Sunday, 17 July 2011

Oltissis and the 2011 California Drone Revival

The 2011 California Drone Revival (circa 2007)

I've wrote about the complexity & the intricacies of the original 2007 CARET/Isaac/Drone debacle and some of the main, "Players" many times and at several different online venues. I stopped writing about them quite a while ago now mainly as I compiled what I believe to be the relevant information at a Drone-dedicated website I put together.

I haven't updated the site for a couple of years now mainly because I have always maintained there were only FIVE original Drone witnesses (or more specifically the original five eyewitness accounts that included images and subsequently spawned many, many thousands of forum posts) and so this is where my focus has always been.

Much has happened regarding the Drones since they first showed up in 2007, and to list all related events of any worth is far beyond the scope of this meager post so instead here's a quick breakdown of Drone-related events which I believe are relevant to what is currently being discussed.

May - June 2007 - Five Drone Reports submitted by anonymous witnesses.

Linda Moulton Howe (LMH) - Promotes the Drones as real objects and is openly critical of all who disagree.

Drone Research Team (DRT) - A splinter group formed by members of the Open Minds Forum (OM) who were sick of debating the credibility of the Drones and so formed a website to discuss ONLY the reality of them, writing that:

"This DRT forum was created for the discussion of the reality of the drones. Other forums exist for hoax discussion.


This is a research forum ... not meant for opinions." - A website I put together cataloguing what I and others perceive as signs that the Drones were an internet hoax as well as flaws in the original images & Isaac/CARET information.

Ted Connors (Pseudonym) - An eyewitness of the Drone who claims originally seen the Drone on June 25th 2007 & who LMH interviewed & published his account on June 29th 2007. Ted also claims that four weeks after he saw the Drone he was visited by two men from the military who quizzed him about his sighting and that he thinks that the decision by his employers to downgrade the infrared cameras he uses at his workplace in November 2007 may be related to the Drone appearing in June of 2007. Ted also thinks that the deterioration in health of the tree directly below where he first seen the Drone could somehow be related to this event, the tree was felled in 2010 by a storm at which point Ted collected some samples which, after testing, is alleged showed a small amount of the precious metal "Palladium". (Several other claims were made such as being followed for more than 150 miles when visiting a friend as well as receiving a phone call mentioning the "Drone" by name and requesting further details).

Then in 2010 Ted says that he revisited the place where the tree stood and established telepathic contact with the intelligence responsible for the Drone technology and received a telepathic 'download'. In December 2010 Ted located a book at his local library containing references to the word "Oltissis" only to have two men turn up two days later and confiscate the library book citing the 'Patriot act'.

Before I start it's perhaps prudent to point out at this juncture that I have nothing but respect for the collective effort that the *DroneResearchTeam* (DRT) have put into investigating the original Drone witnesses & their respective locations and regarding Ted Connors, personally I've found his interviews a joy to listen to and thoroughly enjoy his anecdotes as he is certainly the most interesting Drone-related witness to appear since the original five sightings. Even more strangely in the spoken interviews I've heard Ted give he sounds amiable, genuine & sincere (strange only when considering my personal [dis]belief). And as for Linda Moulton Howe (LMH), well I admire her consistency because from what I've seen her MO has been pretty much the same since the early eighties.....

Ted Connors

Back in 2007 a witness whom LMH assigned the pseudonym of Ted Connors stated that he'd witnessed a Drone at his place of work, LMH interviewed him and made the interview available at her website as well as the actual audio via a podcast. Every Drone-related interview or report that LMH has given at her own website or on the Dreamland podcast (Whitley Strieber) or Coast2Coast radio show etc. she has asked for other Drone witnesses to contact her and there has been no shortage of these, however only ONE has ever provided an alleged photograph of a Drone (other than the five original witnesses in 2007) and this was later found to be from a hoaxer who had previously submitted a hoaxed Drone photograph to the main UFOCasebook website. The only reason I mention this fact is because at least three of her witnesses have cited this unique hoaxed image (unique as it looks nothing like the other Drones) to be nearest to the Drone that they themselves had witnessed, of course LMH has NEVER published this (i.e. it was a CG hoax) information or publicly acknowledged that the original Alabama Drone was a hoax, I suspect the reason for this is because two of her earliest witnesses cited the hoaxed Drone as being the one they seen and so this would greatly diminish the time-span she likes to constantly remind us of a time-span which LMH currently claims is in excess of 22 years.

LMH ALWAYS fails to state that EVERY subsequent witness contacted her AFTER May 2007 choosing instead to list her timeline using the dates it is alleged that the encounter actually occurred, hence the oft-repeated 22 years thing.

Impressive at first glance but VERY misleading.....

I won't go into any detail here but I documented the entire LMH aspect of the Drones and more importantly the major part she played (and still does) in perpetuating & promoting a Drone-reality back in 2008, this can be read at, "The LMH Effect."

But back to Ted Connors, Ted first appeared on the DRT forum back on April 22nd, 2010 and a couple of days later on April 24th (Reply #14) Ted wrote about LMH:"We spent weeks after my sighting on the phone and exchanging emails, going over my sighting and reviewing other sightings trying to find a common thread in all of these.We have stayed in contact over this time and she always shares the latest updates with me."

Then on May 11, 2010 (Reply #43) DRT administrator *OnTheFence* asked five questions, two of which were as follows:

After speaking with you some more on the phone, I think there are some important events in your case that have not yet been exposed. Thank you for giving me permission to bring these items into the public, and I hope that you can expand in your own words on these points:

Sometime after your sighting, you were visited by two men apparently from the military, could you describe what they wanted from you?

Your company was using a specific type of IR camera which the manufacturer later informed you had to be removed for a less capable camera. Can you explain any more details on this?

Ted's answer regarding the two military personnel who visited was posted on May 11th 2010 (Reply #45) as follows:

"A2. A few weeks after my DRONE sighting i received a visit at my home during the day from 2 men. One of the men introduced himself as Col. -------(*name deleted). The other man never introduced himself to me. The Col. was dressed in a dark business suit and the other man was dressed in a UNUSUAL looking Military style uniform with no rank or branch insignia. The Col. began by asking me if i had seen anything out of the ordinary in the sky during the week in question and i told him i did not wish to discuss anything with him at this time. He then asked if i was aware of any military exercises that had taken place at MAXWELL AFB during the week in question. I told him again that i did not wish to discuss whether i knew it or not. I asked both of them to leave my residence and that i had nothing further to say. At this point i was sure he was going to produce some type of legal document or worse place me under some kind of arrest, but to my complete surprise they politely thanked me for my time and left. I saw them when they arrived and they were driving a late model dark blue or black Ford Crown Victoria. I did not watch them leave as i was concerned that they might try to return and i was trying to decide on my next move, as you can imagine. I never saw these two men again and never received any more visits to my home. The reason for my reluctance to discuss this with them is because of the interview i had recently given to Linda Moulton Howe in regards to my sighting and ongoing discussions with her in regards to this event. I did not feel comfortable discussing this with ANYONE other than her at that point. I contacted her to let her know what happened and the context of my conversation with them.

* The Col.'s name is deleted for obvious reasons."

Much was made of the two men visiting Ted and understandably so as I'm sure you agree it must have been a terrifying experience prompting Ted himself to later write on December 17th 2010 (Reply #208):

"The look of terror and urgency was apparent from the moment i opened my front door. I was in a state of shock and they started firing questions, so i did not get a chance to ask any questions. They provided ID that looked Authentic, but i thought it odd that it was U.S. Navy Dept. ID and not USAF as Maxwell AFB is the closest Military Installation."

The Ethos of Oltissis

Ted decided to return to the site of his original 2007 encounter in October 2010, upon his asking he promptly established telepathic contact with an extraterrestrial intelligence that then proceeded to answer his questions via a telepathic download, over to Ted and a post he made at the DRT forum in the early hours (GMT) of 7th October 2010 (Reply #139):

The "ANSWER"!! It was right there all the time!!


For the last 3 ½ years I have been searching for the answer to the EXISTANCE, the ORIGIN, and the PURPOSE of the Drone Craft I encountered. I have pondered, wondered, and worried over this phenomenon since my sighting, I have researched, networked and discussed this event over and over with no real answers. A few days ago I decided to take a simple and direct approach. To return to the exact location of my experience at the same time of the morning and see if anything would happen. This morning 10/06/2010 at 05:15, I returned to the site. The following is a detailed report of what happened.

At 05:15 this morning I returned to the site of my experience with the Drone Craft in 2007. I sat near the location of where the tree had been during my original sighting. The tree is no longer there as it fell during a storm in the summer of 2010. The stump was removed a week after the tree fell. As I sat there, I began to verbally ask the following questions. " I HAVE RETURNED, ARE YOU HERE? WHO ARE YOU? WHAT IS YOUR PURPOSE? WHERE ARE YOU FROM? IS THE DRONE YOURS OR OURS? CAN YOU GIVE ME ANSWERS?

There was no immediate response. I sat for a few minutes longer. I decided to get up and leave. As I began to rise, I felt a surge of what felt like electrical current surge through every part of my body. At the same instant I received what I can only describe as a telepathic message clear and explicit with the following message. (Quoted)


My reply was tell me all you can so I can understand.

(Okay, at this point I am totally freaked out!!!!)

The information begins to roll into my thoughts as if it is being downloaded from a computer.

Here is everything I remember given in telepathic message.

The Vessel is an information probe that enables us to understand your environment. Our native environment is unlike yours, so we wish to learn so that we might be able to function in your environment. We are able to create a TEAR in what you perceive as Time and Space in order to travel great distances for our research. We repair the tear when we return to our own planet.

Our Planet is smaller than EARTH and has 4 of your MOONS. Two of these moons we inhabit. One of these is for QUARENTINE of those of our world who are ill or injured. It is necessary that those be separated from the rest of our world until healed. The other MOON is for production of the CRYSTALS that provide our power and propulsion for our vessels. The Production of the CRYSTALS is a highly volatile and dangerous procedure that could harm our environment.

Your worlds interpretation of what you call TIME & SPACE is incorrect. ALL is INFINATE.

The VESSEL creates communications points at the locations where we make contact with your species . These communication points remain open until such time as the contact returns to initiate contact with us. After this contact it is closed.

At the given time, we will initiate contact with your species. There is much to prepare before any contact with your world. We have observed your world evolve and there is still much that could be harmful to our world through contact with your world. Your world could not understand our physical or mental forms at this time, or the means by which we are able to traverse "ETHOS".



Our Traverse's are possible due to the absence of what your world is limited to by the presence of a Physical form. Our existence is of the PROCESS and not the FORM.

Some of our species have been lost during our research and their PROCESS ended due to interaction with your world. Your world is warned to respect, protect, and nourish the PROCESS.

We value all PROCESS of our species and find it the most important element of existence.

We have watched you and researched your worlds attempts to traverse "ETHOS"

We have many different VESSELS designed for specific research of the worlds of our research.

We find your world interesting for the structure of so many elements.

Our world is devoid of these elements as they are not necessary for the existence of our PROCESS.

Our VESSELS travel at will and initiate contact with yours and other species as needed for our research.

Your world in it's infancy is of "ETHOS"


(End of message)

The ANSWER I have pursued has been given.

I could not ask for more.

Ted Connors


This account was the first thing LMH has posted about the Drones for over two years and would actually be three years if it wasn't for the Petten, Holland 'Drone' photographed in 2007 & reported to UFOCasebook in 2009. This time however LMH didn't have exclusive access to the witness as he joined & posted several comments at the CB forum and the Drone classification was an assertion which the witness (Ruud) himself stated his surprise & dismay about, mainly as it in no way reminded him of a Drone:

"I have seen pics of that phony thing you are calling a drone all speaking about that it is an hoax.

It never had my interest because it looked so unreal.

Also there is no resemblence with the pics I took."

Alas Ruud's earlier protestations were evidently to no avail as LMH defiantly announced that:

"No other 2007 photographs of the mysterious "drones" emerged - until now.....So now, I am adding another line to the chronological list of eyewitnesses"

This is all documented in an earlier Blog post I wrote titled, "When is a Drone Not a Drone? (Petten, Holland, 2007)" and can be viewed here.

Anyhoo, Ted's above account was the first of a two part account that LMH posted on June 30th & May 1st 2011 titled, "Dragonfly Drones, Oltissis and Ethos" has since added two more articles regarding "Ethos" & "Oltissis" but due to the unique way LMH archives then charges a subscription to read her website if you want to check it out then I suggest you do so sooner rather than later.

(Linda Moulton Howe - Earthfiles)

  1. 06/30/2011 - Part 1: Dragonfly Drones, Oltissis and Ethos

  2. 07/01/2011 - Part 2: Dragonfly Drones, Oltissis and Ethos

  3. 07/07/2011 - Earthfiles Viewer Letters About Oltissis

  4. 09/07/2011 - Front Cover of "Ted Connor's" Confiscated Greek Book

Ethos Of Oltissis - A Greek Tragedy

So unfortunately due to some of the reasons detailed above then I am reasonably confident that LMH would never enter into a dialogue with me and as there is no way I can post the questions to the DRT then Ted is effectively shielded from me and as I have a couple of questions for Ted I'm hoping that when searching for the keyword "Oltissis" he may stumble upon this post and be able to address my questions.

1) So Ted, in the second part of her report posted on 1st July 2011 LMH started with the following text:

July 1, 2011 Montgomery, Alabama - After the early morning October 6, 2010, second encounter at the then-dead southern yellow pine tree at his work facility, Ted Connors began to look for the word Oltissis. Two and a half months later on his Monday day off December 20, 2010, Ted took time to explore a library. On a table were some old books to check out or purchase and one was entitled, Ancient Greek Gods and Lore Revisited © 1962 by Fredrico Ionnides (spelling as remembered by Ted Connors.) Ted checked the book out and found three references to Oltissis in the index. One reference was a footnote that the name Oltissis referred to historic pleasure palaces in Greece and China's Xanadu. See Websites below.

Ted Connors put the book on the front seat of his car with the intention of reading more, but by Wednesday morning, December 22, 2010, the book was still in his car when he was surprised at the end of his all night work shift to receive a phone call to report to his boss's office.

Oltissis - Ethos

This is very specific information especially with Christmas a mere five days away plus coinciding with your day off then I think it's fair to say that the chances of you being mistaken about this particular chronology is extremely unlikely. Especially as you say that you started your shift the next day and then the book was confiscated at the end of this shift, it is all quite believable and I would even venture to suggest that if this was found to be in error then it would greatly damage the credibility of this particular claim.

So hopefully you are able to satisfactorily explain why three days prior to this you posted the following to the DRT forum in the early hours (GMT) on December 17, 2010:

Update on OLTISSIS and my continuing search for the Greek Connection.

I found a book at the local library titled "Greek Legends and Lore Revisited" by Fredrico Ionidies. The term OLTISSIS is mentioned twice in reference to a Mythological Place of Pleasure to be compared with the Chinese Pleasure Palace of "XANADU" of the 4th century A.D. Quite Interesting!!!!!!


(Click here for full quote)

Because as I'm sure you can appreciate that as this predates the timeline that LMH describes by three days so it seems that it shows that the backstory you included with this particular event to also be in error, can you shed any light on this?

Homeland Security Infrared Camera Ban

2) On May 11th 2010 at the DRT forum you wrote that:

"In November 2007 i was informed by my superiors at work that we would be changing all our equipment back to Level 3 IR. This change took place in late November 2007. It has remained the same since. Did the Level 4 equipment allow for my DRONE sighting?? I have a suspicion but no proof that it did. I tried to get more information from my supplier on this issue but with no success. I also reported this to LMH by email and she responded with her thoughts as well."

And on May 17, 2010 (Reply #59) you wrote:

"After i had read these documents at work i took it upon myself to investigate further on my own and at the time, found nothing on the Internet other than some vague undocumented statements about a "BAN" on Level 4 IR cameras posted. At the time i contacted Linda Moulton Howe and she also undertook an investigation of her own with similar results."

This seems strange to me because, if as you say, back in November 2007 both you and Linda were aware of the ban and were actively researching it online why do you think this wasn't mentioned on March 10th 2008 when she posted an email she received from someone on March 5th 2008 informing LMH for apparently the first time of this ban?


Oltissis drone

Seeing as she actually titled the post as, "Viewer Comments About Drone Mystery and Homeland Security Ban? On Infrared Cameras" and as you said yourself on April 24, 2010 (Reply #14) that:

"I want to take a moment to thank Linda Moulton Howe of for her help in my case. We spent weeks after my sighting on the phone and exchanging emails, going over my sighting and reviewing other sightings trying to find a common thread in all of these. We have stayed in contact over this time and she always shares the latest updates with me."

Then I don't understand why firstly your personal experience was never mentioned by Linda in 2008 as you said you'd already shared it with her in 2007. And secondly I can't understand why if Linda shares everything with you that you also failed to mention this much earlier reference to a major aspect of your own experience. Seeing as the first reference most of us heard of your infrared related information was when *OnTheFence* (OTF) posted the following on May 10th 2010 (Reply #43):


After speaking with you some more on the phone, I think there are some important events in your case that have not yet been exposed. Thank you for giving me permission to bring these items into the public, and I hope that you can expand in your own words on these points:


4. Your company was using a specific type of IR camera which the manufacturer later informed you had to be removed for a less capable camera. Can you explain any more details on this? "

Which when coupled with the lack of information you were able to provide upon request regarding any corroborative details or indeed the genesis of the terms "Level 3" & "Level 4" (as they relate to the infrared technology you are responsible for maintaining) could lead a more sceptical observer to consider that perhaps the 2008 email that Linda posted was the genesis of the alleged homeland infrared ban. In fact if such an observer was conspiracy-minded then I believe that a reasonable case could be made for the silence over this issue being a predetermined & intentional omission, the reasons for this being as mentioned above OTF wrote that after speaking on the phone with you he wanted to bring this into the public domain on May 10th 2010 (Reply #43) yet a little further down OTF writes:

"In regards to the Level 3 and Level 4 nomenclature; I recall looking that up in 2008 and it seemed to be a distinction used to sell IR cameras at some web sites. I cannot find that any longer."

(May 17, 2010 Reply #62)

However it's quite peculiar that OTF doesn't say how he was aware of these recent claims regarding the 'nomenclature' way back in 2008 or what compelled him to check out the "distinction used to sell IR cameras" because I am unaware of any other prior references that would support this line of research.

What are your thoughts on these ommisions?

Earlier Visit By Two Men (2007)

3) On March 21st 2008 Linda posted an article titled: "Part 2, Dragonfly-Shaped Aerial Craft: Current Media Misinformation Versus Eyewitnesses 1987 to 2007" in which she wrote:

"Alleged Government Agents Tell Alabama Eyewitness to 'Keep Your Mouth Shut'

A month after that interview with me, two very human-looking men approached the Alabama infrared security technician at his work place. One was dressed in a military officer's uniform; the other was in a dark blue suit. Both had on dark sunglasses, which they took off to speak to the tech. The two men showed United States government identification and told the infrared security technician to "keep your mouth shut." He was shocked and angered at the blatant arrogance of anyone representing themselves as working for the U. S. government and threatening him, when his own work is involved with security for agencies of the U. S. government."

california drones

So as you were constantly in touch with Linda during this period and again this information Linda posted predates the recent update by a couple of years, then why in all recent retellings of this story do you state that the two men visited your home address and not your workplace?

Further to this on May 11, 2010 (Reply #45) you wrote:

"A few weeks after my DRONE sighting i received a visit at my home during the day from 2 men.


I asked both of them to leave my residence and that i had nothing further to say. At this point i was sure he was going to produce some type of legal document or worse place me under some kind of arrest, but to my complete surprise they politely thanked me for my time and left.


The reason for my reluctance to discuss this with them is because of the interview i had recently given to Linda Moulton Howe in regards to my sighting and ongoing discussions with her in regards to this event. I did not feel comfortable discussing this with ANYONE other than her at that point. I contacted her to let her know what happened and the context of my conversation with them."

So you contacted LMH & discussed this with her at the time of the occurrence and she reported it a few months later yet it differs greatly from your current account. At first I thought Linda may have been mistaking these two persons with the two persons whom recently confiscated your Greek book but obviously as the above occurred in 2008 then this couldn't be the case. Also you now recall them being polite whereas in your earlier account you allege they were threatening you.

And on December 17th 2010 (reply #208) you wrote:

"The look of terror and urgency was apparent from the moment i opened my front door. I was in a state of shock and they started firing questions, so i did not get a chance to ask any questions."

With the reference to your front door being another clear indicator that it was your personal residence then one of the accounts is obviously in error, can you shed any light on this inconsistency?

The Tree

4) On June 05, 2010 (Reply #98) you wrote:

"The change in the condition of the tree from 2007 until present"

And after an absence of several months you returned and posted what you call the "OMG document" you suffixed this with a brief introduction on October 07, 2010 (Reply #139):

"At 05:15 this morning I returned to the site of my experience with the Drone Craft in 2007. I sat near the location of where the tree had been during my original sighting. The tree is no longer there as it fell during a storm in the summer of 2010. The stump was removed a week after the tree fell."

So the tree was still there in June 2010 and in October 2010 you further clarify this by saying it was removed in the summer yet in the following quote which you wrote only a month later on December 18th 2010 (Reply #214) rather than inferring it was within the last three months or even the recent summer you now state it was 'early 2010':

"I had watched the decline of the tree since 2007. In early 2010, the tree was finally felled by a windstorm."

As June is the sixth month of the year and the tree was still there then can you expand on what you mean by early 2010 and why the inconsistency?

Also you specifically state that:

"The stump was removed a week after the tree fell" (Reply #139).

Yet on the 30th June 2011Linda writes in the first part of her 2 part report that:

"Eventually in 2010, most of the tree was cut down and hauled away. Only a stump remained."

This is a minor discrepancy but it strikes me as strange for an author who asserts that she accommodates the higher ground when it comes to journalistic prowess which is why I find all of these little inconsistencies disconcerting.

Anyway, staying with the tree, on December 16, 2010 (Reply #203) you wrote:

"The traces of Palladium were discovered after the dead tree fell during a wind storm. I had pieces examined by a mutual acquaintance of a friend who worked for the Alabama Dept. of Forestry. I was able to save a small sample for my future use and records."

About the palladium you later claim that: "I think it was 0.85% palladium element inside the tree."

So just to be clear, are you alleging that this friend of a friend performed a test on a piece of bark you gave him using a spectrometer, a test that usually costs several hundred dollars, and supplied you with no documentation detailing the results of the tests?

And on December 18, 2010 (Reply #214) you wrote:

"I had watched the decline of the tree since 2007. In early 2010, the tree was finally felled by a windstorm. Having questions about the possibility of the Drone Craft interaction with the tree, i decided to obtain some samples and see if they could be tested for any foreign elements,diseases, or chemicals. The test's that were done were inconclusive except for small non visible traces of the mineral Palladium. The consensus of the technician who tested the samples was the trees decay was caused by PINE BLIGHT, which is common her in the Southern U.S.."

I'm not sure I understand this, firstly the term, "Consensus" suggests more than one person was involved with the testing and if the tests were inconclusive then how could anyone's consensus be that it was a result of pine blight? Plus if palladium was found in the quantities you reference then how was it determined not to be the cause so as to render the findings as inconclusive?

If a 'go-to' technician of an Alabama Department of Forestry official, a technician who you assert is also a forestry expert tells you it is pine blight then why do you later tell Linda that pine blight wasn't the cause?

Linda published the following account on 30th June 2011:

"Part 1: Dragonfly Drones, Oltissis and Ethos

I was able to obtain samples of the tree, examined by a forestry expert. I was shocked when I got the information back because the pieces that I submitted for examination, came back with traces of the element palladium in the tree bark. I think it was 0.85% palladium element inside the tree. They could find no pine blight. There was no beetle damage and no larvae from beetles. The only thing they could find were metallic traces that were in the tree of the element palladium.



That's correct."

All of Ted’s replies denoted by (Reply #) are from the DRT thread titled “Ted Connors – Alabama” and is located here.

If Ted would like to reply I will post his full unedited response.

Saturday, 12 February 2011

UFO Hacker Gary McKinnon's Mother Holds Clegg to Promise

The mother of hacker Gary McKinnon wants to meet with Nick Clegg as prior to the debacle that passes for an election in this country Clegg was highly critical of the plans to extradite McKinnon to face charges on US soil and even went as far as to say that McKinnon had been hung out to dry by previous government.

Now nine months after Clegg et al took over and the McKinnon family are still no further forward and are now being passed from pillar-to-post as they try and get a fair hearing with yet another Home Office recommended expert as apparently four of the UK's leading psychologists just wasn't enough to pacify the bureaucratic demands.

Keep your pledge on Gary McKinnon, hacker's mother tells Clegg

(Originally posted - 9th February 2011)

UFO Hacker Gary McKinnon's Mother Holds Clegg to Promise

Gary McKinnon's mother is demanding a meeting with Nick Clegg to urge him to ‘do the right thing' and stop her son's extradition. Before he became Deputy Prime Minister the Liberal Democrat leader was implacable in his opposition to sending the computer hacker to the U.S. Gary's mother Janis Sharp now wants Mr Clegg to keep his pre-election promises and end her son's ordeal.

Janis Sharp is demanding a meeting with Nick Clegg to urge him to 'do the right thing' and stop her son Gary McKinnon's extradition to the U.S. over hacking allegations:

‘He stood by my side 14 months ago demonstrating outside the Home Office and demanded that Gary could – and should – be kept in the UK…..When the Coalition came into power the relief we felt was indescribable. I believed our new government would announce that Gary would not be extradited but be tried in the UK. Nine months later he is still in limbo.'

Before he became Deputy PM the, Nick Clegg was implacable in his opposition to sending the computer hacker to the U.S. ext month it will be nine years since Gary was arrested and ten since his alleged crime, his mother said:

‘He has effectively served a longer sentence than most murderers and rapists. Nick Clegg said my son had been hung out to dry by the previous government to appease the Americans.

I just want him to remember – and honour – those words and not fall into the same trap.'

Expert opinions obtained by Mr McKinnon's legal team have stated that because of his mental condition, suicide was an ‘almost certain inevitability' should he be sent to the U.S.. Home Secretary Theresa May agreed to halt the extradition last year, saying she wanted to ensure he was treated ‘fairly'. Mrs Sharp is now at loggerheads with the Home Office over the choice of an independent expert to reassess the Asperger's patient, who is 45 today.

‘Gary has been assessed by four of the UK and Europe's leading psychiatrists and now the Home Office wants him re-assessed by yet another and unbelievably, I am having to fight to ensure it is an expert in Asperger's and autism.'

Mr McKinnon was searching for evidence of ‘little green men' when he hacked into NASA and Pentagon computers. Since the Daily Mail launched its An Affront to British Justice campaign to highlight the case, Ministers have announced a review of the lop-sided Extradition treaty which allows the U.S. and EU countries to have British citizens sent for trial abroad, without presenting the level of evidence which would be needed for prosecution in the UK.

Source: Daily Mail

I've never really been an ardent supporter of McKinnon's plight due mainly to his claims of being caught whilst actually downloading (to view) a NASA image which was in a specially designated folder with images containing UFOs which had been to be edited before being released to the public. As you can see below in an excerpt from an earlier (2009) Blog post I made which addressed the UFO aspect of McKinnon's claims:

Apart from the discrepancies between the dollar amounts stated to date regarding the alleged damage McKinnon caused (apparently depending entirely on which webpage the information was posted) this is the first time I've seen the allegation that the, “Damages” were nothing of the sort but instead are down to the cost of plugging the holes in the amateurish system setup that McKinnon exposed. While I agree that just because the security is weak it doesn't give you free licence to breech the network at will, but when someone exposes the system weaknesses to then try and also pass the cost of fixing these flaws onto them (which are there due to your own incompetence) doesn't seem right, does it?

And if the damages being pursued are just for locating and correcting his edits then it's still ridiculously overpriced at $700,000. Plus, if McKinnon is to be believed and this security flaw was indeed directly due to no more than the machines not having been assigned a password and so were still operating on the default settings, then I would tend to agree with McKinnon in that this estimate is massively inflated for the sole reason of obtaining extradition to the US, which in turn means I also share McKinnon's apprehension in that this is quite a risk to take if the US are just planning to extradite him for a lenient sentence.

I appreciate that the only reason I'm even mentioning McKinnon is due to what he claimed he found while browsing through the -less than- secure system and for what it's worth I don't believe McKinnon saw what he thinks he did, I wouldn't go as far as to say McKinnon is lying but I feel he is at best mistaken. However, that doesn't and shouldn't in any way affect the bigger picture which is surely that extradition while always accepted as a possibility is one I feel was never really expected to go as far as it has and especially so when several high-profile UK hackers have been tried for similar offences here in the UK (i.e. where the people were located when the cyber-crimes were committed).

I should also point out that I believe, “Team McKinnon” should have long since dropped the UFO angle, if absolutely necessary then perhaps play on McKinnon's (alleged) naivety in searching for answers to one of the most profound questions we as a species have ever asked, but to continue pushing the fact that McKinnon actually found evidence of this at the exact some moment being ‘caught in the act' is a very difficult coincidence to accept. Basically they are saying that after at least 96 fruitless attempts at discovering ANY information and many, many hours spent searching for it, Mckinnon finally stumbles upon the evidence he has been relentlessly questing for at the exact same moment that someone happens to notice he is online and has unauthorised access, the EXACT same time after so long undetected (in the act)?

Source: UFO Blog: Justice For Gary McKinnon ?

Hasn't this fiasco run for long enough now?

What can possibly be gained from putting a UK citizen through the harrowing experience of the extradition process this long after the fact, especially one with Aspergers Syndrome?

As I mentioned in the excerpt above I long believed that the UFO angle should have been dropped and thankfully it appears that this has happened, although it is somewhat worrying that McKinnon's mother is seemingly having to campaign just to ensure that the independent expert is in fact an expert in the correct disciplines of psychiatry required in order to make an expert assessment of Gary's mental state. In fact it's more than worrying it's actually frightening to think that the same people charged with the very basic task of employing the skills of a relevant expert are the same people who are in a position to do something about the flawed extradition process, yet it seems as if even this obvious, fundamental & simple task is proving to be a problem.

Perhaps those that are in a position to do something about the situation will finally stop passing the buck and the Coalition may actually stand behind one of their pre-election statements but I'm not holding my breath.

As an aside, once McKinnon finally receives the specialist assessment that the mitigating circumstances surrounding his extradition surely demands then isn't it about time that the entire extradition treaty was revised so that UK citizens who are extradited are treated as fairly as the law dictates they should be here in the UK?


Anyway an interview with Gary can be seen here and here are a few Blog posts I've made in the past regarding McKinnon:

Sunday, 23 January 2011

Dudley Dorito UFO Spotted Again

Well, back on the 19 th January 2011 the Dudley Dorito put in another appearance travelling from the Halesowen area. You may remember the last time I wrote about this I traced the origins of the triangle ‘UFO' image that was constantly touted as actually being the “Dudley Dorito” when it was nothing of the sort. (See below for further information).

Dudley Dorito UFO timeline/reports available here.

The Express & Star posted the following account:

New sighting of ‘Dudley Dorito' UFO
(19th January 2011)

A fresh sighting of a triangular UFO dubbed the “Dudley Dorito” racing through the skies has been reported in the Black Country – and this time it seemed to bring a friend. Security officer Glyn Richards was having a cigarette in the garden of his home in Coppice Lane, Quarry Bank, when he saw a mysterious object with flashing lights in the sky, appearing to travel towards Dudley from Halesowen. Moments later, he said, another UFO with a steady white light appeared and seemed to chase it off, father-of-two Mr Richards, aged 33 said:

“I never really believed in anything like that, but it was no helicopter or plane that I've ever seen.....I had a perfect view of it for around 20 seconds. It had flashing red lights in the centre and white lights at the end. Then another thing with just a bright white light appeared and it looked like it scared it away as it shot off in a perfectly straight line.”

It is the third reported sighting of the Dorito in as many years. Mr Richards said he had called his nine-year-old daughter and seven-year-old son out of the house to see the objects, and following the sighting, which happened at around 7.45pm on Monday, they logged on to the internet and discovered previous sightings of the UFO on the Express & Star website — along with its own entry on Wikipedia.

I was shocked but it was quite exciting as well — it was probably just a military plane or something but it's interesting to think it could be something else."

In November, quality inspector Munesh Mistry reported seeing the triangular-shaped object in the skies near his home in Andrew Road, Tipton.

The object has also been spotted hovering over the Merry Hill Shopping Centre in Brierley Hill — and in February last year a UFO sighting was recorded by Sean Gibbs-Percival over the skies of Oldbury. On April 16, 2009, builders working at West Midland Safari Park were shocked to see a flying saucer-shaped object soaring above them.

Source: Express & Star

Javier Ortega over at GhostTheory is usually quite thorough when he writes about the UFO phenomenon but this time it seems as if the triangle image managed to slip through the net as you can see below:

As I've mentioned before this was simply an image that was introduced into the very first Dudley Dorito UFO report by the BBC who also posted a disclaimer saying that the image was nothing to do with the recent report.

Also, have a look at the other image they posted on the same page back in 2007 (yellow highlight):

Now have a look at the recent Express & Star image they posted and billed highly ambiguously as, “The Original Dudley Dorito” with the image from above pasted next to it::

It's not even a better copy of the image, its simply the same heavily cropped image and not only is it not of the Dudley Dorito it's a famous UFO image in its own right as it was part of the Belgium UFO flap back in the early 90's (started Nov 1989).

So the image in question is a very well known photograph actually taken on the 4th April 1990 in Petit Rechain in Belgium and which has subsequently been released into the public domain!! Here's the original (edited) image with the brightness & contrast tweaked to make the object more easily discernible:

Dudley Dorito UFO timeline/reports available here.

Saturday, 8 January 2011

Wikileaks Cable Finally References UFOs (But…..)

Wikileaks cable finally references UFOs but it's not what you think.

One of the Exopolitics websites recently posted the following:

Wikileaks confirms extensive Soviet UFO investigations

The first Wikileaks U.S. diplomatic cable that mentions UFOs has just been released. It is based on comments by Yuriy Zhadobin, chairman of the intelligence service of the former Soviet Republic of Belarus. In the cable prepared by the U.S. Embassy in Minsk, Zhadobin is reported to have said that during the time of the Soviet Union, there were almost unlimited funds for investigating the UFO phenomenon. He laments that after the Soviet break up, Belarus no longer has the funds to investigate UFOs to the extent it once had.

And after checking the website the clunky (Google) translation reads as follows:

11. Quote of the Week


BKGB Chairman Yuriy Zhadobin on why his organization no longer investigates paranormal phenomena:

"Unlike during the USSR, the department is not engaged in studying paranormal phenomena.

[Back then,] we had greater means and opportunities which we could spend on anything and everything.

Then, when society was excited by something, it entered our sphere of interest.

But when it comes to healers, UFOs and such, we just can´t deal with them any more."


Source: Aftenposten

Not exactly what the Exopolitics-Institute website said but its pretty close. I guess the main difference being that what I interpreted him as saying was that if the public were excited by a topic then it justified funding research in it even if it was of –as quoted above- ‘paranormal phenomena'.

Thursday, 6 January 2011

New Years Eve UFOs 2010/11 (Chinese Lanterns)

I personally witnessed multiple lantern releases over the Christmas period and on New Years Eve between approximately 12 & 1am my partner checked outside to see if it was snowing and instantly shouted me over to the window, upon looking outside there were approximately 30 to 40 lanterns afloat (in clusters).

I've explained to my partner what these lanterns were prior to this (I've wrote about it at a couple times because at first she didn't know what she was looking at) and as a result of this she knew before I looked out what they actually were and was drawing my attention to the overall spectacle rather than the objects themselves, commenting that for all she knew what they were they still looked ‘weird'. I then went to the back door as it allows for a better view because it's relatively unpolluted by artificial light and I watched the Lanterns released first as they faded out (extinguished) over the North sea.

Here's a video I uploaded a while ago now that shows several different misidentified lantern events as well as a few related media reports.

One aspect of misidentifying (or not identifying at all) Chinese lanterns that I still don't really understand is the fact that some witnesses claim they appear to “shoot off ” at the end of the sighting, every time I've seen a lantern expire it always seems obvious to me that the light is being extinguished, and so if I had to equate it to something it would be similar to a light being turned off rather than an object accelerating away at a fantastic speed. I've looked at a couple of cases personally where the witness describes this effect and one of these reports was almost certainly Chinese Lanterns (this conclusion was arrived at due to locating the persons who actually filmed themselves releasing them) and the other report was very likely lanterns.

The human perception is a strange filter I guess……

Anyway, the following report is from New Years eve and is only 4 or 5 miles from where I live, so while the witness definitely isn't describing the exact same lanterns as I seen it certainly seems as if they are definitely describing (generic) lanterns. It was posted by Brian Vike to his *worldufos* Blog and to Vike's credit he labelled the report appropriately:

Many Orange Lights Over Gateshead Tyne And Wear UK (Lanterns)

Date: January 1, 2011
Time: After Midnight

Hi, I've just been looking on the internet to see if anyone else saw the orange lights I saw on New Years eve, just gone, and found your site. I was at my mum's house having a ciggie at the back door and watched at least five orange lights fly overhead. My mum lives in Gateshead, Tyne and Wear. So they were visible in the Northeast of England too.

I eventually pointed one out to my mum, having gone back inside I didn't tell anyone as they may think I was just exaggerating, but having seen in the New Year, going back outside to my dad's car to be taken home, the lights were still going overhead, so there must have been a steady stream of them whilst I was otherwise occupied.

Being driven home they were still coming towards the same direction, making a total of 6 that I did see. I tried taking a photo on my phone, but all I got was the black sky. They were following one another at a steady speed, at the same height, going in the same direction. As some people have suggested Chinese lanterns, I don't think lanterns would stay at the same height at the same time or all travel in the same direction. They were pretty bright lights too. Yours Sincerely.

If you have seen anything like this in the same area please be kind enough to contact Brian Vike at: with the details of your sighting. All personal information is kept confidential. website

Posted by The Vike Report UFO Radio Show.

When I was reading the report I was surprised to see there were 32 reports logged for the first four days in January alone, this seemed to be a lot more than usual. All of these reports were listed on the right hand side of the page, however after a cursory glance at the report titles I was greatly disappointed to see the following:

(Reports from WorldUFOs Blogspot )

Note that EVERY single report title has one or more descriptive words that at least superficially suggests Chinese lanterns as the cause.

Are Chinese Lanterns really that deceptive?

Going back to when my partner first saw several of them in the sky she had no idea what they were but once I explained she said it became obvious and even noted that the flickering effect caused by the naked flame was now instantly recognisable for what it was. During the summer months of 2010 I saw many, many lanterns (several launches almost every week) with the majority of them being late on Friday & Saturday nights, and the amount I witnessed was a massive increase on previous years, in fact in 2010 I saw more in a couple of weeks than I had the whole of the previous year and I doubt that it was only my area that experienced this marked increase.

And yet for all there was a massive increase there were fewer (if any) UFO reports that displayed lantern-like characteristics published in the local media (news websites, newspapers, radio etc.) In fact it was quite the opposite as they featured heavily (especially by the BBC) in their own guise via the pleas of farmers who -as well as citing the obvious fire risk- were regularly having to locate and retrieve the spent lantern shells from their fields due to the fatal damage the thin wire frame causes to any cattle unlucky enough to eat/digest it when grazing, as can be seen in the following excerpt from an article posted back in September:

“Speaking in the House of Commons recently, Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg recognised farmers' concerns over the risks lanterns can pose to livestock and crops, but ruled out an outright ban at the present time.”

The same article wrote that: “ITV has also agreed it would no longer carry its Chinese lantern ident before its news programming during the summer months as a result of the NFU's work.”

And also stated: “In August alone there were numerous reports of crop fires caused by lanterns, including the loss of six acres of barley at a farm in Oxfordshire which needed 25 firefighters to tackle the blaze.

A large number of cow fatalities have also been attributed to lanterns, with animals sometimes suffering slow and painful deaths after ingesting the wire used in their construction.”


Nationally there were a few UFO reports which appeared to be lanterns and did receive a little media attention, but it was very brief and I personally thought that this rapid decline was simply a direct result of fewer lanterns being mistakenly reported as UFOs than in previous years. And so I thought the sight of lanterns floating in our skies was no longer an ‘alien' one (pun intended!!) and somewhat optimistically I also thought this meant that most people were aware of -at least- their existence if not their exact appearance.

Just to clarify, I don't for a second believe its mere coincidence that most of these reports display the exact characteristics of Chinese lanterns and were also reported over the Christmas & New Year period as this is exactly when we would expect lanterns to be released, and not just during the Christmas festivities (parties, celebrations etc.) but especially to signify the start of the new year.

However after looking around the net at recent UFO reports it seems that Vike isn't alone in receiving an increase of these kinds of reports over the holiday period and so it seems undeniable that there's still an inordinately large percentage of the population who either simply aren't aware of the existence of Chinese lanterns or just can't reconcile their understanding of lanterns with the physical appearance when confronted with them.

Also the sighting of these lanterns has evidently compelled many people to write down the relevant details and contact someone to report their experience, so I believe we can safely conclude that it wasn't an experience that any of the witnesses took lightly or one that they thought could be easily explained and/or dismissed as nothing of importance.....

For more images, videos, research, brief history and detailed examples of Chinese lanterns being mistaken as UFOs then visit our IFOs/Lanterns webpage, it was reposted a couple of years ago and wrote a year earlier in 2007 when Chinese lanterns were a relatively recent phenomenon and were being increasingly reported as UFOs (it can be viewed here).

What is wanted is not the will to believe, but the wish to find out, which is the exact opposite.

Bertrand Russell