The Dreamland Drones
After being out of the ‘Drone scene' for a few months Whitley Strieber has rekindled his involvement by attempting to resuscitate the Drone subject which has itself been in remission for a couple of months now. Whitley made a couple or so posts regarding the Drones last June (2007) when the Drone images and witnesses were coming thick and fast. In fact to the best of my knowledge Whitley has only made a few posts in total regarding the California Drones, here's an extract from his previous Drone revelation back in December last year:
“So this experience actually crossed waking and dream. The first time I got out of bed and walked into the living room and saw the trees, I was wide awake and actually moving across realities physically. Then, when I slept and dreamed, the realities unfolded around me. When I saw the drone, I was possibly in yet another universe, different from this one.
So the logical question, at least to me, is this: how could anyone even write such far-fetched nonsense, let alone believe that it really happened?”
It seems Whitley Strieber adheres to the philosophy of Friedrich Nietzsche in that, “There are no facts, only interpretations,” or perhaps a more fitting axiom would be that of Democritus and, “Nothing exists except atoms and empty space; everything else is opinion.”
Anyway, fast forward six months to a couple of days ago and June 13th, 2008 Whitley posted another Drone related Blog post, an extract follows:
“Last summer, the so called "drones" appeared. Linda Moulton Howe and I soon confirmed that the photographs were real, both by what photo analysis could done, and by numerous interviews with witnesses, many of whom were willing to go on the record with their names.
Then there were the Carat documents. These were furiously rebutted on the internet, but when I suggested that somebody create similar images, nobody responded. The reason that they did not respond is contained in a comment made by an engineer, Michael A. Reed of Reed Development Associates, who recently looked at them at Linda Howe's request. He commented, "the things are so complex, they are a little mind boggling!"
This is why none of the people claiming both expertise as draftsmen and that the Carat images were frauds came forward to produce similar but differently constructed images. There were a few knockoffs of the Carat images, but that proves nothing. Anybody can recopy images and make a few changes with a simple drafting program.
Last summer, when I read in the Carat documents the amazing concept of "self-activating software," I knew immediately that this is exactly what the crop circles are. They are activating something in our earth, and, fortunately, there is nothing that the forces of evil, largely embodied in government, its lying shills in the media, and farmers who destroy the circles as fast as possible, can do about this. This is because the effect is instantaneous, and by the time the destroyers reach a given circle, it's already too late.”
RE: “The photographs were real, both by what photo analysis could done, and by numerous interviews with witnesses, many of whom were willing to go on the record with their names.”
In the same sentence as, “Photographs were real” he ascertains this by, "Both by what photo analysis could done, and by numerous interviews with witnesses.”
It seems as if Whitley has been studying at the Linda Moulton Howe School of Investigative Journalism!!
Firstly we have the ambiguous error of, “could done,” is this, “was done” or, “could be done?” (More importantly where is this analysis and has it been subjected to peer review?)
And secondly which photo witnesses have been interviewed or for that matter which photo witnesses have been proven to disclose their real name/s?
ALL of the original photo witnesses disappeared without a trace, well all except Rajman1977 who posted twice on the OM forums before promptly disappearing into cyberspace. Also all of the witnesses have stopped answered any follow-up emails which were sent to the addresses from where their emails originated.
“Then there were the Carat documents. These were furiously rebutted on the internet, but when I suggested that somebody create similar images, nobody responded.”
Hold on a minute, I've seen many, many replications of the CARET documents. But this is of course easily dismissed by Whitley saying that:
“There were a few knockoffs of the Carat images, but that proves nothing. Anybody can recopy images and make a few changes with a simple drafting program.”
Apparently not everybody can recopy text in the same fashion as I think we can safely assume that the "Carat" Whitley speaks of is actually "CARET". You may think that's an easy mistake to make, but not when you consider it's an acronym of:
"Commercial Applications Research For Extraterrestrial Technology".
And Whitley repeatedly misspells this simple acronym -never once spelling it correctly- suggesting to me that perhaps Whitley isn't quite as knowledgeable about the Drone phenomenon as he would like us to believe.
But back to the question and what is it exactly Whitley is asking of people? He suggested someone create similar images and when this was done it was simply dismissed as copying the originals!! The fact of the matter is that the originals are fairly unique in their design, well they're unique enough so that anyone attempting to replicate them would have to copy the overall design if any kind of comparison were to be made, otherwise how could you distinguish that they were in fact similar images?
This seems to me like it's no more than moving the goalposts…..
When do facts stop being the issue?
Is it a conscious decision or a genuine mistake?
Perhaps it's no more than a genuine mistake, an objective reality that once squeezed through the prism of belief and filtered through personal values becomes fact, but as John Burroughs wrote:
“To treat your facts with imagination is one thing,
But to imagine your facts is another.”
RE: “Last summer, when I read in the Carat documents the amazing concept of "self-activating software," I knew immediately that this is exactly what the crop circles are.”
Whitley is talking About the, “Functional blueprint” which Isaac specifically states is “geometric forms and patterns which fit together to form diagrams,” and that, “Once they are drawn, so to speak, on a suitable surface made of a suitable material and in the presence of a certain type of field.”
A suitable surface being that of the face of the earth and a certain type of field being that of a farmers field is a bit of a stretch, don't you think? (And that's regardless of which dimension it allegedly appeared in!! Oh and of course Isaac never refers to it as software).
Can you recall Whitley's opening gambit? “Linda Moulton Howe and I soon confirmed that the photographs were real”
On June 8th of last year in his Blog entry titled, “The Mystery of the Drones” Whitley writes:
“Throughout the process, I have obtained analysis of the pictures offered, with little success because of the generally low resolution and the proliferation of effects programs more sophisticated than Photoshop that can make virtually undetectable inclusions in still images……The only thing that prevents me from declaring that they are real is that special effects are just so sophisticate d…..Understand, please, this does NOT mean that I'm endorsing these images . I believe Sylvia , Chad and Mr. Smith, but I cannot endorse the images because I cannot, personally and beyond doubt, prove that they are authentic.”
And on June 29th in his Blog post, “The Drones: Are They Real, and What Do We Do?” Whitley wrote:
“Now, it is VERY important to realize something before I go on, and to take it into your mind and heart: EVEN IF the entire Isaac production is proven beyond a shadow of a doubt to be a hoax, and that may happen.”
Okay, who put a "Stop Payment" on Whitley's reality check?
I hope it's not his personal sighting which transcended several dimensions that Whitley is touting as the proof of the existence of the Drones, as just because he personally fails to accept our *reality* then it doesn't nullify it for the rest of us, or even make it go away for Whitley himself as it'll always be there waiting for him every time when he wakes up, whether it's accepted as such is another matter entirely.
Can you remember the CGI video created by Kris Avery that was claimed to be real by Linda Moulton Howe last May? (Full details here). Well it'll surely come as no surprise to learn that Whitley apparently made the same mistake. On May 25 th last year Unknown Country made a Blog post called, “'Drone' Almost Certainly Real” that contained the following text:
“Both Linda Howe and Unknowncountry have resources in various engineering disciplines. An Unknowncountry source at NASA has said that the object is far from any known technology. "If it is using electrostatic lift, then it would have to be extremely light, perhaps on the order of a few pounds, but then where would the energy come from? Electrostatic lift is a laboratory phenomenon, as far as I know."
We asked him to comment on this statement by an engineer queried by Linda Howe. The engineer said, "The design strategy of charged ion shaped plasma 'buoyancy' devices does bear some relevancy here. For instance, the circular array of curved 'antennae' coming out of the center of the device is very similar to a form of wave guide shaping mechanism for a charged plasma ion field."
This was quickly changed to: “Drone Appears on You Tube” with the claims that it was real removed, then witin hours it changed again to, “Drone Appears on You Tube--But Original Photos Still Stand Up ” with the text completely changed to:
"Super-clear photos of a bizarre UFO have caused an international sensation, and now CGI experts are showing just how perfect fakes can be, but so far there is no evidence at all that the 'Chad' photos posted on Flikr, and the 'Alabama' photo posted on Earthfiles.com are fakes. Headers on the Chad photos indicate that they were taken with a Konica Minolta DiMAGE X at an ISO Speed of 100 and a resolution of 72dpi on May 6 at 5:43 PM. In addition, Linda Moulton Howe leads off Dreamland today with a convincing interview with a witness who saw the 'drone' two years ago. So the evidence still favors the original photos being real. BUT the drone is now being reproduced perfectly using CGI technology. It is virtually impossible to tell whether or not the original photographs are real, but the depth of evidence Linda Howe is presenting remains compelling. To see an expert video that has been created of the 'drone,' click here. This is probably CGI work, but it, also, could be a real video of such a drone in testing.”
This is all documented by a user who left several comments on Mac Tonnies Blog, “Posthuman Blues” the poster also wrote that:
“So, the first unknown country (UC) article on the CGI fake, endorsing it as "almost certainly real" was replaced by the second, which reversed course to suggest belatedly the "craft" just might be a fake, and now a _third_ version of the article appears, changing course again, rewritten and now including a note that Strieber will be interviewing Howe on the UC "Dreamland" radio program about the "craft" perhaps _still_ being real, based on the original "Chad" and secondary "Alabama" photos (which are different, and also fakes), but that _now_ other CGI fakes may be surfacing from other sources from elsewhere, including a YouTube video using CGI of the "craft" taking off from the ground at a location that appears to have a large white building, on the left, which may be an aircraft hanger.”
Mac replied that:
“I'm not the least bit surprised. Strieber probably realized how lame the story was and decided to pretend it never happened. He's done it before.”
And finally, I'll leave you with a Whitley Strieber quote that sums the entire debacle up better than I ever could…..
“So the logical question, at least to me, is this: how could anyone even write such far-fetched nonsense, let alone believe that it really happened?”