Joined: Mar 2006 Gender:
Male Posts: 2,714 Location: Ohio
Re: UFO -'best yet'? up close and
detailed « Reply #1470 on
Today at 5:34am »
It seems as though we have entered a new
era. The methods used to disseminate information over
the last several decades, namely newspapers and
television, are rapidly fading. Their reader- and
viewer-ships have dropped dramatically over the last few
years in favor of the internet-based media of forums and
Here at OM we have been able to attract a
very mature and knowledgeable member base covering many
different areas of expertise. The Raj/Chad case has been
a perfect example of cooperative research and spirited
debate conducted in a respectful and courteous manner.
We have had a tremendous influx of new members just
because of the photos and the BPWH
We have made and nurtured several
contacts in the intelligence, military, government and
media to further our goal of becoming THE place for
discussion of all that is happening in the areas of
ufology and phenomonolgy. As our knowledge-base grows
through the strength and quality of our members we will
put ourselves in a postion to be at the forefront of
Disclosure, an event that by many accounts has already
...one of the
Highest Levels of US intelligence sources
communicated confirmation of Alien interaction,
for the first time in history, directly with one
of OUR Admins, just 2 months
due respect Jake, that communication was as
hotly debated as the authenticity of these pics.
Not everyone saw what you see in that interview.
Maybe you should post the link so our newer
members can go see exactly what was said and
make up their own minds about what was
Shads . . . everyone needs to make up their own mind. I
was a direct witness, so for me there is no question.
But many members on this thread are new. They haven't
followed for over a year. They haven't read my 100's of
posts to get a read of whether they can trust my
And so, they need to read it for
themselves . . .
The first historical
public confirmation of alien interaction by a
senior US Intelligence official, happened here. How
senior? Presidential advisory level!
There is a
prelude as the sources have to be taken into account.
Jake Reason (real name Richard Davis) was one of the 2
set-up witnesses, and 'ivo5000' was the actual receiver
of the telephone call.
Raj, (and others
interested) if you do nothing else, read this and
the following few pages. . . .
Thank you Raj for
your information. Would you welcome then being
interviewed by a Mufon field investigator living
in your local area? It would be great to go to
the spot where these photos were taken,
interview the witnesses. Why did you contact
Linda Moulton Howe, and not Mufon, or the
National UFO Reporting Center too?
I too was frustrated when Steve deleted his earlier
post, I can understand that when his "higher-ups" at
mufon demanded his retraction, his hands were
tied. I give him credit for trying to share what
info he had at the time and view him for the
none-paid volunteer trying to do the best job he
can that I think he is.
As long as he is
respectful of Raj (and everyone else here at OM), I
don't see the harm in his request for an interview. Up
to Raj who he wants to talk with, and the more on-going
discussions, the more publicity. Only way for Steve to
get the story straight is to do the research, same as
the rest of us. Besides, if anyone can help him catch
reporting mistakes it is the sharp intellectuals at OM.
Re: UFO -'best yet'? up close and
detailed « Reply #1473 on
Today at 8:08am »
missed it somewhere, or has Raj written back answering
some of the questions posed?
On another note, I
just want to address (again) the role of CG analysis.
For those that think it makes the water muddy, I say
Knowledge and understanding of what is
possible is paramount when seeking the truth.
I wonder sometimes, if to many, the interest
in UFOs and aliens is like watching a magic show. There
are 3 types...
The first group don't actually
want to know how the trick was done, and actually want
to believe... how ever incredible it might
Next, you have those who have 'seen one
trick, so have seen them all'. These people will not
believe unless they actually see something with their
own eyes that defies everything they know. These people
probably hate magic, and always say 'It's a trick'
whenever they see a magician do something incredible.
They don't have an interest in how it is done. It is
easier to merely cast it aside as being a trick (hoax?)
because it puts them back in their comfort zone.
Somewhere in between these two extremes are
those that simply want the truth. They want to believe,
and would find nothing more fantastic than to know that
there really is magic, how ever rare it may be. They
don't blindly believe, but also they don't immediately
write off anything until it has been proven one way or
I think a large majority of people
here (including myself) fall in to the last category,
and I am pleased to know you all.
what can be done with modern tools is very important to
those who want the truth. How can someone honestly say
that they are investigating something correctly, if they
aren't aware of the various techniques available to the
It is only going to get more
complicated to take images and video apart as time goes
on. Investigators need as many strings in their bow as
I'm just trying to fill that void, and
share my knowledge.
You just need to ask
yourself, what type of person am I? The blind believer;
the non believer; or the truth seeker?
I'm off to a birthday celebration. A mate
has rented out a cinema for us to watch Monty Pythons
Holy Grail! Should be fun. Catch you all on the flip
nesting so i put all three images together and
it made this symbol. I have put forth the
symbolisms theory before at the other site, but
the mods suggestion of nesting is where this
tribal indeed. i wonder will we see crop
circles with similar feature in the
was not in past, I verified this point..... But good
research idea however, MidusTouch...
Re: The Drones: A Timeline
Problem « Reply #1477 on
Today at 9:58am »
this post I am examining 'how many sightings' there have
been, and an apparent problem with the timeline /
reportage. This arose out of a discussion with another
board member, however I'd like some assistance
attempting to clarify the chain of
05-05-07 Mufon: Tahoe: First
report: 'Wife' (mufon submitter 7013) (‘...in Tahoe
over the weekend...Saturday around 7:00 pm...’) 5
photos: 2 original grainy (dark) cell phone 1
'new, better cell phone' (Chad mentions this photo in
his 1st letter) 2 'Chad' photos Note: Report
includes 'Chad photos!' dated: 05-05-07
casebook (dates unknown): Reprints ‘Wife’ letter and
2 (grainy dark) photos, dated 05-05-07. Reprints
‘Chad’ letters and 7 Photos. 1 from ‘wife's cell phone'.
1 may be a close-up of another image in the set.
05-06-07? Coast to Coast Am:
'Chad' Content 1 letter ‘Last month (April 2007),
my wife and I were on a walk...’ 1 'better' cell
phone photo (see above) 5 ‘Chad’ photos Note: 2
days pass from first contact to next set of photos
according to letter. One of these reports is
wrong...as regards the date...
Earthfiles: May 11th: C2C receives email with
‘attached May 6, 2007 images’. However, on the C2C
site ‘Chad’s’ letter clearly states the sighting took
place in April 2007 (‘Last Month’). In a conversation
with LMH ‘Chad’ reportedly says the photos were taken on
May 6th, 2007. May 15th: Earthfiles receives
‘another’ similar ‘drone image’ ‘by a person at Lake
Tahoe’ (mufon 7013 above).
This is quite strange,
because the these are the same submittor (according to
the mufon data).
May 18th, 2007:
Earthfiles viewer (‘Shirley’) writes to claim seeing
‘something’ in or around Sequoia National Park (2005).
Note that in the first email she says this jolted her
memory, but does not in fact say that this is the same
sort of craft. Later in a broadcast of C2C, I believe
LMH describes a phone conversation with ‘Shirley’. I
don’t have access to a transcript.
2007: An anonymous Craigslist (San Francisco) ad
goes up with a link to a Flikr site. I recognize the
images from a recent Earthfiles visit, and respond to
it, informing the poster of the similar images at
Earthfiles. I send Earthfles an email pointing out
the Flikr site with 6 images. Rajman1977 (we may
presume he is 30 years old?) puts up a Flickr
site. Some time later his name appears: Rajinder
May 26th: 'Birmingham' contact:
New photo of a very different, yet potentially similar
'craft'. Notes: I believe I have personally seen
one of these (near a transformer) and (possibly) mistook
it for an attachment to a transformer. Unfortunately I
cannot precisely remember the date and location. I do
not necessarily equate the two phenomenon. What the
Birmingham photographer captured is interesting in its
own right, but not necessarily related to the other
images in my opinion.
Now, I have been
having a conversation with another board member
regarding ‘how many sightings took place’, and that’s
what led to this research. Firstly, the dates don’t
match up. We are not sure when these ‘Tahoe, etc’
sighting(s) occurred. Additionally, as far as I can
tell, unless there's something about the original mufon
report (with 5 images) that I do not understand, we are
talking about 3 sightings by two groups: (Sometime in
1 sighting by wife/+ husband | result: 2
4-arm images. (Dark Grainy) (I assume this is a
1 other sighting by wife
(unexplained) | result: 1 5-arm image like Chad’s (Chad
reports in his letter that this is from her
1 sighting (Chad/Friend) | result: 6
1 sighting by Rajinder, Fiancée and (Her)
parents | result: 6 images. Different configuration from
Flikr site says photos are from
Now, given all of this,
there are some things to sort out. I realize that the
reportage we’ve had from online sources may have
introduced dating errors that we cannot really undo (as,
for example, we have no access to Chad, or his wife).
However here's also a significant problem because
there's an unaccounted-for sighting.
If the mufon
images are correctly associated with the report, then
the first report (with a letter from a wife) includes
the dark-grainy images and some of the chad images.
Chad's letter doesn't mention this previous sighting,
but instead shows a very different image and claims it
to be from his wife's cell-phone 'while they were on a
walk'. Why doesn't he mention the other sighting? There
are some serious questions here. The reportage is also
very likely confused.
The 'dark-grainy' images
had to have been produced by Chad's wife (according to
the mufon report and associated images), and the second
sighting by his wife (which produces the daylight
cell-phone image) is not properly accounted for in this
Something is wrong here, and we need to
understand it more clearly. It seems to hinge upon how
the photos were associated with the mufon report. Can we
find out how that came about precisely?
Re: UFO -'best yet'? up close and
detailed « Reply #1478 on
Today at 10:10am »
to say but this forum is starting to look
probeliever If this was a murderscenario..only thing
u guys would do is look at the gun and hope that the
owner sends a mail. People who say hoax here need to
stfu or dont get answered.Even worse,disinformants
Another thingy...If chad wanted to be
anonymous.Why didnt he post at MUFON then?Its made very
clear on their site that he could post anonymous without
any further obligations.Im 500% sure that he visited
that site if he was looking for info on the net.But
no,Chad had to use weird phrases in the searchengine to
end up with c2c.Rational?Logic?
Humm sorry to say
but this forum is starting to look
probeliever If this was a
murderscenario..only thing u guys would do is
look at the gun and hope that the owner sends a
mail. People who say hoax here need to stfu
or dont get answered.Even worse,disinformants
Another thingy...If chad wanted
to be anonymous.Why didnt he post at MUFON
then?Its made very clear on their site that he
could post anonymous without any further
obligations.Im 500% sure that he visited that
site if he was looking for info on the net.But
no,Chad had to use weird phrases in the
searchengine to end up with
Debunk me and ill
have to agree with you. Astro. The problem seems to be a
lack of critical thinking ability which leads to trite
and superficial, faith-based and irrational analysis. In
an open forum, however, mediocre minds have equal
rights. Your point about Chad's reporting options is
well taken and leads me, too, to question the veracity
of his story- or at least his judgment. Don't stfu- we
need your here.
Re: UFO -'best yet'? up close and
detailed « Reply #1483 on
Today at 1:12pm »
for your timeline, Organelle. I also find it confusing
that the original "Tahoe wife" report to MUFON contains
three of the Chad images. I wonder how those images were
submitted and become part of that report, because Chad
never mentions submitting anything to MUFON. Further,
Tahoe wife seems to suggest that the two cellphone
images she took were all they could get.
is also the date of 5/5 associated with the Chad photos
on MUFON but he seems to say that one photo was taken in
April 2007 and the rest taken "a few days later" which
seems to suggest April as well, but that they were
submitted on 5/5, but taken in April.
to think one important key to this thing is Chad, who
states that he saw this thing 9 times, a friend saw it,
and at least some neighbors saw it. Chad made it sound
like he could go looking for this thing near his house
and find it. I'm sorry, but something is fishy about his
Today at 7:30am steve Deleted
the account "steve" from the forum.
would Steve do that?
say that his hoax thesis requires more research and is
not yet ready for prime time publication. When he and
Rubin have completed this work the results will no doubt
be posted on three sites: Steve's forum, MUFON, and here
at OM. I, for one, thank him for his past input and look
forward to reading the final version. In the interim I
think he'll benefit from the brief recent analyses
posted on OM by Astro and Organelle. I'm sure he's still