PDA

View Full Version : California dragonfly drone UFOs



majicbar
05-07-2014, 12:19 AM
Linda Moulton Howe's Earthfiles.com website has a new witness report of a drone sighting going back before the other sightings. Of special interest is that supposedly ISSAC contacted her and verified the same symbology on the craft. This new sighting was in the vicinity of a powerpole as was the photograph of thr Raj sighting.

Linda has posted many links to other sightings of the drones in her webpage.

And you thought this all had gone away?!

majicbar
05-07-2014, 07:17 AM
Linda Moulton Howe's Earthfiles.com website has a new witness report of a drone sighting going back before the other sightings. Of special interest is that supposedly ISSAC contacted her and verified the same symbology on the craft. This new sighting was in the vicinity of a powerpole as was the photograph of thr Raj sighting.

Linda has posted many links to other sightings of the drones in her webpage.

And you thought this all had gone away?!http://www.earthfiles.com/news.php?ID=2201&category=Science

Lee
05-08-2014, 07:22 PM
I saw the article but didn't really find anything to change my opinion.

My feeling, from all of the excellent work done at the old OMF and by the DRT, is that the images and documents were fake. I reserved judgement for a long time, but in the end when the locations were shown to be not as claimed and Raj's pics were shown to be CGI, there really was no other valid conclusion. Especially as the images and documents were all connected with common themes. The question of who created them and why still fascinates me though. Student summer project or possible Intelligence operation are my current favourite theories.

This new witness testimony just doesn't add up to me. The claim that she was contacted by "Isaac" after her sighting is just far too convenient, if only because the Q4-86 document was allegedly written in 1986, five years after the new witness claims to have seen her drone. Other problems are: How did she know it was the same "Isaac"? And how did he know to make contact with her?

majicbar
05-08-2014, 10:48 PM
I saw the article but didn't really find anything to change my opinion.

My feeling, from all of the excellent work done at the old OMF and by the DRT, is that the images and documents were fake. I reserved judgement for a long time, but in the end when the locations were shown to be not as claimed and Raj's pics were shown to be CGI, there really was no other valid conclusion. Especially as the images and documents were all connected with common themes. The question of who created them and why still fascinates me though. Student summer project or possible Intelligence operation are my current favourite theories.

This new witness testimony just doesn't add up to me. The claim that she was contacted by "Isaac" after her sighting is just far too convenient, if only because the Q4-86 document was allegedly written in 1986, five years after the new witness claims to have seen her drone. Other problems are: How did she know it was the same "Isaac"? And how did he know to make contact with her?Mary's contact with Isaac occurred after she sent a photograph of the drone that she saw above a power pole to MUFON. Presumably the CARET operation was run by the CIA, NSA or other alphabet soup agency and CARET would have been fed a heads up from them of the MUFON contact. There was far less Internet traffic at that time and if the NSA has been monitoring the Internet from it's inception, it could be that is how Isaac became aware of the sighting. My feeling is that Isaac should have known that he would have been discovered and his use of emails was reckless. Unless of course this was all a kind of disinformation campaign of some kind.

Marvin
05-09-2014, 01:52 PM
Does anyone know if the contact with "Mary" was face to face, or by phone? I am feeling Deja Vu all over again.

M

Doc
05-09-2014, 04:39 PM
I saw the article but didn't really find anything to change my opinion.

My feeling, from all of the excellent work done at the old OMF and by the DRT, is that the images and documents were fake. I reserved judgement for a long time, but in the end when the locations were shown to be not as claimed and Raj's pics were shown to be CGI, there really was no other valid conclusion. Especially as the images and documents were all connected with common themes. The question of who created them and why still fascinates me though. Student summer project or possible Intelligence operation are my current favourite theories.

This new witness testimony just doesn't add up to me. The claim that she was contacted by "Isaac" after her sighting is just far too convenient, if only because the Q4-86 document was allegedly written in 1986, five years after the new witness claims to have seen her drone. Other problems are: How did she know it was the same "Isaac"? And how did he know to make contact with her?

Somehow, we have come to nearly opposite conclusions about the drones. I do agree that the excellent work of the photo analysts proved the telephone pole pic a fake--but that laborious effort barely makes the case IMO and some of the other "proofs" are reasonable doubt, if that. The bigger picture for me is more of a "preponderance of the evidence" situation for me. Too many sources, too much disorganized evidence, the man hours and cost required to fake the catalog--all of this left me thinking what I believe has turned out to be true--there is something behind this more than a hoax! I think the Drone Saga emanated from tests of advanced terrestrial hardware, intimidated witnesses, whistleblowing, and a very successful coverup. Probably half a dozen of the drone people could make the case off the top of their heads better than I but until I get so lucky as to have them show up here I'll just say there is too much to this to be a hoax, regardless of what fake evidence may or may not be proven.

Lee
05-09-2014, 05:24 PM
Well, I'm always willing to reconsider, Doc. :D

I agree that the whole story is impressive, complex and would require a huge amount of labour in terms of producing the images, etc. It has always surprised me that nobody came forward to claim a hoax, which is why I think Intel Op might be a valid explanation. (Which in my mind might include some truths and half truths.) The witness testimony that LMH gathered always made me reserve judgement, but ultimately they were all anonymous and that just doesn't sit well with me.

If anybody can make a good case for at least partial authenticity, I'd love to hear it. The story really did fascinate me at the time and still does today to some degree.

Doc
05-09-2014, 05:51 PM
Well, I'm always willing to reconsider, Doc. :D

I agree that the whole story is impressive, complex and would require a huge amount of labour in terms of producing the images, etc. It has always surprised me that nobody came forward to claim a hoax, which is why I think Intel Op might be a valid explanation. (Which in my mind might include some truths and half truths.) The witness testimony that LMH gathered always made me reserve judgement, but ultimately they were all anonymous and that just doesn't sit well with me.

If anybody can make a good case for at least partial authenticity, I'd love to hear it. The story really did fascinate me at the time and still does today to some degree.

You make good points! The amount of labor going into an alleged hoax is always a major consideration for me. I know there are numerous exceptions but spending big resources for no profit usually influences me toward authenticity. I would love to see something that shows LMH follows good journalistic practice and vets her sources but her good qualities and results seemed to get a sprinkling of unbelievable stuff that makes me doubt her sometimes. (And I hate admitting that.) So, where it stands for me is 1) Diverse evidence 2) Unconvincing (to me) debunking 3) Drones everywhere in evidence these days--All adds up to something real was expertly covered up. It seems our disagreement is that you don't think a convincing case has been made for "partial authenticity" while I think that case has been made. :bleh:

Lee
05-09-2014, 06:25 PM
My biggest problem is that Raj's images were shown to be CGI, It took a lot of work and they were very, very good, but ultimately fake. They contain the same drone type and symbols as all of the other photo sets including Isaac's alleged leaked material. So essentially all photos, documents and testimony were part of the same story, a story that we can say with some certainly includes deception. Raj and Chad lied about the image locations, you've got to wonder why? Isaac, claimed to have hundreds of pages of info, but only ever posted stuff that linked with the pics from, Chad, Raj and Big Basin. Too convenient? In my mind, yes.

Could it have been an Op to test the quality of online research groups, monitor the flow of info, introduce some new technological concepts (The idea of "Rigid Spatial Relationships" for example), monitor social reactions, etc. etc. It's certainly a possibility, and might explain why even the PIs couldn't get to the bottom of the story.

Doc
05-09-2014, 06:50 PM
My biggest problem is that Raj's images were shown to be CGI, It took a lot of work and they were very, very good, but ultimately fake. They contain the same drone type and symbols as all of the other photo sets including Isaac's alleged leaked material. So essentially all photos, documents and testimony were part of the same story, a story that we can say with some certainly includes deception. Raj and Chad lied about the image locations, you've got to wonder why? Isaac, claimed to have hundreds of pages of info, but only ever posted stuff that linked with the pics from, Chad, Raj and Big Basin. Too convenient? In my mind, yes.

Could it have been an Op to test the quality of online research groups, monitor the flow of info, introduce some new technological concepts (The idea of "Rigid Spatial Relationships" for example), monitor social reactions, etc. etc. It's certainly a possibility, and might explain why even the PIs couldn't get to the bottom of the story.

I don't put much weight on the deception about the locations. I think some effort at protecting identity would go right there. If I took a pic in the Sierras I might not want people to know where I was because of how easy they could figure out how I got there and where I might live. So I would be likely to say Southern Sierras when it was farther North, knowing most people would be fooled.

As far as an intel op goes, I favor an explanation that has the intel involvement later, intimidating witnesses, planting disinfo, doing all they do so well to discredit a story. I think the "study the flow of information" meme is real but overused. I think certain intel ops stay in touch and can report on the flow at any given time.

"Could it have been an Op to test the quality of online research groups"? Yes, that rings true to me and also suggest intel may have had a hand in the Raj photos. But even if that were true, it leads to to ther questions such as: why spend intel resources getting involved in a silly hoax? To me that expenditure of resources makes more sense if some of the witnesses, pics, are for real. So when I step back, I think the reason only a few pages of Isaac info got posted was that somebody got to him. Given time and enough money the private investigators would have gotten more and for all I know they did get more that we have not been told. This is what makes it all such fun!

majicbar
05-20-2014, 07:19 PM
http://www.earthfiles.com/news.php?ID=2205&category=Environment

Earthfiles.com is reporting that in (July?, 2013) a witness near Las Vegas saw a different, but similar drone of this California type. It had the crown antenna pointed down, and it appeared from a distance away and seems to have scanned the witness with a slow moving blue beam of "solid light" with a greenish laser like light that then came from the craft. After this beam disappeared lasting a short time it disappeared and then the craft seemed to cloak itself and what remained was an area where it had been that was like a shimmering mirage.

majicbar
06-25-2014, 07:51 AM
Linda Moulton Howe on her Earthfiles.com website is alerting readers that an upcoming report of another California drone and another whistle blower report is to be on Thursday night's (06/25-26, 2014) Coast to Coast AM, this sighting is reported to be from 1981.

Pandora'sParadox
06-25-2014, 05:58 PM
Yea...didn't call this out like 3 yrs ago. Lmao...

Always said the best place for a drone was within nature itself...meaning animals. We have micro remote helicopters for children in bug form. Lets give the research some gov $ and the latest specs. BOOM, you have a field ready drone...not these giant forms of distraction. Maybe they are trying to disseminate tech to the public...
The Fifth Element, when the guy tries to spy in on the meeting with the roach control little antenna...this is the tech I'm talking about. (More effective...unless your taking census like the big ones.)LoL

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DrHMBletjXg
:cool:

calikid
06-27-2014, 12:23 AM
I was out last night, missed the show.
Anybody listen in?
How was it?

majicbar
06-27-2014, 06:15 AM
I was out last night, missed the show.
Anybody listen in?
How was it?Actually it is on tonight (Thursday night - Friday morning) , sorry if you were misled by note in my posting, I hope you get to hear it.

calikid
06-29-2014, 01:59 PM
Actually it is on tonight (Thursday night - Friday morning) , sorry if you were misled by note in my posting, I hope you get to hear it.
Work hours conflict.
Anything new/interesting?

majicbar
07-01-2014, 01:29 AM
Work hours conflict.
Anything new/interesting?Linda has posted her report to Earthfiles.com and it has all the relevant information repeated and an interview with Mary from Arizona, early 1981 sighting. It's major point is that she contacted MUFON and after that "Isaac" of CARET contacted her about a more recent sighting and was said to have indicated that it too was of terrestrial origin. Link below takes you to Linda's report.

http://www.earthfiles.com/news.php?ID=2216&category=Environment