife..... Then what size brain does Tomi have when she can't even remember her own words, and even lies about them, and TRYS to insult me in the process?

LOL...............

Oh yes, I mentioned the knife in perfect timing wouldn't you say?
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by tommi01 on Oct 7th, 2009, 7:16pm

Well, I got half of it right, guess the edge of that was what I remembered best about that one post on july 8th in 2008 for crying out loud.. If this is what makes me a liar, I would hate to have you as family.. sorry.. but it's pretty extreme.. where you come from..

and then I find I even posted this as well. bad tomi..

posted on 8-7-2008 @ 06:05 PM single this post "quote"REPLY TO:


Even if I'm wrong and the knife is real, the rotorooter is beyond the edge ever imagined in any knife..



Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by Radi on Oct 7th, 2009, 7:17pm

on Oct 7th, 2009, 7:08pm, Jeddyhi wrote:
Didn't all this just happen 20 pages ago. grin

Yep smiley smiley
(insert ally, beer, hank, dale..etc..) laugh
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by neveleeleven on Oct 7th, 2009, 7:22pm

on Oct 7th, 2009, 7:16pm, tomi01uk wrote:
Well, I got half of it right, guess the edge of that was what I remembered best about that one post on july 8th in 2008 for crying out loud..


You are still trying to cover your ass.

You didn't get "half" of anything right, you thought it was 100% CGI. You even mentioned that the "lighting" gave it away when it was 100% real lighting from a cell phone camera.

You lied when you said you thought it was real, you didn't think it was real, you thought it was CG.

You are a dumb liar, with not even a quarter of a brain inside your over-sized wig.

You are just blind.
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by tommi01 on Oct 7th, 2009, 7:27pm

on Oct 7th, 2009, 7:22pm, neveleeleven wrote:
You are still trying to cover your ass.

You didn't get "half" of anything right, you thought it was 100% CGI. You even mentioned that the "lighting" gave it away when it was 100% real lighting from a cell phone camera.

You lied when you said you thought it was real, you didn't think it was real, you thought it was CG.

You are a dumb liar, with not even a quarter of a brain inside your over-sized wig.

You are just blind.


Hey never, you want to think I'm a liar for remembering real over cgi instead of the other way around.. you want to know the truth.. I haven't thought about your bleeding knife edge since July 8th 2008, that's how fricking impressed I was with your display.. so excuse me ! for remembering wrong.. I'm a liar in your book?
Hey, that's fine with me.
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by Jeddyhi on Oct 7th, 2009, 7:34pm

on Oct 7th, 2009, 7:27pm, tomi01uk wrote:
Hey never, you want to think I'm a liar for remembering real over cgi instead of the other way around.. you want to know the truth.. I haven't thought about your bleeding knife edge since July 8th 2008, that's how fricking impressed I was with your display.. so excuse me ! for remembering wrong.. I'm a liar in your book?
Hey, that's fine with me.


Whether you remembered wrong or told a lie is actually beside the point. You thought a real object was CGI.
And CGI drones you thought real......'nuff said!

Most people don't like to remember when they were wrong and some like you don't even like to admit when they are wrong ( Like thinking T Palmer's post was about a default image logo and not pg120 from the LAP).
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by YourWorstNightmare on Oct 8th, 2009, 12:25am

Can't remember what country shes posting from, what her real Occupation is, IT? hmm OMF was IT, Numbers was IT, yet..nothing to prove it..I play MMOrg and in a fantasy setting I can still provide screenshots, dates, scores..what thirteen companies she harped about as the basis of experience,..why..none..thats why.. and talking Masker33 who can't remember what Time Zone he's in when he posts when Lev posts..pictures. and is caughtwho else did that at one time..I have to check my notes..at critical moments..like these.., something she also forgot to do .whith the papers editor.....Odd form of jet lag..Drone Lag perhaps? I can see why LMH chose her as her confident..
This was a talent she could feel instant kinship with, somehow they both now can't recall being friends , or was part of the Reyes, really LMH Whitley study group..with whoelse..the master of the key explaining the event for us..even.. how the story even went or how one was a mouth piece for the other..

I can't remember anything so Bizrre myself..it must be catching..
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by neveleeleven on Oct 8th, 2009, 03:50am

Tomi is an "ex hacker".... remember?

Quote:
Nah.. a gave up hacking a while back... -Tomiuk


ha ha.... ha ha ha.... hahahahaha.....hahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahaha!

Sorry that is really funny. She probably doesn't even know the first step to memory hacking.

Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by tommi01 on Oct 8th, 2009, 06:24am

Something tells me never.. you are no Adrian Lamo..
and neither am I cool
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by Jeddyhi on Oct 8th, 2009, 07:22am

Nobody knows what you are exactly....and IT expert, a copyright expert, a simple housewife with a husband that plays WoW to much, a dedicated dronie, an ex hacker,.......you seem to morph to whatever the situation calls for.

I'd guess that mostly you are a dronie troll that loves drone controversy. Anything to keep the topic going, and going, and going, and going, and going, and going, and going, and going, and going, etc........
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by tommi01 on Oct 8th, 2009, 09:27am

on Oct 8th, 2009, 07:22am, Jeddyhi wrote:
Nobody knows what you are exactly....and IT expert, a copyright expert, a simple housewife with a husband that plays WoW to much, a dedicated dronie, an ex hacker,.......you seem to morph to whatever the situation calls for.


You forgot elephant keeper... thankfully the only Asians around here are human .. huh wink


Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by YourWorstNightmare on Oct 8th, 2009, 11:48am

You failed in that too. as evidenced by your forgetting to bring your shovel ..a real must for that occupation..
So tell us how your career at Epiphane launched such a multitude of other occupations. Reminds me of Numbers who said he thought Einstein was wrong, and knew the intimate details for what every part of a drone was..You'd swear he built it himself. Or HPO who dazzled us with his model..but failed to specify just what convention he was using it for as a display as he mentioned and never responded to that simple request. Or OTF who started playing behavioral psychologist with that silly red pill blue pill lblog..never did update the final scores..Sheer Egoes with identity crisis to boot..Like Atto..Engineer and transgender character like Abraham.in SCC .at least hes taking clear decisive action in his confusion....but from what school..Wisconsin U? no record I'm afraid....Or Mark Cater..self described as Genius and King of Craps..and a mathematics expert and physicist even....though Fizzicist is more appropriate..yet..all share an accute aversion and peculiar dislike of people, experts particularly, who actually have credentials and can supply them.

As I stated before..I can say I am champion of Cyridll in the game of Oblivioin, or accomplished Distinguished Veteran in Jade Dynasty..and supply everyone documentation. screenshots..stats...Thats a game now..a verifiable game....But in your game..you can't even do that..
much less answer questions..honestly..something which apparently is a bannable offense in yours..and the others..at DRT. Thats verifiable and a fact.

Forgetting to bring your shovel as Elephant Keeper..has left you wallowing in quite a mess..If you do bring one to the next Hoax..don't forget to put training wheels on it. cool
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by Gort on Oct 8th, 2009, 12:18pm

Anyone consider the woman is just plane crazy
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by tommi01 on Oct 8th, 2009, 12:26pm

on Oct 8th, 2009, 11:48am, YourWorstNightmare wrote:
So tell us how your career at --------- launched such a multitude of other occupations.

I forgot to have children? Honestly sys.. you should know that in this age we will have numerous careers. But the elephants was my favorite. Motherhood instinct kicking in perhaps wink

No more personal about me.. back to the drones or argue about mixing copyright law with trademark law fallacies...
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by Jeddyhi on Oct 8th, 2009, 12:41pm

on Oct 8th, 2009, 12:26pm, tomi01uk wrote:
I forgot to have children? Honestly sys.. you should know that in this age we will have numerous careers. But the elephants was my favorite. Motherhood instinct kicking in perhaps wink

No more personal about me.. back to the drones or argue about mixing copyright law with trademark law fallacies...


You would like that, wouldn't you.....I say we keep it about it you and your motives.

Why do you come to this thread?
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by Marvin on Oct 8th, 2009, 3:07pm








Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by neveleeleven on Oct 8th, 2009, 3:47pm

on Oct 8th, 2009, 06:24am, tomi01uk wrote:
Something tells me never.. you are no Adrian Lamo..
and neither am I cool


Whatever that "something" is, and whatever it told you, it is wrong. If that "something" is a voice in your head, well then it explains to me that you are suffering from Schizophrenia.

Quote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schizophrenia
.....and hearing hallucinatory voices that comment on one's thoughts or actions or that have a conversation with other hallucinated voices......


That explains why you think you have all these hidden talents, and why you think you are an expert in so many fields when you clearly are not, and have proven it. It also explains why you are always wrong, and why you think real objects are fake, and fake objects are real. That voice in your head must be telling you that you are correct all the time, and maybe even giving you answers that are wrong.

I think you should go see a mental health professional.

Also, you see, Adrian Lamo was arrested for computer crimes in the past. That means he is a horrible hacker, because he got caught. As for me, I have never been to jail or prison and I never plan on going, however, Ive been "hack capable" for more than a decade.

Good Day smiley
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by masker33 on Oct 8th, 2009, 5:12pm

I will put it as plainly as possible. No one or no thing involved in any capacity with the original Drone, Issac, or Lap will ever claim credit or rights of any kind. Therefore it would seem to be open to use in many forms, but I am no expert on the law.
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by SiddReader on Oct 8th, 2009, 5:31pm

Whatever you say, Mask. But it seems to make more sense than the rest in this thread. wink
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by Radi on Oct 8th, 2009, 5:43pm

on Oct 8th, 2009, 5:12pm, Masker33 wrote:
I will put it as plainly as possible. No one or no thing involved in any capacity with the original Drone, Issac, or Lap will ever claim credit or rights of any kind. Therefore it would seem to be open to use in many forms, but I am no expert on the law.


Things? What things? Is there a highly motivated dog involved....Why won't this dog come out? That'd be a keeper right there..
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by Double Nought Spy on Oct 8th, 2009, 6:14pm


Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by Katterfelto on Oct 8th, 2009, 6:42pm

on Oct 8th, 2009, 5:12pm, Masker33 wrote:
I will put it as plainly as possible. No one or no thing involved in any capacity with the original Drone, Issac, or Lap will ever claim credit or rights of any kind. Therefore it would seem to be open to use in many forms, but I am no expert on the law.

Right on cue mask. You're getting too easy to read lately.
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by Klatunictobarata on Oct 8th, 2009, 6:48pm

on Oct 8th, 2009, 12:18pm, Gort wrote:
Anyone consider the woman is just plane crazy



As I pause reflect on these proceedings, I ponder this:

Who is the real victim here?

It's gotta be the husband, who is so lost in WoW he has to be terminally oblivious or a freaking vegetable by now.

But seriously, the troll m.o. concept is the best take on Tomi, because she purposefully pushes our serious buttons and sits back to observe our schadenfreude with relish.

I'm wondering if this behavior proved too much even for the DRT...
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by Marvin on Oct 9th, 2009, 07:52am

on Oct 8th, 2009, 5:12pm, Masker33 wrote:
I will put it as plainly as possible. No one or no thing involved in any capacity with the original Drone, Issac, or Lap will ever claim credit or rights of any kind.



Hummmm.

Inside information. grin


The hoaxers should be proud. Look at what has been accomplished... and a future in the offering, congrats.


Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by DrDil on Oct 13th, 2009, 9:32pm

on Oct 8th, 2009, 12:26pm, tomi01uk wrote:
No more personal about me.. back to the drones or argue about mixing copyright law with trademark law fallacies...

Hi Tomi smiley,

As I’m sure you’re aware I’ve never once questioned your background regarding the copyright aspect and as there’s a couple of things bothering me about the recent discussion wanted to ask a couple of questions that really only you can answer. wink

Firstly I wanted to ask if you agree that the following statement is no more than copyright myth?

Quote:
"If it's posted to internet it's in the public domain."

And more importantly it is indeed a falsehood and/or myth because:

Quote:
Nothing modern and creative is in the public domain anymore unless the owner explicitly puts it in the public domain. Explicitly, as in you have a note from the author/owner saying, "I grant this to the public domain."

Which would bring us full circle regarding Isaac and did he actually release the documents into the public domain, so bearing this in mind what do you think about the following statement:

Quote:
Note that granting something to the public domain is a complete abandonment of all rights. You can't make something "PD for non-commercial use." If your work is PD, other people can even modify one byte and put their name on it.

Or is this similar to as somebody on these very forums once phrased it, “You can’t be a little bit pregnant”? laugh

So I guess the real crux of the matter, the core question, is whether or not in your learned opinion the LAP was actually ‘public domain’?
Not to worry though as, “Here’s one you prepared earlier!!” grin

User Image


As you can see you state unequivocally that This IS public Domain and furthermore EVERY factposted in the text you quoted points to this and I think perhaps it’s best to gloss over your massively informed opinion that, NO lawyer would touch this case if someone came out original copyright on the LAPnot least as it directly contradicts your last 100 or so posts…..

And you also stated the following which is again a direct contradiction to almost every one of your recent posts:

User Image


I was mainly attempting to highlight the fact that of course Alienware’s lawyers would have given this LAP-based line drawing the go-ahead before one solitary single case-design was drawn up. However I was still struggling in applying these concepts of yours to the situation at hand, i.e. the possible plagiarism committed by Alienware (again see your last 100 or so posts for further details) but again somewhat fortuitously you emphatically denied that Alienware would ever have such a case, going so far as to state: So on both fronts Alienware is covered”.

User Image


And finally when you wrote:

on Oct 6th, 2009, 12:12pm, tomi01uk wrote:
Having had the experience of copyright litigation that I've had, I think that makes me more qualified than you to make an assessment of the copyright aspects of the LAP.

Well..... In your (seemingly over-qualified grin) opinion which Tomi is right?

Is it *OMF_Tomi* or *UFOCB_Tomi*?

Or perhaps it’s easier to think of it as *2007_Tomi* & *2009_Tomi* but it shouldn’t really make a difference due to the fact that the recollections you’re drawing on happened prior to both Tomi_2007 & Tomi_2009’s statements and are both specifically regarding Alienware’s use of similar segments of the LAP schematic on their saleable goods, aren’t they?

And perhaps more importantly they directly contradict one another?

Cheers!! kiss





On a lighter note my absolute personal favourite snippet of related information was:

Quote:
Note that all this assumes the poster had the right to post the item in the first place. If the poster didn't, then all the copies are pirated, and no implied licence or theoretical reduction of the copyright can take place.


Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by Double Nought Spy on Oct 14th, 2009, 12:26am

Somewhere, off in the distance, a dog barked.
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by neveleeleven on Oct 14th, 2009, 04:33am

DrDil,

hahahahaha.... your post is 100% comedic gold.

I thought I was the only one paying attention enough to strrrrreeeeeetch the argument and keep her talking so that I can do what you just did, and confront her in a major contradiction.

Honesty, the only reason I was arguing with her earlier was to watch her convict herself/himself/itself, and watch her dig a hole.... LOL

2007 Tomi vs 2009 Tomi....

...hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

So what do you think? Schizophrenia or very bad acting??

If I was a cop, or ex cop, and I noticed Tomi's constant contradiction of points of view, I would believe she is highly suspect. It is common for a liar to say one thing one day, and then another thing another day, because they forget. It's called inconsistency, and it is the first sign of someone purposely hiding something.
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by Jeddyhi on Oct 14th, 2009, 06:33am

Strangely enough, the OMF(2007) Tomi sounds more correct than the UFOCB(2009) Tomi. The UFOCB Tomi just wants to have a counter viewpoint in order to keep droning on and on and on. Those old posts seem to agree with everything we have been trying to tell her but since that viewpoint is no longer conducive to her present agenda, her contradicting herself was inevitable.

Very nice analysis and observation, DrDil. I tip my hat to your intellect and memory!
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by masker33 on Oct 14th, 2009, 09:23am

Nothing will ever claim ownership of the original Drone information, so copyright is not a question. Use it.
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by Radi on Oct 14th, 2009, 09:29am

on Oct 14th, 2009, 09:23am, Masker33 wrote:
Nothing will ever claim ownership of the original Drone information, so copyright is not a question. Use it.

yea yea you keep saying that..Do you have a point?.. wink

on Oct 14th, 2009, 06:33am, Jeddyhi wrote:
Very nice analysis and observation, DrDil. I tip my hat to your intellect and memory!

Ditto cheesy
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by masker33 on Oct 14th, 2009, 09:35am

Yes I have a point and it was stated. Nice to see who started the ball in this thread rolling again. It was much better quiet as it should be.
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by Jeddyhi on Oct 14th, 2009, 09:45am

on Oct 14th, 2009, 09:35am, Masker33 wrote:
Yes I have a point and it was stated. Nice to see who started the ball in this thread rolling again. It was much better quiet as it should be.


Silence can be a good form of damage control. grin
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by masker33 on Oct 14th, 2009, 09:51am

Dead things are usually very silent. The Drone Saga is of little use now. Lets see who keeps it running. Maybe a Drone is lifting a cow in Argentina!
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by Jeddyhi on Oct 14th, 2009, 10:03am

on Oct 14th, 2009, 09:51am, Masker33 wrote:
Dead things are usually very silent. The Drone Saga is of little use now. Lets see who keeps it running. Maybe a Drone is lifting a cow in Argentina!


We know who is keeping it running. The drone saga seems to be of good use to the DRT and the Private Detectives who are going to be giving a drone presentation at the November Las Vegas UFO Convention.
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by masker33 on Oct 14th, 2009, 10:22am

Good, then you have your answers. I, on the other hand, have my own. I wish to see who keeps it running here.
Ufology, what can one say.
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by Double Nought Spy on Oct 14th, 2009, 10:37am

Masker, you crack me up. All of you! You have posted four times in the past hour, on the subject of "Who is trying to keep the drones alive?" That's really good, but not nearly as fine as what DrDil has brought us. Thank you, Good Dr. That is, as they say, priceless. cool
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by Jeddyhi on Oct 14th, 2009, 10:49am

on Oct 14th, 2009, 10:22am, Masker33 wrote:
Good, then you have your answers. I, on the other hand, have my own. I wish to see who keeps it running here.
Ufology, what can one say.


Why is that of any relevance? Those who attempt to further propagate the drones as anything more than a hoax seem to be far more worthy of scrutiny than those that simply discuss the hoax aspect on Casebook.

The only one that attempted to keep the drones 'running' here was Tomi.
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by DrDil on Oct 14th, 2009, 2:49pm

on Oct 7th, 2009, 4:59pm, Masker33 wrote:
If any claim this as their work and seek copyright protection they will NOT be the original creators. The hoaxers maybe, but as to the originators of the work, fakes. Hoaxers can hoax without their own original material.

on Oct 7th, 2009, 6:01pm, Masker33 wrote:
The real creators will never complain, so if someone wants to claim copyright and ask for a fee go for it. So easy to fan this flame.

on Oct 8th, 2009, 5:12pm, Masker33 wrote:
I will put it as plainly as possible. No one or no thing involved in any capacity with the original Drone, Issac, or Lap will ever claim credit or rights of any kind. Therefore it would seem to be open to use in many forms, but I am no expert on the law.

on Oct 14th, 2009, 09:23am, Masker33 wrote:
Nothing will ever claim ownership of the original Drone information, so copyright is not a question. Use it.

Same spiel different mask…..

The following is from almost two years ago:



User Image

Or perhaps same ‘split’ just different ‘personality’?

on Oct 14th, 2009, 09:35am, Masker33 wrote:
Nice to see who started the ball in this thread rolling again. It was much better quiet as it should be.

The only reason I didn’t post any of this before now is that I didn’t want to add to Tomi’s woes and now that the board has quietened down I thought I’d post some of what I knew, but besides that and as Jed pointed out if you think that a few people discussing the possible how, who or why is akin to in some small way keeping the hoax alive then I suggest you lead by example and show us how we should behave, well either that or just admit the Drones interest you on a personal level and have done since you first became aware of them.

I’d hazard a guess that this is why the majority of regular posters post here as it’s why I do.

But even if the hoaxers were conclusively identified then I personally would still be interested in the Drones, obviously not (or ever) as a nuts & bolts phenomenon and neither would I be that interested in the images of the Drones themselves or even how they were created, but I remain interested nonetheless.

on Oct 14th, 2009, 09:51am, Masker33 wrote:
Lets see who keeps it running.

If this pains you so much then the best advice I have is simply not to read the thread, but the fact that you can’t resist not only reading but then offering a commentary (of sorts) suggests to me that either you want the discussion to continue or you have a character-flaw that compels you to indulge your masochistic tendencies to such an extent that bemoaning your constant displeasure reeks of hypocrisy, this being due entirely to you posting comments that relay this displeasure at the fact that people are posting comments.

on Oct 14th, 2009, 10:22am, Masker33 wrote:
I wish to see who keeps it running here.

This thread is just one of many I participate in on several forums and covering a diverse range of topics, but more tellingly is that this is the only one I participate in that involves discussing the Drone hoax, perhaps if you broadened your horizons a little you may realise that the only person that attaches any importance at all to this thread, the Drones and the people discussing them is you & yours….

Be seeing you. kiss

Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by YourWorstNightmare on Oct 14th, 2009, 3:18pm

I wos wondering when that would surface..Dr.Dil.. Coming from me having mentioned before..would appear prejudiced..From you..its the Cats Meow..^_^

Man is indeed a creature of Habit..and Levs/ Maskers habits in particular, compulsive even, are so hard to break, let alone disguise..and so very very telling.I wonder how long he thought he could keep trying to fool everyone...while all those posts were still here...there..everywhere..forever it seems..a clear sign of running out of ideas..and underestimating everyone's intelligence..and overestimating His and His.

Thank you for another archival and masterful feat.
I was wondering if he is able to tell just what time it really is .?
smiley






Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by Albert on Oct 14th, 2009, 5:20pm

Despite the discussion going on...have you considered
the 4th dimension? And how this might explain the sightings of the drones?

Maybe it is far more complex as described here, as the appearance of the drones might be of another world,
adjacent to the one we're living in.

http://www.math.union.edu/~dpvc/math/4D/

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JkxieS-6WuA

Maybe you have been barking up the wrong tree, in the
sense that the drones actually are visitors from another world, only accesible through the 4th dimension? Or a whole other dimension of which is new to the scientific area?

This could be why there are no one that claims ownership of said drones? Dimensions that lie within milimeters from ours, and perhaps engulf the witnesses of said drones?

Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by SiddReader on Oct 14th, 2009, 5:29pm

Well masker is right with his view.

Meanwhile it is the old team of the ARC, who is carrying on this story.

But as I mentioned to Dil lateley, I don't think, Masker is Lev. I always thought he is Mthood. (BTW Hi, Michael!)

But anyway: Who cares? There are no news. Maybe the PIs will bring some in November. But I doubt it.


Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by Katterfelto on Oct 14th, 2009, 5:41pm

on Oct 14th, 2009, 5:20pm, Albert wrote:
Despite the discussion going on...have you considered
the 4th dimension? And how this might explain the sightings of the drones?

Maybe it is far more complex as described here, as the appearance of the drones might be of another world,
adjacent to the one we're living in.

http://www.math.union.edu/~dpvc/math/4D/

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JkxieS-6WuA

Maybe you have been barking up the wrong tree, in the
sense that the drones actually are visitors from another world, only accesible through the 4th dimension? Or a whole other dimension of which is new to the scientific area?

This could be why there are no one that claims ownership of said drones? Dimensions that lie within milimeters from ours, and perhaps engulf the witnesses of said drones?

Seems feasible to me. Very unique and new concept I seem to recall seeing someplace recently.
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by DrDil on Oct 14th, 2009, 5:52pm

on Oct 14th, 2009, 5:41pm, Katterfelto wrote:
Seems feasible to me. Very unique and new concept I seem to recall seeing someplace recently.

Hi Katt, I hope you’re well. smiley

I’m sincerely pleased you decided to return to the fray discussion as I was sad to see you vacate this forum (and others).

Cheers!! grin

Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by Katterfelto on Oct 14th, 2009, 6:12pm

on Oct 14th, 2009, 5:52pm, DrDil wrote:
Hi Katt, I hope you’re well. smiley

I’m sincerely pleased you decided to return to the fray discussion as I was sad to see you vacate this forum (and others).

Cheers!! grin

Thanks DrDil.
The lights (and cows) in the sky UFO's and endless conspiracy theories at OMF and ATS just wore me down I guess. The final straw was seeing those lab rat cartoons posted by Tomi. Can't believe how much I've followed and tried to catch up on the drone saga. Kudo's to those who have pursued the truth for so long. cool I've learned a lot.
I may have gone bonkers looking at those Sys hidden images (just kidding Sys smiley I like that kind of stuff along with your no holding back)
I'm back to semi normal (I think). Actually planning my early retirement which is keeping me busy and nervous if I have the nerve to do it!
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by Jeddyhi on Oct 14th, 2009, 6:21pm

on Oct 14th, 2009, 5:20pm, Albert wrote:
Despite the discussion going on...have you considered
the 4th dimension? And how this might explain the sightings of the drones?

Maybe it is far more complex as described here, as the appearance of the drones might be of another world,
adjacent to the one we're living in.

http://www.math.union.edu/~dpvc/math/4D/

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JkxieS-6WuA

Maybe you have been barking up the wrong tree, in the
sense that the drones actually are visitors from another world, only accesible through the 4th dimension? Or a whole other dimension of which is new to the scientific area?

This could be why there are no one that claims ownership of said drones? Dimensions that lie within milimeters from ours, and perhaps engulf the witnesses of said drones?


That could explain the absent photo witnesses who never came forward to be identified or vetted....they went into the 4th dimension. grin

Seriously, the drone story is so full of deception and lies and false photography that I doubt the 4th dimension can save it at this point.
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by Albert on Oct 14th, 2009, 6:36pm

on Oct 14th, 2009, 6:21pm, Jeddyhi wrote:
That could explain the absent photo witnesses who never came forward to be identified or vetted....they went into the 4th dimension. grin

Seriously, the drone story is so full of deception and lies and false photography that I doubt the 4th dimension can save it at this point.



It could explain alot more...as the 4th dimension only are a catalyst...

Imagine that an adjacent world evolved slightly different than our world...then the Katakana like writing on the drones would be slightly different from what we know as Katakana...and still be made by humans, only different from what we know as Katakana..or Kanji..

If we assume the origin of the drones are from a similar world, the writing then are different from what we know as Katakana...but it resembles it upto a point.

So we are not that far off, and the diagrams of the LAP are maybe only a step from access, if we are able to interprete the language of this other adjacent world.

Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by Double Nought Spy on Oct 14th, 2009, 6:43pm

on Oct 14th, 2009, 6:36pm, Albert wrote:
It could explain alot more...as the 4th dimension only are a catalyst...

Imagine that an adjacent world evolved slightly different than our world...then the Katakana like writing on the drones would be slightly different from what we know as Katakana...and still be made by humans, only different from what we know as Katakana..or Kanji..

If we assume the origin of the drones are from a similar world, the writing then are different from what we know as Katakana...but it resembles it upto a point.

So we are not that far off, and the diagrams of the LAP are maybe only a step from access, if we are able to interprete the language of this other adjacent world.


With all due respect, Albert, that idea was beat to a pulp along with any other thing anybody could dream up to somehow make the drones real. You could find a mountain of such speculation and an equal amount of pontification if you want to dig around in several forums, but I would not recommend it as a healthy thing to do. Just my opinion, of course. laugh
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by tommi01 on Oct 14th, 2009, 6:45pm

Well, I'm late checking in and things have gotten much further ahead here, than the questions DrDil put to me.

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.

On ATS even numerous posts were made about the almost exact replication now taking place in screen, print, web, promotions and lithograph (I assume) reproduction on the inside of the cases by AW.

Their use of this design in the examples I've seen and taken mental note of only, is too similiar to be considered a copyrightable derivative work in its own right. IMO.

Regarding the posts about the trademark aspects. Trade mark law is different from copyright law and I'm only speaking about copyrights.

Why do I think there is now a possibility of persueing this allegded copyright infringement, as opposed to before? Because before what they were doing with the symbols could be argued reasonably as a derivative yet distinctively different enough use of these symbols as to be copyrightable.. maybe...

I'm not venturing into trademark law here. But when they have taken the LAP design and employed it in the marketing to the degree they have now....
Everything changes.. The amount of use of a copyrighted design factors in. And this will be a good case to attract a NY law firm on contingency if the creators obtained the copyright registration numbers from the Library of Congress.

Bear in mind that just like other areas of intellectual law, like patents and trademarks, there is research and vetting done by the people who assign these numbers, so one would have to prove they were the creator(s), and they have means in place for this.

Regarding the design being put into public domain, yes, that is a problem that the NY Law Firm would have to find a way to overcome before they would consider taking the case. So... the creators of the LAP better have some good logical legal reason for this to have happened without defending their copyright.

I can't think of a legal reason or a real one, but if it was me I probably would try... smiley Like I said, the only one I can think of is that if it was part of a fictious or even real story.. the Isaac/Caret story would be made impossible by applying copyright to the LAP as it is supposed to be a government document. Now somewhere in law, I'm sure someone has applied this argument.. probably in some other situation. Only an IPR lawyer would know what viability it would have in this case though based on previous decisions.



Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by Double Nought Spy on Oct 14th, 2009, 6:50pm

Oh. My. Gawd.

Can nothing kill this zombie?

Make it stop!
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by Albert on Oct 14th, 2009, 6:54pm

on Oct 14th, 2009, 6:43pm, Double Nought Spy wrote:
With all due respect, Albert, that idea was beat to a pulp along with any other thing anybody could dream up to somehow make the drones real. You could find a mountain of such speculation and an equal amount of pontification if you want to dig around in several forums, but I would not recommend it as a healthy thing to do. Just my opinion, of course. laugh


Well, it was just a suggestion, nothing more. I apologize if this was discussed before. Much reading to go through...thanks.
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by Katterfelto on Oct 14th, 2009, 7:12pm

on Oct 14th, 2009, 6:45pm, tomi01uk wrote:
Well, I'm late ..... CLIP CLIP CLIP ..... previous decisions.

My brain hurts! rolleyes
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by tommi01 on Oct 14th, 2009, 7:14pm

on Oct 13th, 2009, 9:32pm, DrDil wrote:
Firstly I wanted to ask if you agree that the following statement is no more than copyright myth?



I'll try to answer these questions best I can. They are interesting questions though, as usual.. wink. I'm not a legal aid, lawyer or anything but a person who fought hard in a copyright case as the plaintiff with products involved as in this situation. So, I'm using my best guess analysis to answer your questions.

Quote:
Quote:"If it's posted to internet it's in the public domain."



That is obviously wrong.

Quote:
Nothing modern and creative is in the public domain anymore unless the owner explicitly puts it in the public domain. Explicitly, as in you have a note from the author/owner saying, "I grant this to the public domain."


Yes, I'm making the guess based on what I know that the above is true.

Quote:
So I guess the real crux of the matter, the core question, is whether or not in your learned opinion the LAP was actually ‘public domain’?



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................


Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by tommi01 on Oct 14th, 2009, 7:16pm

on Oct 14th, 2009, 7:12pm, Katterfelto wrote:
My brain hurts! rolleyes


You should have seen what I went through.....
Brain hurts just trying to remember all this stuff..
I've tried to forget mostly but I realised that it was 10 years ago.
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by Double Nought Spy on Oct 14th, 2009, 7:27pm

Is there any way we can get ignore buttons? We've had to wade through way more of this bullsh!t than any healthy person should ever have to deal with. This lunatic is unreachable through reason, humiliation, gypsy curses, good examples, even nuclear attack probably. If it were not so heartbreakingly sad, it would be awesome to behold.
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by tommi01 on Oct 14th, 2009, 7:36pm

Just off the top of my head I can think of a reason I would give the lawfirm for waiting two years before coming out to defend the copyrighted material posted in the isaaccaret fortune city site. I would have to argue it was a fictitious story and the created material was meant to be reproduced in its entirety to promote the "meme" effect of this story.. To spread it as far as it could reach.

But now that the design and creative work has been utilised to such a degree as to be almost taken over by AW to merchandise their products.. Defense is in order..
Just a suggestion in case it fits smiley


Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by Katterfelto on Oct 14th, 2009, 7:45pm

on Oct 14th, 2009, 7:36pm, tomi01uk wrote:
Just off the top of my head I can think of a reason I would give the lawfirm for waiting two years before coming out to defend the copyrighted material posted in the isaaccaret fortune city site. I would have to argue it was a fictitious story and the created material was meant to be reproduced in its entirety to promote the "meme" effect of this story.. To spread it as far as it could reach.

But now that the design and creative work has been utilised to such a degree as to be almost taken over by AW to merchandise their products.. Defense is in order..
Just a suggestion in case it fits smiley

I'll probably regret this. rolleyes But it seems like baiting to me. Dangle an idea, image, etc. as free and wait for someone to possibly use/gain from it. Then jump in to get a piece of the pie after they did all the real work.
Opportunists for sure but with forethought?
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by tommi01 on Oct 14th, 2009, 7:55pm

on Oct 14th, 2009, 7:45pm, Katterfelto wrote:
I'll probably regret this. rolleyes But it seems like baiting to me. Dangle an idea, image, etc. as free and wait for someone to possibly use/gain from it. Then jump in to get a piece of the pie after they did all the real work.
Opportunists for sure but with forethought?


This is all hypothetical so I'm just throwing my two-cents into a totally imaginary senerio. But suppose the purpose of this isaaccaret fortune city story was described in the defense. The purpose would be something other than product or related to marketing.

The use then of the material for profit by AW/Dell, could not have been reasonably expected and is NOW being stopped at the point of where it has become apparent they are making almost full use of this design for their monetary gain.
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by Katterfelto on Oct 14th, 2009, 8:01pm

on Oct 14th, 2009, 7:55pm, tomi01uk wrote:
The use then of the material for profit by AW/Dell, could not have been reasonably expected and is NOW being stopped at the point of where it has become apparent they are making almost full use of this design for their monetary gain.

Full use and monetary gain would not be easy to prove. It's clearly not full use. Are they going to question purchasers of AW/Dell hardware to determine that LAP elements influenced sales. That's a blackhole.
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by tommi01 on Oct 14th, 2009, 8:22pm

on Oct 14th, 2009, 8:01pm, Katterfelto wrote:
Full use and monetary gain would not be easy to prove. It's clearly not full use. Are they going to question purchasers of AW/Dell hardware to determine that LAP elements influenced sales. That's a blackhole.


Not in copyright law, it sure isn't. A company using your creative work to market their product is considered serious copyright infringement. Serious enough to warrent seizure of the products once the lawsuit is served and a bond put in place by the plaintiff's attorneys.... if necessary..

But in a situation like this, the insurance companies of AW and affiliates would be hiring IPR lawyers who will call the shots on how the case is defended and they will insist the situation is not jephordized by selling the product through its chain of distribution.... It's serious stuff..
So settlement for rights of the use of the material as quickly as possible would be the reasonable solution than lots of counter claims and delays.
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by Klatunictobarata on Oct 14th, 2009, 8:26pm

on Oct 14th, 2009, 7:55pm, tomi01uk wrote:
...they are making almost full use of this design for their monetary gain

Sorry to barge into this close knit discussion, but, as I really respect all of the contributors here save one or two, could anyone possibly answer me this:

Does anyone here believe that the LAP designs on the inside computer case and Alien writing actually ATTRACTS MORE PAYING CUSTOMERS to these expensive and sophisticated computers?

Surely, the brightly lit AW/DELL Alien Head is the best known iconic design defining the AW marque, but who in that corporation would even suggest that adding some obscure, lesser known, and not all that publicly accepted stylized writing/diagrams would add ONE IOTA to the selling of more AW machines?

I am not attempting to argue a profit motive in the legal pissing contest you all are having, but one of common sense in the advertising and promotion of an existing well-known brand.

Thanks guys.

Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by tommi01 on Oct 14th, 2009, 8:33pm

Even if it was the ulgiest design in the world you created and it turned people off.. if AW takes it and stamps it into a line of a computer they sell without your permission you have a serious (and potentially very profitable) copyright infringement case to defend.

Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by Double Nought Spy on Oct 14th, 2009, 8:41pm

Maybe the aliens in one of those drones abducted Tomi and replaced her with Robot Tomi.

This has got to be the most idiotic argument I have ever seen. It is pathetic. The lap is fake. No one has sued. End of story. Arguing about how many angels can fit on the head of a pin is less moronic.
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by Katterfelto on Oct 14th, 2009, 8:58pm

on Oct 14th, 2009, 8:33pm, tomi01uk wrote:
Even if it was the ulgiest design in the world you created and it turned people off.. if AW takes it and stamps it into a line of a computer they sell without your permission you have a serious (and potenially very profitable) copyright infringement case to defend.

When does the question of monetary gain and settlement come into play? I understand ugly, beauty, etc. don't matter. But when it comes to a cash award $$$. Does there not have to be realistic numbers presented that show how much income AW/Dell or however brought in as a result of the use? How is this determined? If it was the greatest concept in the world but not a penny was gained, what would be the settlement?
Is there cash to be gained by just the using of it or does it have to have profitted the user?

Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by Jeddyhi on Oct 14th, 2009, 9:46pm

on Oct 14th, 2009, 09:23am, Masker33 wrote:
Nothing will ever claim ownership of the original Drone information, so copyright is not a question. Use it.

Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by Katterfelto on Oct 14th, 2009, 9:59pm

on Oct 2nd, 2009, 2:00pm, Masker33 wrote:
I doubt Dell/Alienware has a thing to worry about. The LAP design segments are placed in very good places.

Silence is golden in some cases.

Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by tommi01 on Oct 15th, 2009, 04:13am

on Oct 14th, 2009, 8:58pm, Katterfelto wrote:
When does the question of monetary gain and settlement come into play? I understand ugly, beauty, etc. don't matter. But when it comes to a cash award $$$. Does there not have to be realistic numbers presented that show how much income AW/Dell or however brought in as a result of the use? How is this determined? If it was the greatest concept in the world but not a penny was gained, what would be the settlement?
Is there cash to be gained by just the using of it or does it have to have profitted the user?


Drawing on what I learned and not being a lawyer, I'll try to answer that best I can. They (AW) are incorporating this design substancially into their marketing theme now. They are placing it on their product line that they sell as well.

Hypothetical supposition here: We don't know the purpose of the Isaaccaret at fortune city website either but over time its purpose has clearly not been for profit.

However, the initial investment by the group who created this fictitious story released on the internet must have been substancial. Damages, could be claimed in this case. IMO.

Because by having to defend against the blatant commercialisation of this work, the underlying secrecy which was the foundation of the story on Isaaccaret has been sacraficed. That would just be one count of damages claimed. An IPR lawyer would know how to frame as many claims of damage for the plaintiff as possible as well as addressing the revenue aspect of the products being sold.

There is underlying law which helps determine the degree of value from years of previous cases of similiar use of copyrighted material being used to market a product to draw determination from, that AW would have to waste time arguing against.

AW's investment in the goods produced and in their distribution network with these contended products and their marketing profile would be in jephordy until this is settled. The plaintiffs lawyers would maximise figures on the initial damages and revenues claimed and the final settlement figures would be reduced probably in the compromise to settlement. JMO here, but this is the way they usually go when products and deep pockets are involved.


Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by tommi01 on Oct 15th, 2009, 04:23am

Just to add a bit more insight.. Copyright infringment, in a product marketing and distribution case, could also be words.

Suppose someone writes a story or an article with several paragraphs that are picked up and used by a manufacturer on their product line and to market their product line, without being changed substancially first. That is the key..

The authors words were copied and used. This is infringement. If, on the other hand, the authors description was used but with different words or wording changed substancially, then this is not infringement.
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by tommi01 on Oct 15th, 2009, 05:03am

The harsh reality here is that this whole matter of persuing copyright infringement for the LAP is viable for a lawfirn to take interest in only because Dell/AW have resources. No lawfirm would pick a case up and persue it in court if there wasn't business insurance and deep pockets to go after, particularly if they were asked to do this on contingency.
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by Jeddyhi on Oct 15th, 2009, 06:22am

on Oct 14th, 2009, 09:23am, Masker33 wrote:
Nothing will ever claim ownership of the original Drone information, so copyright is not a question. Use it.

Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by tommi01 on Oct 15th, 2009, 07:07am

on Oct 15th, 2009, 06:22am, Jeddyhi wrote:


Quote:
on Yesterday at 10:23:48, Masker33 wrote:Nothing will ever claim ownership of the original Drone information, so copyright is not a question. Use it.


@ Masker, Being my annoying self.. I have to keep asking why??
Why masker, will nobody claim ownership? What is more valuable in this situation than money?


Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by Katterfelto on Oct 15th, 2009, 07:34am

on Oct 15th, 2009, 07:07am, tomi01uk wrote:
@ Masker, Being my annoying self.. I have to keep asking why??
Why masker, will nobody claim ownership? What is more valuable in this situation than money?

This is great! Questions to Masker via Jeddyhi. grin
Come on Tomi, nobody or nothing can claim it because it is not of this time and world. It belongs to no one and nothing, it does not physically exist for us and served a purpose that only a few know and less understand. rolleyes

On the copyright - this is my last comment, I promise. smiley

Thanks for addressing my last questions. Having seen how every possible claim (shoot for the moon) can and usually are put into civil lawsuits I can accept the same practice takes place in copyright infringement proceedings. Most get tossed later.
I’ll leave it with disagreeing about AW substantial use of it, amount of time/effort the creators put into it and how failure to file any claim supports a possible drone reality. It’s subjective at this point.
I’ll agree there is nothing preventing someone to try and claim the material and obtain monetary compensation. Filing and winning are two different matters as I’m sure you know.


Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by masker33 on Oct 15th, 2009, 08:17am

To the originators of this Drone saga, money is unimportant. The game was and is the point. To the originators the game is over with only the aftermath of any cursory interest. The message was sent. If someone wants to continue the game or start a new one, do so.

Welcome Albert, see your PM.
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by Marvin on Oct 15th, 2009, 08:35am

Tomi are you paying attention?


on Oct 14th, 2009, 09:23am, Masker33 wrote:
Nothing will ever claim ownership of the original Drone information, so copyright is not a question. Use it.



on Oct 15th, 2009, 07:07am, tomi01uk wrote:
@ Masker, Being my annoying self.. I have to keep asking why??
Why masker, will nobody claim ownership? What is more valuable in this situation than money?




on Oct 15th, 2009, 08:17am, Masker33 wrote:
To the originators of this Drone saga, money is unimportant. The game was and is the point. To the originators the game is over with only the aftermath of any cursory interest.




Masker has said it.

I have said it... heck, most of us have said it. rolleyes

What Masker has stated is an excellent explanation for a hoax. I was done because it was fun. Look at the attention he... ah, they... ah, the hoaxer is getting... recognition for ability, to keep a secret and the pure joy of playing people like a second hand fiddle... that was the goal.



Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by tommi01 on Oct 15th, 2009, 08:53am

on Oct 15th, 2009, 07:34am, Katterfelto wrote:
Having seen how every possible claim (shoot for the moon) can and usually are put into civil lawsuits I can accept the same practice takes place in copyright infringement proceedings.



No, set rules and laws apply and registration number(s) are required to enforce copyright claims, and the standards are established through a long legacy of case law.

Quote:
I’ll leave it with disagreeing about AW substantial use of it,



How much of the LAP haven't they used now would not even apply at this point. Fact is, they used a great deal of it.

Quote:
amount of time/effort the creators put into it



Time and effort doesn't matter. Only to the claimant in damages. A short verse that became a number one hit, maybe took 5 minutes of inspiration to write, but it would still apply here if it was printed on a product line or used in promotion without permission or reiembursement.

Quote:
and how failure to file any claim supports a possible drone reality.



I'm not implying that at all. The decision to apply that has to be subjective when anyone considers that in the real world someone would surely want to be compensated for having the LAP they created used commercially by a large company.

I only ask why? Why isn't this a priority? Is this a government, commercial or institutionally devised drone saga where compensation by individual creators would not be possible. fi: work for hire.

Quote:
It’s subjective at this point.



sure is ...

Quote:
I’ll agree there is nothing preventing someone to try and claim the material and obtain monetary compensation. Filing and winning are two different matters as I’m sure you know.



No lawfirm would file if they thought they would not force a settlement or prevail in court, it's pretty cut and dry.. copyright law.

Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by masker33 on Oct 15th, 2009, 09:02am

Tomi, you are a true lady of the realm. They dislike you because you have an opinion and you stick with it. In their \"truth\" seeking they are the killers of ufology and that dear lady is what we ................
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by tommi01 on Oct 15th, 2009, 09:09am

on Oct 15th, 2009, 09:02am, Masker33 wrote:
Tomi, you are a true lady of the realm. They dislike you because you have an opinion and you stick with it. In their \"truth\" seeking they are the killers of ufology and that dear lady is what we ................


Wow.. since we are talking "We" now.. wink
Can I see your PM to Albert... Sigh!
(maybe just a quick synopsis..) smiley please.........
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by YourWorstNightmare on Oct 15th, 2009, 09:40am

on Oct 14th, 2009, 5:29pm, SiddReader wrote:
Well masker is right with his view.

Meanwhile it is the old team of the ARC, who is carrying on this story.

But as I mentioned to Dil lateley, I don't think, Masker is Lev. I always thought he is Mthood. (BTW Hi, Michael!)

But anyway: Who cares? There are no news. Maybe the PIs will bring some in November. But I doubt it.



Or part of the same Group Lev always did say we.we we...I can visualize them playing .wee wee together...smiley ..Would you explain your hunch a little bit more on Michael/MtHood..I always find your take interesting and very insightful, He wasnt a member of that Whitleys-Reyes Study Group with you and Tomi too was he? I always wondered how they produced a report without apparent input from its members..of course we know Tomi forgot all about being a member and just found the report googling, and other people vanished like Jack Sarhakian, The X witness, Knowhow, ET, etc after their reports..

.At the same time, can you recall Arthurs forum name and alias he uses at Unknown Country and or what book(s) That Michael has helped write??

Add Great to see you Katt....smiley

Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by TheShadow on Oct 15th, 2009, 10:06am

on Oct 15th, 2009, 09:02am, Masker33 wrote:
Tomi, you are a true lady of the realm. They dislike you because you have an opinion and you stick with it. In their \"truth\" seeking they are the killers of ufology and that dear lady is what we ................


Did you miss DrDil's post that started this conversation? She has an opinion but it changes whenever she feels the need to keep the topic alive!!

@tomi......it is time for you to shut the hell up already.....haven't you embarrassed yourself enough yet??
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by tommi01 on Oct 15th, 2009, 11:09am

on Oct 15th, 2009, 10:06am, TheShadow wrote:
haven't you embarrassed yourself enough yet??

Not in the slightest. I don't expect you to comprehend to begin with smiley
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by YourWorstNightmare on Oct 15th, 2009, 11:14am

Cut the Crap out Tomi and stay on topic
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by Jeddyhi on Oct 15th, 2009, 11:38am

on Oct 15th, 2009, 09:09am, tomi01uk wrote:
Can I see your PM to Albert... Sigh!
(maybe just a quick synopsis..) smiley please.........


on Oct 15th, 2009, 10:06am, TheShadow wrote:
.....haven't you embarrassed yourself enough yet??


I don't think she is capable of embarrassment. grin
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by tommi01 on Oct 15th, 2009, 11:56am

on Oct 15th, 2009, 11:38am, Jeddyhi wrote:
I don't think she is capable of embarrassment. grin


Jealous of Albert.. but hardly embarassed .. rolleyes
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by Jeddyhi on Oct 15th, 2009, 12:12pm

on Oct 15th, 2009, 09:09am, tomi01uk wrote:
Wow.. since we are talking "We" now.. wink
Can I see your PM to Albert... Sigh!
(maybe just a quick synopsis..) smiley please.........


on Oct 15th, 2009, 10:06am, TheShadow wrote:
.....haven't you embarrassed yourself enough yet??


on Oct 15th, 2009, 11:09am, tomi01uk wrote:
Not in the slightest. I don't expect you to comprehend to begin with smiley


on Oct 15th, 2009, 11:38am, Jeddyhi wrote:
I don't think she is capable of embarrassment. grin


on Oct 15th, 2009, 11:56am, tomi01uk wrote:
Jealous of Albert.. but hardly embarassed .. rolleyes


That's my point. You aren't capable of embarrassment. Even asking to see what someone sent to someone else in private does not embarrass you. But thats okay because I think we all are usually embarrassed for you. rolleyes
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by tommi01 on Oct 15th, 2009, 1:00pm

Jeddyhi,
I've been embarassed too many times for you myself.. but I learned to live with it.. I'm sure you will wink
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by tommi01 on Oct 15th, 2009, 1:06pm

on Oct 15th, 2009, 12:12pm, Jeddyhi wrote:
Even asking to see what someone sent to someone else in private does not embarrass you.


At least I asked publicly smiley
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by Gort on Oct 15th, 2009, 1:08pm

on Oct 15th, 2009, 1:00pm, tomi01uk wrote:
Jeddyhi,
I've been embarassed too many times for you myself.. but I learned to live with it.. I'm sure you will wink


I've said it before, she gets paid to do this.


Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by tommi01 on Oct 15th, 2009, 1:09pm

on Oct 15th, 2009, 1:08pm, Gort wrote:
I've said it before, she gets paid to do this.



not enuf that's for sure.. not enuf.... grin

edit to add:

hey Gort.. who's paying me? (I obviously must find this person..) Let's hear your "theories" (other than about me) for a change.. eh?
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by YourWorstNightmare on Oct 15th, 2009, 1:11pm

on Oct 15th, 2009, 09:40am, YourWorstNightmare wrote:
Or part of the same Group Lev always did say we.we we...I can visualize them playing .wee wee together...smiley ..Would you explain your hunch a little bit more on Michael/MtHood..I always find your take interesting and very insightful, He wasnt a member of that Whitleys-Reyes Study Group with you and Tomi too was he? I always wondered how they produced a report without apparent input from its members..of course we know Tomi forgot all about being a member and just found the report googling, and other people vanished like Jack Sarhakian, The X witness, Knowhow (represented by OTF and IVO) ET, etc after their reports..

.At the same time, can you recall Arthurs forum name and alias he uses at Unknown Country and or what book(s) That Michael has helped write??

Add Great to see you Katt....smiley


@Jeddyhi Whether Professionally paid or naturally born as such, differences indistinguishable, Liars are never embarassed..thats why they go into Marketing..They much less a hoaxer can afford the luxury of a conscience , misgivings, or remorse..for the work they do..or people they work with.

@Sidd your further insight on last post would be most welcome..

Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by Jeddyhi on Oct 15th, 2009, 1:35pm

on Oct 15th, 2009, 1:00pm, tomi01uk wrote:
Jeddyhi,
I've been embarassed too many times for you myself.. but I learned to live with it.. I'm sure you will wink


You have been embarrassed for me so much that you have learned to live with it? My wife hasn't even reached that point yet! grin
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by SiddReader on Oct 15th, 2009, 4:30pm

on Oct 15th, 2009, 1:11pm, YourWorstNightmare wrote:
@Sidd your further insight on last post would be most welcome..


Let me answer with old Till Eulenspiegel (sorry, Google-translation only - but a rather good one, I think):

"Till Eulenspiegel always had new jokes in stock. At least he kept the things he did, for a real fun.

One day, once again he had his high wire stretched over the River Room, as he called out to neighbors, friends and relatives, they once were to come with him. Curious as all were after all, they followed the young man to whom Till had now grown up.
Arriving at the high wire, he asked her to undress in each case the left shoe. "I will present a special art," he said. The bystanders looked at each other. What did it mean then again, they seemed to ask.

"Well," cried the first, "then we will do the boy once the favor." He took off his left shoe. And 199 others did the same.

Till was delighted to collect the 200 left shoes, threaded together on a long tape, the better to convey to you, and climbed up again with his bundle of rope.

When he had half of his journey - heavily laden with the shoes of his fellow men - completed high up in the air, as he once greeted kindly down - and let the shoes, one by one, falling from that lofty height to the ground.

There, there was sheer excitement! "Where's my shoe?", "Let's have it, that's me!", And still other things calling out to the people. Young and old, tumbled together, and had taken almost a one of the 200 shoes, because he was roundly taken from the back!

A scuffle arose, was reported on the remaining years later, in the city. As for hours each his own left shoe was on the back foot as they vowed to get back at Till Eulenspiegel.

But he had disappeared for weeks and hid in his mother's room."

----

And the moral of the story: As long as you have a mother, you always will have a place to hide.
Or: People will talk about the left shoe for many years.
Or: If somebody wants to talk about copyrights about this story, he/she should be aware, that this story is common property over here since many centuries.

...and still Till is active in the business. wink
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by Double Nought Spy on Oct 15th, 2009, 4:49pm

on Oct 15th, 2009, 10:06am, TheShadow wrote:
Did you miss DrDil's post that started this conversation? She has an opinion but it changes whenever she feels the need to keep the topic alive!!

@tomi......it is time for you to shut the hell up already.....haven't you embarrassed yourself enough yet??


I don't think it's human any more, Shads, if it ever was. I think it's some awful misbegotten experiment gone wrong. Like a cross between some Terminator prototype and a manure spreader, loaded with defective software. It scares the hell out of me!
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by YourWorstNightmare on Oct 15th, 2009, 9:53pm

@ Double I just wanna know what it is and what its doing here..I'm Freaked out!

Attos freaked out too..said he's afraid to talk anymore on this or quote "they"..will be pissed off at him..He freaked out Droneonline too..saying he used his designs..very early in the game..Lord knows who "they" are..

Sidd..Hmmm I knew you would answer just like that..smiley

So tell me..who do you think Mama or MA here is , must be a big skirt to have so many hiding underneath it..?








Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by Marvin on Oct 16th, 2009, 07:25am

on Oct 15th, 2009, 09:02am, Masker33 wrote:
Tomi, you are a true lady of the realm. They dislike you because you have an opinion and you stick with it.



Oh gawd. rolleyes

Influence peddling can be such an ugly thing. grin grin grin


on Oct 15th, 2009, 09:02am, Masker33 wrote:
In their \"truth\" seeking they are the killers of ufology...


One can only have this opinion if they are a hoaxer believing all of UFOlogy is a prankster’s playground. Or in other words, UFOs are not real to begin with.

It has been shown, those who have researched this hoax do not agree with Masker’s assertion that UFOs are not real. They (or we) know the California Big Basin Drones are not real. Not believing in a hoax does not mean we are the killers of UFOlogy… in fact, I would assert the opposite as being true. Tomi and Masker are acting as killers of any rational research into the truth of UFOlogy. undecided

Why would this silliness be done unless they are an active part of the Drone hoax (willing or unwillingly)?


on Oct 15th, 2009, 09:02am, Masker33 wrote:
...and that dear lady is what we ................


Oh don't stop there. grin

Inquiring minds would like to know. wink


Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by masker33 on Oct 16th, 2009, 08:35am

Hoax, no hoax. The real UFO stays just slightly out of reach just like it should. Photographic evidence even more compromised than before. Writers who exaggerate claimed experience. If they exist they seem little concerned with human belief or acceptance.
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by Marvin on Oct 16th, 2009, 09:26am

on Oct 16th, 2009, 08:35am, Masker33 wrote:
Hoax, no hoax. The real UFO stays just slightly out of reach just like it should. Photographic evidence even more compromised than before. Writers who exaggerate claimed experience. If they exist they seem little concerned with human belief or acceptance.



The only UFO I am currently seeing is the Unmindful Factitious Oscillation of this unending blabbering.

Lev, you need to get new material. wink


Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by masker33 on Oct 16th, 2009, 09:40am

I am Masker33 and I consider most of this thread just that, but it still has its moments. I do not single out personalities in the thread, I am just amused in private and the responses do add to any consideration of the future of Ufology.
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by Jeddyhi on Oct 16th, 2009, 09:48am

You are the most recent sock puppet of Lev.
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by Marvin on Oct 16th, 2009, 11:23am

on Oct 16th, 2009, 09:48am, Jeddyhi wrote:
You are the most recent sock puppet of Lev.



"The" hoaxer (in the flesh). smiley


Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by Marvin on Oct 16th, 2009, 11:26am

User Image

http://www.ufocasebook.com/anonymousstrangecraft.html

Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by SiddReader on Oct 16th, 2009, 12:48pm

I just had to smile about this:

Quote:
What's lacking, is a credible, well explained, scientific basis for the abundant super-science and metaphysics. Sometimes this produces a sense of disbelief suspended by its neck, only to be saved by the author's well honed story-telling powers.


Found it here:
http://www.sfsite.com/04a/ws269.htm
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by Radi on Oct 16th, 2009, 1:13pm

on Oct 16th, 2009, 11:26am, Marvin wrote:
User Image

http://www.ufocasebook.com/anonymousstrangecraft.html


hehe one of the problems with the newbie and inexperienced people in 3d and photoshopping is they can't even put things on the ground correctly.. wink smiley

Just like at Book of Toth..Just playing the suckers... smiley
Not having a good go at it thou.. wink smiley
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by Katterfelto on Oct 16th, 2009, 2:41pm

on Oct 16th, 2009, 1:13pm, Radi wrote:
hehe one of the problems with the newbie and inexperienced people in 3d and photoshopping is they can't even put things on the ground correctly.. wink smiley

Just like at Book of Toth..Just playing the suckers... smiley
Not having a good go at it thou.. wink smiley


I don't know. I sorta like it. grin
It has a very subtle unreal look to it. Like it's floating in it's own dimension above the ground. That's very hard to fake. rolleyes
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by YourWorstNightmare on Oct 16th, 2009, 2:43pm

Yes He thought he had the basics figured out...Ohare was sighting followed by fake pictures by others which is the basic tagalong, catch a ride or even coverup.. here we have fake pictures with the sighting and same person, Chad..Everything that followed was also so faked including bogused events..right for the Pis benefits..
Like the kid who was presumed trapped in baloon was hiding in the attic..here he is hiding in UCB..afraid his Daddy would yell at him....sounds pretty basic to me..right Lev?
and yes here we will take you to the shed son.
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by Albert on Oct 16th, 2009, 3:35pm

I have been reading alot, and from what I have found, you like to research the origin of posters rather than investigating the drones?

Have you ever considered that you could be wrong? Not that your efforts arent good, maybe it should be focused at a whole other target, namely the dimension issue.

If we are talking alien intrusion, maybe it is some other direction we should look to, as it is becoming more plausible as the scientists (as I know you have an aversion) have had a suspicion (this you would know about) that there are other things in play.

I found a video on Youtube, and I find it is relavant in this case.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=36VMU63Tv-g


Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by Jeddyhi on Oct 16th, 2009, 4:05pm

Albert, your theory on dimensions and the drones appears exactly the same as poster 'matrix.trilogy' from the DRT forum. You even post the same videos. I'm willing to bet that you and he are one and the same. wink
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by murnut on Oct 16th, 2009, 4:08pm

on Oct 16th, 2009, 4:05pm, Jeddyhi wrote:
Albert, your theory on dimensions and the drones appears exactly the same as poster 'matrix.trilogy' from the DRT forum. You even post the same videos. I'm willing to bet that you and he are one and the same. wink


Funny..I thought he was Lev
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by DrDil on Oct 16th, 2009, 4:23pm

I found an image today that I knocked up a while ago and had since forgot all about it.....

User Image


Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by YourWorstNightmare on Oct 16th, 2009, 4:26pm

If we are talking alien intrusion, maybe it is some other direction we should look to, as it is becoming more plausible as the scientists (as I know you have an aversion) have had a suspicion (this you would know about) that there are other things in play.
Its so hilarious but he speaks the truth about aversion to scientists..and of course we know they all had an aversion to experts too. anything anyone would nail it down to facts..no...take it to dimensional Whitley_Master of the Key = Seth type realities..like the new agers like Roberts and Castaneda..did decades ago..is much much more appealing..and indeed those are the audience sought here..and are whats very much in play..you only get very limited buzz with facts..
And I haven't seen any scientists swarming with references to the drone..even scientists like friedman or physicist like that Petit fellow of the Ummis in France..so his use of aversion..is so..amusing..
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by Albert on Oct 16th, 2009, 4:32pm

on Oct 16th, 2009, 4:05pm, Jeddyhi wrote:
Albert, your theory on dimensions and the drones appears exactly the same as poster 'matrix.trilogy' from the DRT forum. You even post the same videos. I'm willing to bet that you and he are one and the same. wink


How much money are you willing to bet?

As of knowing who I am?

Just a wager...I could be anyone..

Just a newbie..

PS: DrDil might know.. grin
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by YourWorstNightmare on Oct 16th, 2009, 4:40pm

Someone Albert , based on your dimesional rationale..no one gives a fat baby's a$$ about for sure..you can bet a thousand dollars to a donut on on that..
and take it to the bank

I loved the critiques of Levs thumper by the way..thats where the focus should, on that little group..
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by DrDil on Oct 16th, 2009, 4:42pm

on Oct 16th, 2009, 4:32pm, Albert wrote:
How much money are you willing to bet?

As of knowing who I am?

Just a wager...I could be anyone..

Just a newbie..

PS: DrDil might know.. grin

Yep, I am unfortunately cursed with this knowledge but I hasten to add it was realised after your first post here and I was reading as a guest (the same as every other person who reads). While your posts are more timid than usual the day (night!! grin) of choice you’ve chose to offer your counter-arguments I believe betrays what I already knew.

Cheers. wink

Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by Jeddyhi on Oct 16th, 2009, 4:44pm

You are posting the exact same bullcrap about dimensions that matrix.trilogy is posting. You are even posting the same exact videos. If you want to deny you are him, so be it but do not think you are getting away with anything. Your just another DRT sockpuppet.

Please keep posting your dimensional bullcrap. It's quite entertaining!
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by Albert on Oct 16th, 2009, 4:45pm

on Oct 16th, 2009, 4:40pm, YourWorstNightmare wrote:
Someone Albert , based on your dimesional rational..no one gives a fat baby's a$$ about for sure..you can bet a thousand dollars to a donut on on that..
and take it to the bank

I loved the critiques of Levs thumper by the way..thats where the focus should, on that little group..


thanks, that concludes my earlier statement about serious research here...

If you really gives a fat baby's a$$ about my postings here, I see no reason why I should employ further use of time to this forum.
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by YourWorstNightmare on Oct 16th, 2009, 4:47pm

Yes Jed he/she the third leg of the relief team ..hahahaha..which one..? cheesy
Seriously..lies have a habit of growing many legs
this caterpillar..forgot which one of its legs it starts to walk with first....its immobile now..
Albert..great for a sci fi thread or even mathematicians discussing N dimensions..your hypotheis is as valid as anything from imagination..but the doctored photos, lies and excuses, from people pushing them and the story are not...You dont have to leave the forum..just get to a relevant thread..
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by Albert on Oct 16th, 2009, 4:55pm

What I am getting from the recent posters are, that any reality that doesn't check within the parameters of the function of this thread are to be discarded?

I strongly suggest you all to change your style, if not no one will be happy to entertain new ideas here..

You are a well woven group...and show how it's all done...

Cheers
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by Jeddyhi on Oct 16th, 2009, 4:57pm

Don't go away mad.... grin

edited for politeness and manners.
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by DrDil on Oct 16th, 2009, 5:02pm

on Oct 16th, 2009, 4:57pm, Jeddyhi wrote:
Don't go away mad....just go away, sockpuppet.

All are welcome here Jed, regardless of belief or sock-puppetry.

on Oct 16th, 2009, 4:45pm, Albert wrote:
thanks, that concludes my earlier statement about serious research here...

That’s a tad unfair Albert but you’re right in a way as we tend to “research” UFO reports and “discuss” hoaxes, and of course this is the Drone thread so hence the resulting discussion on the topic at hand (i.e. hoax) rather than the validity of an hypothesis based on transcendental multi-dimensional projections, well, as they directly relate to the Drones anyway…..

Cheers.

Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by Albert on Oct 16th, 2009, 5:03pm

on Oct 16th, 2009, 4:57pm, Jeddyhi wrote:
Don't go away mad....just go away, sockpuppet.


Nice, you seem to be an intelligent person, so why is it so hard to even look to another side of this issue?

Is it because you are so convinced of your own theory, that you don't allow others with another vision to join the forum?

Or, do you just feel the need to fry yet another person?
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by Jeddyhi on Oct 16th, 2009, 5:08pm

Sorry Albert, stay as long as you like! wink
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by Albert on Oct 16th, 2009, 5:09pm

on Oct 16th, 2009, 5:02pm, DrDil wrote:
All are welcome here Jed, regardless of belief or sock-puppetry.


That’s a tad unfair Albert but you’re right in a way as we tend to “research” UFO reports and “discuss” hoaxes, and of course this is the Drone thread so hence the resulting discussion on the topic at hand (i.e. hoax) rather than the validity of an hypothesis based on transcendental multi-dimensional projections, well, as they directly relate to the Drones anyway…..

Cheers.


Thanks, DrDil,

As the "multiple" dimensions obviously doesn't fit the majority of posters here, it is nevertheless the most fitting theory, if one is looking apart from the "hoax" theory...

Everything points at some form of dimensional occurance, yet it is not much discussed here, only discarded as not a possibility.

Thats what I am implying. Nothing else.

Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by DrDil on Oct 16th, 2009, 5:13pm

on Oct 16th, 2009, 5:03pm, Albert wrote:
Nice, you seem to be an intelligent person, so why is it so hard to even look to another side of this issue?

Is it because you are so convinced of your own theory, that you don't allow others with another vision to join the forum?

Or, do you just feel the need to fry yet another person?

Agreed and no-one is preventing you discussing your theories, (see above post).

But why must everything be Drone-related?

Your theory may be valid but when you frame it using the Drones as context it's surely bound for massive opposition, so why come here to do it? (“Of all the forums in all the land…..” grin)

And with the greatest respect I thought that's exactly why the DRT was formed and why you choose to post there rather than here and didn’t you yourself praise them for taking this initiative and heralding a brave new dawn for 'serious' research?

Yet you insist on returning here where most have weighed and measured the evidence and found it wanting?

Cheers.

Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by Jeddyhi on Oct 16th, 2009, 5:19pm

If not a hoax, then Isaac is the man with the answers and they do not point at, hint at, or even slightly suggest they are from another dimension. According to Isaac, they are capable of invisibility, not multi-dimensional travel.

The drones are a hoax. They are fake. The witnesses are liars. The photos are bunk. They are a hoax.
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by DrDil on Oct 16th, 2009, 5:19pm

on Oct 16th, 2009, 5:09pm, Albert wrote:
Thanks, DrDil,

As the "multiple" dimensions obviously doesn't fit the majority of posters here, it is nevertheless the most fitting theory, if one is looking apart from the "hoax" theory...

Everything points at some form of dimensional occurance, yet it is not much discussed here, only discarded as not a possibility.

Thats what I am implying. Nothing else.

It’s that exact implication that is the problem.

You are dismissing the conclusion which practically everyone else has arrived at by how they personally qualified and quantified the available evidence.

In order to realistically promote a different theory there is much that must be explained regarding the old one before this is even considered, or at least prove it’s wrong.

A multi-dimensional shift doesn’t even begin to cover the witnesses (lack of) action or Isaacs pseudoscientific babble masquerading as a scientific study.

Obviously this is just my opinion but it’s a relatively informed one and this is why I suspect your theory has received the resistance it has.

Cheers. smiley

Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by Albert on Oct 16th, 2009, 5:22pm

on Oct 16th, 2009, 5:13pm, DrDil wrote:
Agreed and no-one is preventing you discussing your theories, (see above post).

But why must everything be Drone-related?

Your theory may be valid but when you frame it using the Drones as context it's surely bound for massive opposition, so why come here to do it? (“Of all the forums in all the land…..” grin)

And with the greatest respect I thought that's exactly why the DRT was formed and why you choose to post there rather than here and didn’t you yourself praise them for taking this initiative and heralding a brave new dawn for 'serious' research?

Yet you insist on returning here where most have weighed and measured the evidence and found it wanting?

Cheers.


Oh, but I have the deepest respect of your research..if you look into the archives, I was a great listener of what you found...ask around..

I'm merely implying that some aspects may have been overlooked..and I humbly (Maybe not in the best fashion) are pointing out the issues...

I surely get the hint, that I'm no longer wanted here on the UFO Casebook, as you obviously think I have taken sides to this story, which is not entirely true, as I present some issues that might be of interest, but if you do not want this, I'll gladly leave, I only had a hope that there still was room for "thinking out of the box"..

Obviously there isn't...


Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by Jeddyhi on Oct 16th, 2009, 5:22pm

on Oct 16th, 2009, 5:02pm, DrDil wrote:
All are welcome here Jed, regardless of belief or sock-puppetry.


Agreed! That post came out wrong and I apologize to the forum as a whole. embarassed
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by DrDil on Oct 16th, 2009, 5:25pm

on Oct 16th, 2009, 5:22pm, Albert wrote:
Oh, but I have the deepest respect of your research..if you look into the archives, I was a great listener of what you found...ask around..

I'm merely implying that some aspects may have been overlooked..and I humbly (Maybe not in the best fashion) are pointing out the issues...

I surely get the hint, that I'm no longer wanted here on the UFO Casebook, as you obviously think I have taken sides to this story, which is not entirely true, as I present some issues that might be of interest, but if you do not want this, I'll gladly leave, I only had a hope that there still was room for "thinking out of the box"..

Obviously there isn't...


If you wish to stay or go that is your choice and as you can see in the above post the only member who voiced this opinion has apologised, so as usual it’s your choice if you decide to leave.

Cheers.

Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by Jeddyhi on Oct 16th, 2009, 5:27pm

I edited the offending post and offer Albert a personal apology. wink
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by Katterfelto on Oct 16th, 2009, 5:30pm

Hi Albert. smiley
I'd rather your topic than IPL and masked answers.
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by Albert on Oct 16th, 2009, 5:34pm

on Oct 16th, 2009, 5:25pm, DrDil wrote:
If you wish to stay or go that is your choice and as you can see in the above post the only member who voiced this opinion has apologised, so as usual it’s your choice if you decide to leave.

Cheers.


I know, but in the future I'll be more selective in my posts, as new ideas presented here can be hard to verify, especially if it's a controversy to the general opinion here...no hard feelings, it's sound to be a sceptic, only it is nice when the sceptic statements is presented nicely. cool



Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by Jeddyhi on Oct 16th, 2009, 5:40pm

Now that the smoke has cleared and cooler heads prevail (thanks DrDil) can I ask you, Albert, just what causes you to think that the drones are from another dimension. I realize that you think that the drone photos possibly do not show the entire craft, but according to Isaac, couldn't that be caused by some of the craft remaining invisible?
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by DrDil on Oct 16th, 2009, 5:47pm

on Oct 16th, 2009, 5:34pm, Albert wrote:
I know, but in the future I'll be more selective in my posts, as new ideas presented here can be hard to verify, especially if it's a controversy to the general opinion here...no hard feelings, it's sound to be a sceptic, only it is nice when the sceptic statements is presented nicely. cool



I personally believe that it’s not the selectiveness of your posts that inspires any/all opposition but it’s merely a case of “guilty by association” if that association is in any way related to the Drones.

Because, and again this is purely my own opinion, if you were to completely remove the original Drone images from the equation there are still a great deal more troubling issues that would have to be at least addressed before the hoax hypothesis became a “possibility” rather than a “certainty”.

It’s nice to see you posting again.

Cheers.

Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by Albert on Oct 16th, 2009, 5:58pm

on Oct 16th, 2009, 5:40pm, Jeddyhi wrote:
Now that the smoke has cleared and cooler heads prevail (thanks DrDil) can I ask you, Albert, just what causes you to think that the drones are from another dimension. I realize that you think that the drone photos possibly do not show the entire craft, but according to Isaac, couldn't that be caused by some of the craft remaining invisible?


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




Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by DrDil on Oct 16th, 2009, 6:23pm

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


Here’s the video Albert:



And the following has long been one of my favourites:



I found it's a lot easier to grasp than many similar representations I've seen and it explores the possibilities of multi-dimensions by adopting a philosophical(ish), and yet still semi-scientific approach.

But as it relates to the Drones then I feel there could be more relevance attached to the probing questions that a multi-dimensional theory doesn't answer rather than those which it could be argued it does.

Cheers.

Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by Albert on Oct 16th, 2009, 6:33pm

on Oct 16th, 2009, 6:23pm, DrDil wrote:
Here’s the video Albert:



And the following has long been one of my favourites:



I found it's a lot easier to grasp than many similar representations I've seen and it explores the possibilities of multi-dimensions by adopting a philosophical(ish), and yet still semi-scientific approach.

But as it relates to the Drones then I feel there could be more relevance attached to the probing questions that a multi-dimensional theory doesn't answer rather than those which it could be argued it does.

Cheers.


Well, there are other things this "multidimensional" issue answers...if for instance we look to the cow/other animal mutilations (off-topic, I know) they could be adjacent worlds looking for DNA or simply parts to rebuild/enhance their way of industry...as far as alien abductions (if we want to go there) ....you figure it out..

It fits, it sure does not bring evidence...but it rises questions...

Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by DrDil on Oct 16th, 2009, 6:51pm

on Oct 16th, 2009, 6:33pm, Albert wrote:
Well, there are other things this "multidimensional" issue answers...if for instance we look to the cow/other animal mutilations (off-topic, I know) they could be adjacent worlds looking for DNA or simply parts to rebuild/enhance their way of industry...as far as alien abductions (if we want to go there) ....you figure it out..

It fits, it sure does not bring evidence...but it rises questions...

I’ve always struggled with that concept, i.e. cattle mutilations or alien-abductions being performed for the sole reason of harvesting DNA. Whether you believe that these are multiverse entities, extraterrestrial entities or even ultra-terrestrial entities it still doesn’t explain how they can build crafts capable of jumping these boundaries (boundaries which are unfathomable to us at present, never mind actually traversing them) and yet they can’t harvest our DNA (or whatever) without physically abducting the desired specimen?

I’m not disputing that it occurs or that it is believed to occur, merely that it’s not suggestive of an advanced civilisation, hell, private investigators pursuing paternity lawsuits can usually obtain the same by sifting through household garbage, the grand pursuit of DNA as a motivation for cattle mutes & abductions just doesn’t tick all of the boxes for me personally.

But anyway, what about those Drone hoaxers? wink

Cheers!! grin

!
Post by Albert on Oct 16th, 2009, 6:58pm

on Oct 16th, 2009, 6:51pm, DrDil wrote:
But anyway, what about those Drone hoaxers? wink

Cheers!! grin


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
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by Katterfelto on Oct 16th, 2009, 7:01pm

on Oct 16th, 2009, 6:33pm, Albert wrote:
Well, there are other things this "multidimensional" issue answers...if for instance we look to the cow/other animal mutilations (off-topic, I know) they could be adjacent worlds looking for DNA or simply parts to rebuild/enhance their way of industry...as far as alien abductions (if we want to go there) ....you figure it out..

It fits, it sure does not bring evidence...but it rises questions...

I don't agee it answers anything. Science advancing contributes nothing to the truth/reality of drones. It's after the fact.
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by SiddReader on Oct 16th, 2009, 7:32pm

We should call this case a "Falcon", as we should call all those cases.

So the little boy earns the respect, he should earn, and his publicity-needing parents get what they want.

Just another Falcon Crest or something. Wasn't it all for the show, daddy?
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by Katterfelto on Oct 16th, 2009, 7:59pm

on Oct 16th, 2009, 7:32pm, SiddReader wrote:
We should call this case a "Falcon", as we should call all those cases.

So the little boy earns the respect, he should earn, and his publicity-needing parents get what they want.

Just another Falcon Crest or something. Wasn't it all for the show, daddy?

I guess it's applicable to the drone saga.
Someone needs to tell me where the little boy was expected to take a seat on this flight of fancy. If Karma exists they will get what they deserve and not what they want.
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by Klatunictobarata on Oct 16th, 2009, 8:35pm

Wow!

It took someone like Albert to finally shut down Tomi!

********************

Couldn't Falcon's Dad really be Isaac?

I can see the movie now:

"The Falcon and the Snowjob."
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by Katterfelto on Oct 16th, 2009, 8:59pm

on Oct 16th, 2009, 8:35pm, Klatunictobarata wrote:
Wow!

It took someone like Albert to finally shut down Tomi!


All hail Albert! smiley
A breath of fresh Isaac and Drone air. grin
User Image
Ding dong ....
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by blackwater on Oct 16th, 2009, 9:13pm

on Oct 16th, 2009, 5:58pm, Albert wrote:
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


Hey Albert, I assume you are enjoying the new season of Fringe as much as I am. wink


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.


I can appreciate a good imagination and ability to think out of the box, but I don't see how this theory "fits all". As Jeddyhi already said "According to Isaac, they are capable of invisibility, not multi-dimensional travel." So while you may think you are not seeing all of the drones, wouldn't it be more reasonable that it could be due to the invisibility, or "clacking device"? Why jump to "it must have come from another dimension"?

Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by Jeddyhi 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.
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by Double Nought Spy on Oct 16th, 2009, 9:43pm

My god! They are just like cockroaches! tongue
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by YourWorstNightmare 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..
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by Albert 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....
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by YourWorstNightmare 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
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by Radi 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...
Re: !
Post by Klatunictobarata 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?'
Re: !
Post by Radi 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
Re: !
Post by Klatunictobarata 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!
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by Klatunictobarata 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?
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by Klatunictobarata 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)









Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by tommi01 on Oct 17th, 2009, 07:04am

Who the hell is falcon now... rolleyes


Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by DrDil 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

Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by tommi01 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??
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by Jeddyhi 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.


Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by tommi01 on Oct 17th, 2009, 08:09am

As far as the public domain issues go with the Isaaccaret material...

It is not a case of preganant or not. Wide sweeping cut and dry in public domain doesn't exist.

Copyright infringement in the aspects I described... using someones copyright registered material in a profitable motive is infrigement.

If they have aquired an registration number then they are on their way to defending their material.

You are asking me to show you my reasoning for arguing both sides of the public domain coin and I've tried. I've tried with drawing senerios of how, if I was the creator who now wanted to defend their work against being used commercially by another company, how it could be approached.

But if left undefended the way it is now, being blatantly ever increasingly incorporated into AW's marketing profiles for their computer lines... how the longer this goes on, undefended the more the case for public domain gets strenthened.

If this doesn't give you the big picture of why there are two ways of arguing this and time and effort from the creator are the factors affecting it, then please specifically ask me a question. I'm not trying to avoid answering anything, and you are asking me also to argue the defense as well as the plaintiffs case here about public domain. The fact is, should someone obtain registration of this to begin with, will go a long way to establishing it as not being in the public domain...


Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by DrDil on Oct 17th, 2009, 08:18am

on Oct 17th, 2009, 08:04am, Jeddyhi wrote:
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.

on Aug 27th, 2007, 06:17am, DrDil wrote:
Approximately 1am EST, Friday, September 12, 1997.

One phone line was designated for Area 51 employees who wanted to discuss the secretive base.

Midway through this call, Bell's program went off the air for about 30 minutes. After talking to network engineers, the official explanation was that the network satellite had "lost earth lock" or forgotten where the earth was.

Network officials were baffled!!

The caller surfaced a couple weeks later, by the name Brian, and said he had created the character (confirming the claim after a brief performance, using the same panicked voice) but said he had no idea how or why the show was knocked off the air.

Also, one of the first callers after the outage was someone who claimed to be from Area-51 "security." He said that his job was to, "Close gaps," the network had been "Pulsed" and that we "Would not hear from the caller again."

(An ElectroMagnetic Pulse is a method of overloading electronic equipment in a target area; EMP generators were funded under the original SDI research. Apparently the phenomenon was discovered by accident during the 1960's when the phone network in Hawaii was disabled by a nuclear test 800 miles distant.)

Speculation about an EMP continued as this was "verified" by several callers:

A man from Kingston (also near area 51) said he was on hold waiting to go on the air, and both his home telephone lines went dead.

Another caller, an RF engineer employed at Hughes AeroSpace in Tucson (and an expert on EMP shielding), stated that he had suffered "cloud bounce" from the pulse and his personal computer and digital watch were wiped clean."

As always, draw your own conclusions………………

on Jan 20th, 2009, 12:45pm, DrDil wrote:
I ripped it a while ago and can be heard here.

Cheers.

Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by tommi01 on Oct 17th, 2009, 08:20am

Candidly I'll try to explain some thoughts I'm having about this whole copyright aspect with the LAP. Some of it is just suppostion .. but the basis isn't from what I know first hand.

Supposition: This public domain aspect is going to be one hell of an interesting issue to tackle should it reach the point of being used as a defense by AW.

Reality as I know it: A payout to the creators and the aquirement of the rights to copyright would be the most logical approach as soon as possible.

Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by Jeddyhi on Oct 17th, 2009, 08:24am

I have asked you this before and I ask one more time. How would the creator prove that they created it? There has been so much research and analysis of the LAP, and it has been copied and recreated so many times by so many people, how does the author at this point prove ownership? Early research could be presented as 'early drafts'......I think the fact that the material was placed on the internet anonymously and with permission to use the material would certainly hinder anyone, actual creator or an imposter, from claiming ownership.

But what does it really matter? Why is it even worth discussing? What are the ramifications? You seem worried for someone else's loss of monetary gain. Why?
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by tommi01 on Oct 17th, 2009, 08:39am

on Oct 17th, 2009, 08:24am, Jeddyhi wrote:
How would the creator prove that they created it?


In the same way that an inventor shows the patent office that they invented something novel.. (I'm going to stop there because that is the limit of what I know.) They do research as well. When an infringement case is looming they will expidite this work but charge a large fee.

In my case I had to submit actual material of the develpment of the material as well as the original medium the material was printed on to, in my case that was difficult... I had to use metal snips! They ask for whatever they believe will show initial development, drafts, files, showing gradual changes till finished work and publication.

Quote:
But what does it really matter? Why is it even worth discussing? What are the ramifications? You seem worried for someone else's loss of monetary gain. Why?


Because to me this is just one little piece of evidence I'm using to narrow things down in the who and why scheme of things..

I just don't buy that some ppl would put this whole saga out just for sport and then then unexpectedly, Dell computers comes along and starts using the LAP, that they would just allow the commercial profit from work they put out for sport.. If they are sport hoaxers then they also have a soul for capitalising themselves for all their effort..This is my personality profile for sport hoaxers. I might be wrong.. I'm not a shrink.. just surmising..

If it's not sport hoaxers who haven't a mercinary bone in their being ........

Then it must be institutional, government or commerical interests that put the LAP out... I would put extraterrestrial at the very bottom of the list after every other possibility has been exhausted.

And I await for more insight from Mask..
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by Katterfelto on Oct 17th, 2009, 08:52am

on Oct 17th, 2009, 08:24am, Jeddyhi wrote:
I have asked you this before and I ask one more time. How would the creator prove that they created it? There has been so much research and analysis of the LAP, and it has been copied and recreated so many times by so many people, how does the author at this point prove ownership? Early research could be presented as 'early drafts'......I think the fact that the material was placed on the internet anonymously and with permission to use the material would certainly hinder anyone, actual creator or an imposter, from claiming ownership.

But what does it really matter? Why is it even worth discussing? What are the ramifications? You seem worried for someone else's loss of monetary gain. Why?

Good luck getting a straight answer. They flip flop like a fish out of water.
Tomi says it would now be an interesting issue if AW uses a public domain defense. But she also believes it's a slam dunk win if any IP firm filed a claim because they would only do so because they know they will win. So, I guess, interesting does not mean it will work but it's interesting. undecided
She is worried because she does not understand "why". rolleyes
Mask will provide that. laugh laugh laugh laugh laugh laugh laugh
That don't matter either.
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by tommi01 on Oct 17th, 2009, 09:41am

I think you are misconstruing my words here.

A lawfirm would consider the situation from the public domain aspect before taking on this case, but they would have no 100% certainty.

They would however know the power of copyright litigation and would know that should their lawsuit offer a reasonable counter defense to the public domain defense that would be raised by AW...

The clock would be ticking at an enormous rate for AW to settle the claim...
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by YourWorstNightmare on Oct 17th, 2009, 1:48pm

Why should they worry about any lawsuit or settlement?

Hi Phil,
I have received the below emails. I do apologise for the delay.
I am looking into this for you but I do believe we have the copyright for the Alienware language.

Kind Regards
Angela Malynn
Marketing Specialist

Alienware Limited
Phone: +353.906.456.505 x8113
Fax: +353.906.486.967
www.alienware.co.uk



In a second email..they denied him permission from putting designs on his computer outfits

This was all prior to the even later trademark apps granted them to them..not long ago. two distinct areas now..Copyright and Trademark..aspects of ownership to intellectual property, and the third enforcement by denial of use of same design by Phil on his wares..

This all following the denial no interest in the property we discuss now as evidenced by Banzais memo..we are all famiar with...

so who has the baton and why would the clock even be ticing? except for the marketing group of course..

why worry about lawsuit or settlement..laughable if you already own it..or share licensing wth the others mentioned like Halcyon or Warners..
The clock is ticking for the elements marketing group that fumbled it and those that pursue this farce as remotely real or a conspiracy..as KenRay proposed..
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by tommi01 on Oct 17th, 2009, 2:35pm

on Oct 17th, 2009, 1:48pm, YourWorstNightmare wrote:
I am looking into this for you but I do believe we have the copyright for the Alienware language.


"I do believehuh?"

Copyright for the Alienware language?

What language? A distinctly dissimilar type of related symbol inspired by the LAP symbols or are you saying they copied them, and now they ain't so sure who owns what and like all good clerks.. he/she is non-committal.

If you want to investigate this, please do, but ask them what submission they have in place for the LAP design they have been using, of which those original symbols originated from..
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by Katterfelto on Oct 17th, 2009, 2:59pm

on Oct 17th, 2009, 08:39am, tomi01uk wrote:
Because to me this is just one little piece of evidence I'm using to narrow things down in the who and why scheme of things..

I just don't buy that some ppl would put this whole saga out just for sport and then then unexpectedly, Dell computers comes along and starts using the LAP, that they would just allow the commercial profit from work they put out for sport.. If they are sport hoaxers then they also have a soul for capitalising themselves for all their effort..This is my personality profile for sport hoaxers. I might be wrong.. I'm not a shrink.. just surmising..

If it's not sport hoaxers who haven't a mercinary bone in their being ........

Then it must be institutional, government or commerical interests that put the LAP out... I would put extraterrestrial at the very bottom of the list after every other possibility has been exhausted.

Well at least I understand (I think) why it's important to you. smiley

I'm not sure about the "whole saga" having the importance you place on it for the hoaxers or limited audience 2 years down the line. There's no way of knowing if the "whole saga" was planned, expected or fanned by them or parasites.

Regarding your profiling. Sport is not always for money. What if the multiple hoaxers cannot agree on going forward? Some may want to for possible $ or even their moment of fame, others may not for many valid personal reasons. A lot of baggage and complications can get dragged out. shocked
It's all speculation but for me is why I do not read too much into it outside of Dell/AW having some connection before or after the fact. Who's to say they contacted (or were contacted by) the creator(s) already and deal struck. Then there's the question of why Dell/AW would not want to protect it themselves beyond the AW fonts? undecided

Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by tommi01 on Oct 17th, 2009, 3:30pm

on Oct 17th, 2009, 2:59pm, Katterfelto wrote:
What if the multiple hoaxers cannot agree on going forward? Some may want to for possible $ or even their moment of fame, others may not for many valid personal reasons. A lot of baggage and complications can get dragged out. shocked


That's why I suggested ages ago here when I first brought this up, that in 2 years things can go pear shaped as they say in England.. and some discontent or cracks may be starting in the team of hoaxers, if there is one.

The other possibility is institutional, government or commerical, in which case the LAP (which is ALL I'm talking about here) the LAP, would be a work for hire and not copyrightable by the ppl who did it.

In that case.. ruling out AW/Dell, and Fox and the other suspects... who or what institution, department or commercial enterprise would be pleased to see Dell profiting on it's own wares? Or is it not important to them as Mask suggests... and why??
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by Katterfelto on Oct 17th, 2009, 3:55pm

on Oct 17th, 2009, 3:30pm, tomi01uk wrote:
The other possibility is institutional, government or commerical, in which case the LAP (which is ALL I'm talking about here) the LAP, would be a work for hire and not copyrightable by the ppl who did it.

In that case.. ruling out AW/Dell, and Fox and the other suspects... who or what institution, department or commercial enterprise would be pleased to see Dell profiting on it's own wares? Or is it not important to them as Mask suggests... and why??

This is where you lose me. huh
Why are you stuck on the question of "Why?" in regards to the other possible institutional, department or commercial aspect of this and Masks curveballs? Could there just be no real others except what Mask wants some people to think?

Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by tommi01 on Oct 17th, 2009, 4:15pm

I was just thinking about the word syndicate and looking it up for any insights into how a syndicate would apply copyright distribution amonst its members..
A loose organisation, probably nothing in place there to keep each party who created something from claiming ownership of it. But other types of syndicates?

My point is that there is substancial use here of the LAP by a subdivision(?) Of Dell.... Applying copyright law to this, opens up the question of if a "cartel" or individuals did this thing.. then why would they allow commercialised use of it by another company to proliferate? Are they crazy or on a mission??




Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by DrDil on Oct 17th, 2009, 6:08pm

Hi Tomi I genuinely wasn’t going to bother but after reading your last couple of posts I thought I’d give it one last try.

on Oct 17th, 2009, 08:09am, tomi01uk wrote:
As far as the public domain issues go with the Isaaccaret material...

It is not a case of preganant or not. Wide sweeping cut and dry in public domain doesn't exist.

This isn’t what I meant by a ‘little bit pregnant’ or really even by the legal implications of the term, ‘public domain’ because as I said I was using your words and your theories in order to pose questions that I believed warranted an answer.

on Oct 17th, 2009, 08:09am, tomi01uk wrote:
<snip>

please specifically ask me a question. I'm not trying to avoid answering anything, and you are asking me also to argue the defense as well as the plaintiffs case here about public domain.

<snip>

M’kay firstly I am certainly not asking you to argue both sides but rather why when seemingly drawing on the exact same personal experience your personal opinion on what legally constitutes, ‘public domain’ material has seemingly changed so much in such a short period of time. But forget about that for a second (i.e. don’t answer).

on Oct 17th, 2009, 08:09am, tomi01uk wrote:
<snip>

please specifically ask me a question. I'm not trying to avoid answering anything

<snip>

Straight talk?

Now we're talking!! grin

I’ll take your advice on board and try to condense my earlier comment down to a more manageable size, even better I’ll condense it down into five “yes or no” questions, no discussion just five simple yes or no’s posted in numerical order. If you think you can’t reply with a simple yes or no just answer the ones you can, (I kind’a like this back to basics approach!! laugh)



Q1) If something is placed in the public domain it can’t be conditional but by very definition must be absolute?


Q2) Regardless of what purpose the public domain material is later used for it doesn’t alter the fact that once placed in the public domain all legal rights to claim any monetary recompense are completely waived regardless of how the material is used and by whom?


Q3) Regarding your quotes from November 2007 –and that I previously provided screen shots of- and which I have once again posted below do agree that you personally specifically stated/typed/wrote the following statements? (Spelling mistakes and all):

Quote:

• I didn't spend 6 years in a legal battle and come away prevailing and knowing nothing about the subject. I probably know more about the keener aspects of copyright law than most general practice lawyers.
• Having the experience of going through a very tough copyright lawsuit that involved 13 companies in 4 countries I'm pretty familiar with what I'm talking about. The Berne Convention ties the various laws within each to a stanadard and it is THAT unified standard I speak of as well as US copyright law.
• Well I am not quoteing UK copyright law but USA copyright law
• But don't ask me.. I've just been there and back in copyright issues and have experience with it.. something this lawyer friend of yours obviously has not. Did she/he mention how you search for something that is in the public domain as much as this is?
• She/he (EDIT: I.e., the above ‘lawyer friend’) would know that something released into the public domain as the LAP has been
• I am sure that the lawyers representing Alienware have given this a go ahead status for being in the public domain.
• It is in the public domain.
• Have you ever read up on what makes something be in the public domain? That will clear your questions up quite fast.
• So on both fronts Alienware is covered. They took something in public domain and used it to create something new in a design and promotion format. There is no violation here even if you stretch your pockets with lawyers.
• Also you should study what makes something come into public domain. You are wrong if you think it is only because the original author gives permission. You are very wrong.
• Exactly what you said here is the reason this material is public domain. Every fact you have stated here would provide defense to it being in public domain. No lawyer would touch this case if somebody came out claiming original copyright on the LAP.



Q4) The first part of this question (#4) is merely a provable and verifiable statement of fact and as such doesn’t require an answer unless you contest that the following words were wrote by yourself:

on Oct 17th, 2009, 08:09am, tomi01uk wrote:
The fact is, should someone obtain registration of this to begin with, will go a long way to establishing it as not being in the public domain...

Now as evident in this recent post (directly above this text) you claim there could be a hypothetical lawsuit to be answered, so do you concede that the material couldn’t possibly have been classified as public domain in the first place? (As if this was the case there would be no case to answer?)


Q5) Again the first part of this question (#5) is merely a provable and verifiable statement of fact and as such doesn’t require an answer unless you contest that the following words were wrote by yourself:

“I didn't spend 6 years in a legal battle and come away prevailing and knowing nothing about the subject. I probably know more about the keener aspects of copyright law than most general practice lawyers…..Having the experience of going through a very tough copyright lawsuit that involved 13 companies in 4 countries I'm pretty familiar with what I'm talking about …..But don't ask me.. I've just been there and back in copyright issues and have experience with it.. something this lawyer friend of yours obviously has not.”

“I am sure that the lawyers representing Alienware have given this a go ahead status for being in the public domain….It is in the public domain…..on both fronts Alienware is covered. They took something in public domain….Exactly what you said here is the reason this material is public domain.”


Basically you stated you were drawing on your years of relevant experience and you came to the conclusion based on this prior experience that the Isaac material was indeed public domain material.

(And here’s the actual question)

Were you wrong in these (2007) assertions when alleging that the Isaacs documentation were in your learned opinion and assessment public domain material?



And there you have it, five yes or no answers Tomi…..

Cheers. kiss


Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by Klatunictobarata on Oct 17th, 2009, 7:52pm

on Oct 17th, 2009, 07:04am, tomi01uk wrote:
Who the hell is falcon now... rolleyes




Tomi,

Your answer from me is a TWOFER - two answers for the price of one.


First:

Falcon is the name of the boy in the 'Balloon Boy' hoax on the news these past three days out of Colorado, USA.


Second:

In a rare (or not so rare, dimensionally speaking) coincidence, 'FALCON' was the code name of one Richard C. Doty used with Linda Howe in that whole lies/misleading the media/disinformation fiasco from the spring (April) of 1983.

I can provide your own UK researcher Timothy Good's reference with direct quotes if you are interested.

Ciao.
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by blackwater on Oct 17th, 2009, 9:10pm

on Oct 17th, 2009, 05:42am, Klatunictobarata wrote:
"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?


Good point Klatu, also why would a craft that needs to be read from below (or above) have an invisibility device?

You can't read it if it's invisible, so it defeats the purpose of the writing.

Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by YourWorstNightmare on Oct 18th, 2009, 01:05am

These very arguments were rehashed aeons ago..if Albert read like he said he read..then why are we revisiting..we know whats going on here ..we dont have to rehash the same .arguments to convince anyone as the record is there..at many places..The summary analysis along with Dr Dils are the two best sources for objective..and I underscoore that as the results of OMF summaries were born out of pro and con arguments..not specious one side only..remain uncontested to this day..with ample opportunity for the other side to post as well as even threads created..which remain vacant....why not one post for the case for..because..there is no case..legal or in rteality for the drone..but the strongest and conclusive for a hoax by any reasonable standard..

Lets not divert to issues already resolved.. to the questions who not why..which should be somewhat apparent by now with Fox and mufon both giving play to the imagery and the sockpuppets here working non stop to keep it in play as a mystery..

Like Sidds parable of the shoes..(The man's a saint I tell you ).you can rest assured and make no mistake about it..the at least one pair of them the shoes fits AW quite comfortably..wearing them then and now..Its the rest of the Cabal im interested in..One PC maker doing this is no story..but all of them working hand and foot together..well..thats horse of a different color..and bigger than the hoax itself..wouldn't one think?
.
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by neveleeleven on Oct 18th, 2009, 04:48am

So, I won some money playing poker, and I decided to spend some of it.

I went to justanswer.com and asked a question in their "Intellectual Property Law" section, and I got a reply from a verified attorney with a California State Bar license and a doctoral degree in law from UC Hastings in 1983. This was his answer:

Quote:
By putting it into the public domain the user gave up any hope of claiming copyright, IMHO. - N Cal Attorney


http://img10.imageshack.us/i/ownedsf.png/


on Oct 5th, 2009, 06:36am, tomi01uk wrote:
then go ask an IPR lawyer


LOL
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by tommi01 on Oct 18th, 2009, 06:14am

OK Drdil, et al....

1st: I said you can't define public domain as cut and dry, it is arguable. So how can I answer those questions with a yes or a no?

I've tried to give examples of how the public domain defense that AW would use, could be overcome by the claimants.

Here from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_domain

Although copyright law generally does not provide any statutory means to "abandon" copyright so that a work can enter the public domain, this does not mean that it is impossible or even difficult, only that the law is somewhat unclear.

Now.. how can I answer this yes or no?

But alternative and reasonable and arguable solutions to the "public domain" defense that probably would be advanced by AW could be argued on behalf of the claimants should they have a viable counter argument to this assertion.

What drove me to change my opinion might be the better way of asking the question(s) you put to me in the previous post?

Money. Because money is what attracts lawfirms. In the USA particularly and in the big NY City lawfirms especially.

Two examples: Little ol me, hypothetically, putting the LAP out on bedsheets, pillow cases and duvet covers, as a "cottage industry", no lawfirm would touch this case..(I would hope..) but Dell computers using it to the degree they have at this time..... a big difference!

Ever hear the saying "indict a ham sandwich"?

And the reason it could be considered in the public domain is because, as I've said before, nobody is defending it.

Sure, AW or any infringer could argue that Isaac said to reproduce it at will just keep all of the material intact.
That amounts to about a hill of beans in my opinion now if the claiments argue that the story was fictitious and it didn't imply that Dell could proliferate using it and cherry pick the material to publish, promote with and imprint into its products..

What matters now, IMO, is the interest a lawfirm would take based on some newer elements that have developed or could develop.

a. If the claimant(s) have a background story that would be a reasonable and arguable defense agains the material being considered in public domain.

b. The scope of use by AW has crossed the line from taking some symbols and creating a trademark to outright display and utilisation of the entire design.

c. Before a infringement claim can be made the creator(s) need to obtain copyright registration certificates. This would be possible if they created the work regardless of it being used currently the way it is now being used by AW.

What differenciates this case that would make it so attractive for a lawfirm to persue providing a., b. and c. above are met is the way the game is played in copyright law that involves a big manufacturer and a distributor base involving big ticket products.

So... a lawfirm that found a., b. and c. satisfied sufficiently IMO would then proceed to consider taking this case on contingency.

As I said before, the reason being that they would effectively stop all sales using copyright law until a settlement could be reached. Now, bear in mind that there are liabilities to the lawfirm if they are so frivilous as to attempt to do this without solid argument against the public domain defense that probably AW would raise, that is why a., b. and c. would surely have to be in place before a firm would proceed especially on contingency.





Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by DrDil on Oct 18th, 2009, 06:30am

on Oct 18th, 2009, 06:14am, tomi01uk wrote:
OK Drdil, et al....

None of this alters the fact that you stated in 2007 due to years of experience you were sure that the LAP was public domain. Now drawing on the same experience you state due to the money possibly involved it could be argued it wasn’t.

It’s also worth pointing out that the 2007 statement you made was after Alienware had ran competitions with the text, had websites and flash movies dedicated to the same and it was on show at their related presentation of the new laptops.

So just the one question for you not to answer this time, one question:

What aspects of the LAP as it related to Aliewnware’s involvement were you aware of in 2007 that led you to state with absolute certainty that it was public domain material?


Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by DrDil on Oct 18th, 2009, 06:45am

In fact none of what you state as a reason for not answering the specific questions you asked for can be applied to the last two questions as they ARE purely based on YOUR opinion

In fact I'll narrow it down to just one for you and all I ask for now is based on your opinion on what you wrote previously and what you know personally.

No elaboration necessary, one yes or no answer:

on Oct 17th, 2009, 6:08pm, DrDil wrote:

Q5) Again the first part of this question (#5) is merely a provable and verifiable statement of fact and as such doesn’t require an answer unless you contest that the following words were wrote by yourself:

“I didn't spend 6 years in a legal battle and come away prevailing and knowing nothing about the subject. I probably know more about the keener aspects of copyright law than most general practice lawyers…..Having the experience of going through a very tough copyright lawsuit that involved 13 companies in 4 countries I'm pretty familiar with what I'm talking about …..But don't ask me.. I've just been there and back in copyright issues and have experience with it.. something this lawyer friend of yours obviously has not.”

“I am sure that the lawyers representing Alienware have given this a go ahead status for being in the public domain….It is in the public domain…..on both fronts Alienware is covered. They took something in public domain….Exactly what you said here is the reason this material is public domain.”


Basically you stated you were drawing on your years of relevant experience and you came to the conclusion based on this prior experience that the Isaac material was indeed public domain material.

(And here’s the actual question)

Were you wrong in these (2007) assertions when alleging that the Isaacs documentation were in your learned opinion and assessment public domain material?









Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by tommi01 on Oct 18th, 2009, 07:04am

on Oct 18th, 2009, 06:30am, DrDil wrote:
None of this alters the fact that you stated in 2007 due to years of experience you were sure that the LAP was public domain. Now drawing on the same experience you state due to the money possibly involved it could be argued it wasn’t.



Yep. Let's just say a potentially very valuable ham sandwich has been left on the table....

Quote:
It’s also worth pointing out that the 2007 statement you made was after Alienware had ran competitions with the text, had websites and flash movies dedicated to the same and it was on show at their related presentation of the new laptops.

So just the one question for you not to answer this time, one question:

What aspects of the LAP as it related to Aliewnware’s involvement were you aware of in 2007 that led you to state with absolute certainty that it was public domain material?



No more than and probably less than your awareness of what they were using.

Why was I arguing affirmatively the public domain aspect of the LAP in 2007??

I suppose because back then the LAP was being cherry picked by AW. That would factor in in hind sight to what is going on now..

But the answer I bet you are waiting for drdil.. is the one that I am not too proud to give you.. Yes, back then I looked at the Isaaccaret release of material as a believer in Isaac. I think I also, along with others, I argued that the LAP was a government document if I recall....

And..... Hello??

My attempt at finding out if this is the case or not is plainly obvious here by encouraging any creators who may read this thread to stop being stupid, quit their mission and go get a copyright registration.....!


Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by DrDil on Oct 18th, 2009, 07:28am

on Oct 18th, 2009, 07:04am, tomi01uk wrote:
But the answer I bet you are waiting for drdil.. is the one that I am not too proud to give you.. Yes, back then I looked at the Isaaccaret release of material as a believer in Isaac. I think I also, along with others, I argued that the LAP was a government document if I recall....

So is that a yes then!! laugh

Perhaps not too proud but I'm sure I'm not the first to say that occasionally you're quite hard work. wink

I hope you know it’s never personal Tomi and as I’ve said before if you personally hadn’t put so much store on your previous experience then it would never even have been an issue (and for what it’s worth I agree with Tomi_2007).

Quote:
Pseudonyms

If you are writing under a pseudonym but do not wish to have your identity revealed in the
records of the Copyright Office, you should give your pseudonym and identify it as such. You
may leave blank the space for the name of the author. If the author’s name is given, it will be
made part of the online public records produced by the Copyright Office and will be accessible
via the Internet. This information cannot be removed later from those public records. You
must, however, identify the citizenship or domicile of the author.

In no case should you omit the name of the copyright claimant. You may use a pseudonym
in completing the claimant space, but you should also be aware that if a copyright is held under
a fictitious name, business dealings involving that property may raise questions of ownership
of the copyright property. You should consult an attorney for legal advice on these matters.


FL-101, Revised May 2009


Quote:
Copyright registration of visual arts

If the visual art is published, the proper deposit is generally two complete copies. Identifying
material can be deposited in some cases. If the visual art is unpublished, one complete copy is
generally required. This copy must represent the entire copyrightable content of the work for
which registration is sought.

Identifying material deposited to represent the visual art shall usually consist of photographs,
photostats, slides, drawings, or other two-dimensional representations of the work. The
identifying material shall include as many pieces as necessary to show the entire copyrightable
content of the work, including any copyright notice on the work. All pieces of identifying material
other than transparencies must be no less than 3" * 3" in size, and not more than 9" * 12",
but preferably 8" * 10". At least one piece of identifying material must, on its front, back, or
mount, indicate the title of the work and an exact measurement of one or more dimensions of
the work.

FL-115, Revised May 2009


Cheers.

Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by tommi01 on Oct 18th, 2009, 07:54am

on Oct 18th, 2009, 07:28am, DrDil wrote:
So is that a yes then!! laugh

Perhaps not too proud but I'm sure I'm not the first to say that occasionally you're quite hard work. wink



And annoying... smiley

In fact I copied the post:

"I don't think it's human any more, Shads, if it ever was. I think it's some awful misbegotten experiment gone wrong. Like a cross between some Terminator prototype and a manure spreader, loaded with defective software. It scares the hell out of me!"

to my husband, so it was fully appreciated. grin

Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by tommi01 on Oct 18th, 2009, 08:35am

With regards to this part of your post Drdil:

Quote:
Pseudonyms

If you are writing under a pseudonym but do not wish to have your identity revealed in the
records of the Copyright Office, you should give your pseudonym and identify it as such. You
may leave blank the space for the name of the author. If the author’s name is given, it will be
made part of the online public records produced by the Copyright Office and will be accessible
via the Internet. This information cannot be removed later from those public records. You
must, however, identify the citizenship or domicile of the author.

In no case should you omit the name of the copyright claimant. You may use a pseudonym
in completing the claimant space, but you should also be aware that if a copyright is held under
a fictitious name, business dealings involving that property may raise questions of ownership
of the copyright property. You should consult an attorney for legal advice on these matters.

FL-101, Revised May 2009


Revised 2009? Not even going to go there with what has happened in 2007? But where is there pseudonym or not registering the LAP... None so far... and what is the relevence of this to public domain? Especially if the website is argued to be a fictitious story?

And your post:

Quote:
Quote:Copyright registration of visual arts

If the visual art is published, the proper deposit is generally two complete copies. Identifying
material can be deposited in some cases. If the visual art is unpublished, one complete copy is
generally required. This copy must represent the entire copyrightable content of the work for
which registration is sought.

Identifying material deposited to represent the visual art shall usually consist of photographs,
photostats, slides, drawings, or other two-dimensional representations of the work. The
identifying material shall include as many pieces as necessary to show the entire copyrightable
content of the work, including any copyright notice on the work. All pieces of identifying material
other than transparencies must be no less than 3" * 3" in size, and not more than 9" * 12",
but preferably 8" * 10". At least one piece of identifying material must, on its front, back, or
mount, indicate the title of the work and an exact measurement of one or more dimensions of
the work.

FL-115, Revised May 2009



How does this factor into what I have been saying? The Lib of Congress holds snipped flattend lithographed sides of a tin can to how "publication" of copyrighted work... for instance.. but the work involved in developing the copy is submitted to show evidence of rightful ownership to obtain the number but not retained as "the record" of copyright as addressed above.






Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by DrDil on Oct 18th, 2009, 09:05am

None of it has to factor into what you were saying, does it?

I have no desire to get into this Tomi as I’ve said several times and was merely posting what I found interesting. But the relevance of it to public domain is minimal although it has been discussed on several occasions (on this forum) if the copyright could be claimed while retaining anonymity, and so I offered up what I found relevant.

This genuinely is my last post on Alienware & CARET copyright issues unless some new evidence comes to light.

So alas, I fear I must leave you to wallow in a quagmire of your own obfuscation….. kiss

Cheers!! grin

Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by Jeddyhi on Oct 18th, 2009, 09:05am

on Oct 18th, 2009, 08:35am, tomi01uk wrote:
How does this factor into what I have been saying? The Lib of Congress holds snipped flattend lithographed sides of a tin can to how "publication" of copyrighted work... for instance.. but the work involved in developing the copy is submitted to show evidence of rightful ownership to obtain the number but not retained as "the record" of copyright as addressed above.


Translation, Please. grin
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by tommi01 on Oct 18th, 2009, 09:30am

on Oct 18th, 2009, 09:05am, Jeddyhi wrote:
Translation, Please. grin


The medium along with the copy must be submitted.
Suppose your copy was on a tin can? You have to submit that part of the tin can... but this is only the record they keep. The development of that copy may also be requested in order to get the copyright to that copy registered as yours.
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by Radi on Oct 18th, 2009, 09:58am

on Oct 18th, 2009, 09:30am, tomi01uk wrote:
The medium along with the copy must be submitted.
Suppose your copy was on a tin can? You have to submit that part of the tin can... but this is only the record they keep. The development of that copy may also be requested in order to get the copyright to that copy registered as yours.


You submit a photograph of the tin can not the tin can itself....Like a painting..You don't slice up the painting and send part of it....You take a photo of it and send that along...The LAP would be simple since it all exsists in the computer already.It would be easy to send... wink smiley

This is the key part of that..
"material deposited to represent the visual art"
Which means the photos, slides, drawings submitted for copyright approval are copies of the original work...Or represent the original work....Or you have the tin can and you take a picture of the tin can..You can now send that picture of the tin can and give the measurements and what in the photo is supposed to be subject of the copyright approval process....Since chopping up the original work would destroy that original work it is done with the photos, drawings...ect...

Quote:
Identifying material deposited to represent the visual art shall usually consist of photographs,
photostats, slides, drawings, or other two-dimensional representations of the work.

Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by tommi01 on Oct 18th, 2009, 11:00am

on Oct 18th, 2009, 09:58am, Radi wrote:
You submit a photograph of the tin can not the tin can itself....Like a painting..You don't slice up the painting and send part of it....You take a photo of it and send that along...The LAP would be simple since it all exsists in the computer already.It would be easy to send... wink smiley

This is the key part of that..
"material deposited to represent the visual art"
Which means the photos, slides, drawings submitted for copyright approval are copies of the original work...Or represent the original work....Or you have the tin can and you take a picture of the tin can..You can now send that picture of the tin can and give the measurements and what in the photo is supposed to be subject of the copyright approval process....Since chopping up the original work would destroy that original work it is done with the photos, drawings...ect...



In my case, believe me.. it was tin cans..
I'm glad there are provisions for oil paintings.. but in my case it was flattened metal.. with sharp edges..(I taped over to protect fingers..)
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by Radi on Oct 18th, 2009, 11:06am

on Oct 18th, 2009, 11:00am, tomi01uk wrote:
In my case, believe me.. it was tin cans..
I'm glad there are provisions for oil paintings.. but in my case it was flattened metal.. with sharp edges..(I taped over to protect fingers..)

You can also submit that way if you had to but not really needed since the days of scanners.. Decent quality ones at least grin
Unless the tin can itself is a work of art then see my previous post.. wink smiley
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by Katterfelto on Oct 18th, 2009, 11:10am

on Oct 18th, 2009, 07:04am, tomi01uk wrote:
And..... Hello??

My attempt at finding out if this is the case or not is plainly obvious here by encouraging any creators who may read this thread to stop being stupid, quit their mission and go get a copyright registration.....!



Now that I like. grin
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by tommi01 on Oct 18th, 2009, 11:21am

on Oct 18th, 2009, 11:06am, Radi wrote:
You can also submit that way if you had to but not really needed since the days of scanners.. Decent quality ones at least grin
Unless the tin can itself is a work of art then see my previous post.. wink smiley


Some paper labels I had to submit but because the print was litho'd on to the tin, I think that is why it was requested in that manner for those items with printed cans not labels. But it was requested that way. Dunno why.. I didn't argue that's for sure.. smiley
Re: Drone Discussion #10
Post by YourWorstNightmare on Oct 18th, 2009, 1:40pm

I am looking into this for you but I do believe we have the copyright for the Alienware language.




"I do believe?"

Copyright for the Alienware language?

What language? A distinctly dissimilar type of related symbol inspired by the LAP symbols or are you saying they copied them, and now they ain't so sure who owns what and like all good clerks.. he/she is non-committal.

If you want to investigate this, please do, but ask them what submission they have in place for the LAP design they have been using, of which those original symbols originated from..



Let me repeat.again.the second memo disallowed his use..that means know we dont grant permission to use the design..not just the letters..
who do we believe you or her in a normal day of business transactions..You're not marketing are you? how would you know. Are you a marketing specialist too?T
Why have'nt you written..in fact written anyone?
Was it all telephone, the person who hired the PIs, a founding member of the DRT,playing exile?
thats verifiable..Had the chance to end it all really..sending the scans to a group..capable of analyzing..certainly cost was no barrier..you are still paying PIs..
Embarassed at one point to ask anyone important, a question? No thats not Enbarassed..thats consistent with not taken notes and called Cunning..it was never supposed to spill out into the real world..the DRT, Linda, and Levs Blogs, was supposed to control the flow..but it backfired..
I'm the one who coresponded AND supplied you the the price quote from that professor, remember? What did you suggest..give it to a group of students as a project? Are you daft, the case of the century?
Yet here you post voluminously a