UFO-Blog.com Fighting against truth decay.....
DroneHoax.com Home - (* Denotes recently added/updated article)
Original Drone Reports

Chad - California
Wife/Mufon 7013 - Lake Tahoe
Rajman1977-Capitola, California
Listserv: Stephen, Big Basin
Ty - Big Basin, California
Isaac Caret/Pacl Documents

Related Drone History

Mufon Report (After 1 - Year)
The LMH Effect (Earthfiles.com)
The Dreamland Drones (Strieber)
The 'Walter' Drone Hoax

Dronehoax.com (Issac) Critiques

Who Is Isaac & The Drone Link
Identifying Isaac
Isaac's Alien Treaty

Linguistic Analysis Primer (LAP)
The CARET Facility

Drone Image Analysis

1111 Analysis Part 1
*1111 Analysis (HPO Model)
*1111 Antigravity Device Analysis
Biedny/Ritzman Analysis
*
Freelance_Zenarchist - LAP
JB Analysis
Jeddyhi Analysis
Kris Avery Analysis

Marc D'antonio Analysis

Marvin Analysis
Mufon/Reichmuth Analysis

Radi Analysis
Torvald Analysis
Wayne/Secret Web Analysis

Personal Beliefs, Perceptions & Reality

Skeptical Of Believers?
Marcello Truzzi - Zeteticism
The Burden Of Skepticism
UFOs - Age Of Information
Failure Of Science/Ufology
UFOs - Edge Of Reality
Logical Trickery Of UFO Skeptic
7 Warning Signs Of Bogus Skepticism
Marcello Truzzi, Pseudo Skepticism
Unfair Practices On Paranormal Claims
10 Signs Of Intellectual Dishonesty
*What Is Pseudoscience?

Additional Witness Information

Rajman1977 Additional Info
Lake-Tahoe Additional Info
Isaac - Follow-up Emails
Location, Location, Location!!

Other Online Critiques

Issac's Hoax: A Sad Story
A "Viral" Fantasy
Issac's Letter
Caret Documents - Another Hoax
A Skeptical Point Of View (Jeddyhi)

The Dreamland Drones

I posted a little about Whitley and his claims at the time. I really have no desire to add to what I wrote and to be honest I feel I've said all I wanted.

I will add that I am still incredibly disappointed in Whitley and what is in my opinion a painfully transparent stance on the Drones.


Whitley Strieber recently authorized the following email to be sent to his "Unknown Country" subscribers list (6th December 2007) and it was emailed out to them at his request and on his behalf.

This morning at 4:53 AM, Whitley Strieber saw a drone over Santa Monica , California . The Striebers are in California seeing friends, and Whitley has sent me the following email, with permission to publish it. He will write a journal entry about his experience that will be posted on Saturday, December 8.

And remember, there are a lot of people out there lying about the drones and trying to debunk them. But these people ignore ONE THING: Linda's interviews with credible eyewitnesses. Do not be deceived about this.

This was in his email:

"Well, in one sense the drones mystery is solved because at 4:53 this morning, I saw one.

I had an extremely restless night, full of complex and astounding dreams that I will record in a journal on my website. They also involved my book the Key and the crop circles, and have led me to a very clear understanding that there is a new level of consciousness available to us now. The dreams lasted from about 3:00 to the moment I woke up and saw the thing outside, which was at exactly 4:53. (I know the times because I sent one of my agents an email at 2:47 about a business matter, then went to bed and was shortly asleep. When I saw the drone, I was looking across the bedroom toward the window, with my wife's lighted clock just visible below the window.)

I woke up lying on my side, and saw the thing moving just below and in the bottom edge of the clouds. It was stormy. The object was enormous, and from where I was lying it must have been no more than a few hundred feet overhead. It appeared almost level with the line of the roof that is visible outside my window. It was moving toward our building at a stately pace, gliding easily, like a dirigible. I had the impression that it was quite large, but obviously, no way to tell for sure. Because of the clouds, I did not see the characteristic tall antennae on it, but I did see structure that looked a lot like what the bicyclists photographed. I immediately woke Anne up and went to the window. But we could not see it from the window.

I looked for a while, trying to see if I could spot some edge of it in the clouds. It had not been moving fast at all, so there was reason to believe it was still there. Not seeing it, I went to the dresser and got my cellphone, which has a camera in it, and put it beside the bed. I then lay down and turned over to the same position I had been in when I first saw it--and there the thing was again, clearly visible just below the cloud cover. Now it was much closer to the house. When I moved my head to get up again, I could no longer see it. When I returned to the original angle, I could see it again. This time, it was gliding west, toward the ocean, only its lower structure visible in the clouds. I opened the cellphone, in an attempt to take a picture of it from that angle, but by then it had passed beyond the edge of the window. I saw nothing more of it, but there is no question in my mind at all but that they are real."


At the time of writing this (Sunday 9th December) his journal has still to be updated and still shows the last entry to be the 27th November. Whitley Strieber has always said he can't prove (and as such didn't know) that the Drones were real and that perhaps the lessons learned from the full experience are more important than the nuts and bolts physical reality of the craft.

Well that all seems to have changed with this latest revelation, the first line of Whitley's recent email states:

"Well, in one sense the Drones mystery is solved because at 4:53 this morning, I saw one."

And the last line of the email reaffirms this by stating that:

"There is no question in my mind at all but that they <the Drones> are real."

There really is so little information to be gleamed from this brief correspondence that's partly why I've held off posting anything about it, but since Whitley's self-imposed deadline of the 8th December has come and gone with no sign of him updating his personal journal I thought it prudent to mention it.

Personally I do have great difficulties in believing that the entire account is simply nothing more than a fabrication, and I'm interested to see which path Whitley is planning on taking, hopefully it's not just the path that leads to his bank...

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:

 

A Most Complex Encounter - (Dec 11, 2007)

"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:

New Chance - (June 13, 2008)

"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?

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

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?"

(Whitley)