Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Ipsy]

Since the beginning, this entire mystery has occupied my thoughts, at times to the point of unhealthy distraction. Like the rest of you, I've had many questions and ideas that have occurred to me. I usually let them lie dormant in my mind, but I'd like to throw some out and just let speculation run wild.

I think it might be very constructive to start with an assumption, put aside questions of validity and simply speculate unabated and see if new avenues of thought can be discovered. No ideas are too outrageous.

I know I'm not the first to wonder about this, but could the drone story be a carefully crafted limited disclosure by a small group of insiders. The purpose of which is either 1) to test the waters for further disclosure, or 2) leverage the minds of those of us on the outside with enough curiosity to study it, in the hope that we might discover some small clue to help their research past some lengthy period of stagnation?

Thoughts anyone?

[onthefence]

Yes, to support the disclosure concept, many of the drone photos seemed conveniently clear and none of those witnesses have come forward to be scrutinized or "vetted" (as some would say). So sure, showing the public odd things in this manner could be an acclimation process. I am saying that the "image submitters" would be the disclosure testers.

If they wanted to test the waters for disclosure, possibly reading forums is not the best indicator of "average" public reaction. Maybe just observing the reaction of local eyewitnesses would be a better general sampling of the public. In that case, the de-cloaking device could be activated just long enough to grab some attention, but not long enough to summon the media. The formula for discrediting single witnesses is extremely effective, in fact, there is no need for government involvement, that machine is self-powered  - haha. So all that is necessary is to show off the object a few times in public and see how people react. If witnesses start killing each other, then we're not ready for disclosure. So, if this is the case, I would say we're ready for more!

I agree about that the idea of gathering research leads is quite interesting! There are so many theories presented on OMF and early UCB and here to help the "knowing ones"  develop new lines of research. Although, if any of our ideas were useful enough, you'd think we'd have been contacted or shut down by now. This leads me to suspect that all of our speculation is either going unread or discounted as unworthy.

There may be three independent factions here:

• Unseen alien objects existing in our domain
• A device that de-cloaks this craft (10538 reminded me that Isaac wrote about a separate faction providing this)
• Military cover-up that knows of the objects existence, and can operate the de-cloaking, but cannot guarantee repeated results as seen in 2007 or pre-1986

Since the 1970s I've been hearing that something big is about to be disclosed within the next year or so. I'm not sure what to conclude by that. You can get numb with such predictions here (GLP).

I am interested in hearing more theories!

[ominoustruth]

Since the beginning, this entire mystery has occupied my thoughts, at times to the point of unhealthy distraction. Like the rest of you, I've had many questions and ideas that have occurred to me. I usually let them lie dormant in my mind, but I'd like to throw some out and just let speculation run wild.

I think it might be very constructive to start with an assumption, put aside questions of validity and simply speculate unabated and see if new avenues of thought can be discovered. No ideas are too outrageous.

I know I'm not the first to wonder about this, but could the drone story be a carefully crafted limited disclosure by a small group of insiders. The purpose of which is either 1) to test the waters for further disclosure, or 2) leverage the minds of those of us on the outside with enough curiosity to study it, in the hope that we might discover some small clue to help their research past some lengthy period of stagnation?

Thoughts anyone?

Ipsy, if i had one wish,(other than a Million Dollars,:) ), it would be for everyone to witness what i saw that morning in 2007. I believe it would change a lot of peoples beliefs about a lot of things, as it has mine over the last 3 years. I want an answer as to WHAT IS IT?, Who is RESPONSIBLE?, and what is it's PURPOSE? This "THING" is so far out there that even now my mind can't grasp the whole idea of a craft of this type. It just dosen't make logical sense for a mechanical device to have the powers that it presented to me that morning. I can describe every feeling i had during my sighting but it hasn't brought me any closer to an ANSWER! Maybe someday, sometime, hopefully in my lifetime we all will get the true story of these Drone Craft.


                                                          Thanks, Ted

[Ipsy]

Ted, I too wish everyone, or at least many many others could see one of these objects as well. Your testimony is very compelling. You seem to be incredibly honest, and I for one do not doubt your claims. I would add that I wish I could see one myself, although from your account, it seems to have caused you some grief which makes me second guess my desire to see one. Despite my not having seen one myself, I think I still share you intense curiosity which can be somewhat torturous itself. I understand how difficult it is to have a mystery weighing on your mind that you can't shake. Sometimes I feel like I'll just burst if I can't learn the truth.

Considering the technical issues, the limit of conventional scientific understanding, definitely leaves a gaping hole in our knowledge of how he forces of nature work and why matter behaves as it does. I think John Hutchinson is onto something real and I'm convinced that matter and gravity can be manipulated in ways that we do not understand.

John Hutchinson claimed that the military scientists were much more interested in his work than the private sector scientists and academia. That's interesting, because it suggests that they know something that mainstream science does not (recovered extraterrestrial craft?). Those military scientists may have taken the information they gained from Hutchinson to Los Alamos or a similar facility and applying the efforts of dozens if not hundreds of physicists and engineers, already reached an understanding of those effects. I would not be surprised to learn that human built antigravity craft have existed for years.

In addition to Hutchinson's story, I'm also fascinated with the story of Marcus Hollingshead, who also claims to have gained some level of control over matter with electrical means. http://www.rexresearch.com/hollingshead/hollingshead.htm

There may be a force in nature analogous to electromagnetism, which can manipulate gravity as easily as we manipulate radio waves. The whole concept fascinates me and I don't doubt that drone type objects are a possibility, even a probability. Mainstream science hasn't yet captured it, but they will, and hopefully I'll live to see it.

[majicbar]

As a Geographer one of the interests we have is the concept of "dispersion". Principally this is an interest of Economic Geographers and Cultural/Social Geographers. "Dispersion" has a place in the issue of "Disclosure" in that there seems to be a complex kind of "Disclosure" taking place in the UFO issue. Typically "dispersion" of a new idea, or social innovation, takes place with specific adopters taking the lead in the introduction of this item. Adoption of the new idea, or social innovation, does not take place within the society, or community, wholesale.

Whoever is in charge of "Disclosure" seems to know this and has positioned information like the "Drones" in kind of a dual track of both revealing information and at the same time feeding disinformation and false information to temper the release of the true information. This would act to slow down the infusion of the idea of UFOs and temper social disruption, until such time as the notion of UFOs was generally accepted.

So realizing that the "Drones" were being seen, releasing photos of real "Drones", along with altered settings accomplishes this dual aspect of "Disclosure". Supporters who have, or are willing, to adopt the notion of UFOs have validation, yet skeptics have support for their resistance to the notion and their rejection of its adoption. This all of course is dependent on the UFOs not actively seeking recognition: all bets are off when they land on the White House lawn.

[Douglas]

The Drone craft sightings in 2007 and the excitement that followed was caused by mainly one thing:

Cellphone cameras.

There have been very brief sightings of Drone crafts for hundreds of years but no one had any photos of them until now.

Also, another fact made the 2007 flap possible is that the Drones fly very close to the surface of the earth and they generally fly very slowly.  These facts appear to be part of the reason we experienced the recent sightings.

Douglas

[Ipsy]

Isaac seemed convinced that the drones became visible in 2007 as a result of experimentation with a device that manipulates some type of field which interferes with the drone technology. This makes sense and also raises a few more questions. If such a device were activated, it appears that it's effects are localized since all of the drone photographs are within the same geographical vicinity. All but the Lake Tahoe photos are within 20 miles of the San Jose/Sunnyvale area, Lake Tahoe being approximately 100 miles from that area. It appears a facility (PACL?) was/is operating near the epicenter of those photos where the device was being used.

Possibly the device is adjustable in power. If the device was activated in the Sunnyvale area on a low power setting in could be responsible for the sightings close by. Perhaps a higher power setting allowed it to disrupt drone activity as far away as Lake Tahoe. If that is the case, then we could expect potentially more sightings at the time the Lake Tahoe photo was made. (Do we know the date of those photos?) Another possibility is that there is a different facility closer to Lake Tahoe, and of course near Montgomery Alabama. Who knows, the effects of such a device could reach across the country or even around the world. Or, perhaps the device was traveling. Maybe it was on tour for some reason and activated periodically to locate rouge drones. Perhaps another drone type craft was traveling at the time equipped with this interrupting field capability.

So how many drones are there right above our heads that remain hidden from view? Are there more in certain areas, or are they more evenly distributed? Some evidence suggests that they are more prevalent around forested areas.

If the photos are real, and a facility nearby was responsible for making the drones briefly visible, and this whole matter is some sort of controlled disclosure, it could be that the locations of the Chad and Rajman reports were deliberately misidentified to throw off attempts at locating the facility based on a radius of effect from such a device. Since we now know absolutely where most of these photos were made, it could be possible to find an epicenter for this field effect and get close to locating the actual facility.

The device responsible for this field effect is likely the device referred to in the Q4-86 Research Report as S1. In that report, all of the blacked out material seems to be related to S1. Since this report appears to focus on 4 artifacts. The first 3 are A1, A2, and A3, those shown in the photos. The 4th being S1. My assumption is that A stands for artifact, and S must be the first letter of some categorical identification for the S1 device. So what does S stand for?

[ominoustruth]

Isaac seemed convinced that the drones became visible in 2007 as a result of experimentation with a device that manipulates some type of field which interferes with the drone technology. This makes sense and also raises a few more questions. If such a device were activated, it appears that it's effects are localized since all of the drone photographs are within the same geographical vicinity. All but the Lake Tahoe photos are within 20 miles of the San Jose/Sunnyvale area, Lake Tahoe being approximately 100 miles from that area. It appears a facility (PACL?) was/is operating near the epicenter of those photos where the device was being used.

Possibly the device is adjustable in power. If the device was activated in the Sunnyvale area on a low power setting in could be responsible for the sightings close by. Perhaps a higher power setting allowed it to disrupt drone activity as far away as Lake Tahoe. If that is the case, then we could expect potentially more sightings at the time the Lake Tahoe photo was made. (Do we know the date of those photos?) Another possibility is that there is a different facility closer to Lake Tahoe, and of course near Montgomery Alabama. Who knows, the effects of such a device could reach across the country or even around the world. Or, perhaps the device was traveling. Maybe it was on tour for some reason and activated periodically to locate rouge drones. Perhaps another drone type craft was traveling at the time equipped with this interrupting field capability.

So how many drones are there right above our heads that remain hidden from view? Are there more in certain areas, or are they more evenly distributed? Some evidence suggests that they are more prevalent around forested areas.

If the photos are real, and a facility nearby was responsible for making the drones briefly visible, and this whole matter is some sort of controlled disclosure, it could be that the locations of the Chad and Rajman reports were deliberately misidentified to throw off attempts at locating the facility based on a radius of effect from such a device. Since we now know absolutely where most of these photos were made, it could be possible to find an epicenter for this field effect and get close to locating the actual facility.

The device responsible for this field effect is likely the device referred to in the Q4-86 Research Report as S1. In that report, all of the blacked out material seems to be related to S1. Since this report appears to focus on 4 artifacts. The first 3 are A1, A2, and A3, those shown in the photos. The 4th being S1. My assumption is that A stands for artifact, and S must be the first letter of some categorical identification for the S1 device. So what does S stand for?

I might be "Shooting At Straws" here, but i was wondering if WATER, specificly, large bodies of water could have any bearing on these events or craft? Montgomery, Al. lies at the intersection of 3 major rivers and also has 3 large lakes. Just thinking "Out Of The Box" again I wasn't sure if the other sighting areas had a lot of water, but the mention of Lake Tahoe got me thinking. Maybe water is some type of energy source for these craft or it has some adverse affect on them??
                                                                      Ted

[Ipsy]

Brent's sighting was over water, and of course all those around Sunnyvale are near the Pacific Ocean and San Fransisco Bay.

I just remembered the Yosemite sighting is about the same distance as Lake Tahoe from that area.

[Nodnunk]

So what does S stand for?

S = stealth

Perhaps S1 is the stealth field generator

[The Leviathan]

And perhaps there is absolutely nothing to it at all.  As I should know.  Alabama, Alabama, Alabama.

[onthefence]

And perhaps there is absolutely nothing to it at all.  As I should know.  Alabama, Alabama, Alabama.

As the only person that likely knows more about the Birmingham Cochran drone than anyone including Linda Moulton-Howe, will you now take this opportunity to man-up and explain it properly, or will you continue with the riddles?

[ominoustruth]

And perhaps there is absolutely nothing to it at all.  As I should know.  Alabama, Alabama, Alabama.

Not quite sure what you are referring to by Alabama, Alabama, Alabama. But if it is in reference to my sighting, let me assure you that if it was hoaxed, someone did an excellent job and deserves an award for sheer creativity and genius. Furthermore, for the record and forum members information, i am a native born and raised Georgian and am of the understanding from the forum articles that the Birmingham,Al. images were actually taken in Cochran Ga. according to investigators. If so, then maybe i am the perpetrator of this hoax!! I think not!!!!! At any rate i would hope you would clarify this statement with some further explanation of the meaning. ROLL TIDE !!!!!! 
                                                      Thanks, Ted

[Ipsy]

And perhaps there is absolutely nothing to it at all.  As I should know.  Alabama, Alabama, Alabama.

As the only person that likely knows more about the Birmingham Cochran drone than anyone including Linda Moulton-Howe, will you now take this opportunity to man-up and explain it properly, or will you continue with the riddles?

My money is on riddles.

[The Leviathan]

The first time I saw the Drone photos I was taken by the alienness of the Drone and its art.  I produced a simple version of it and a story to go with it.  I did not think it too malicious because I believed at the time the other Drones were fake, but good fakes.  I had had an unusual experience near Columbus Ga. that did not deal with Drones or UFOs, but what seemed to be more of a MIB situation.  I sent the Drone art to LMH with a story of having seen this Drone in it.  I started to wonder if these things were true and became too much of an advocate for them knowing that my own was not.  I also sent the MIB story to LMH which is to some degree even more unbelievable than the Drone one.  Never got a response.  Now I just enjoy Drone art.  Now make of this what you will.  There's your man-up.