Geoff
New member
Username: geoff

Post Number: 33
Registered: 4-2006
	
Posted on Sunday, July 01, 2007 - 11:37 am:   	

The criteria for declaring the drones to be "likely real" or "likely fake" 
comes not from the content of the material, but from other avenues of 
information related to the material. The material itself can easily be 
faked, thus for anyone to make conclusions about the drones based on the 
material alone should never expect to be taken seriously by any thinking 
person.


To date, the "drones event" has remained a very simple and straightforward 
one, and does not contain a multi-faceted subject. To date we have merely 
seen photos and written material, all from unverified sources.


Fortunately, most serious UFO related forums have treated this event with 
the objectivity it deserves, and have quite rightly leaned in the "likely 
fake" direction, myself included. Not one witness has been identified and 
not one piece of verifiable information has been put forward.



Unfortunately, this particular forum has leaned in the "likely real" 
direction, forming conclusions and even going in depth into details, lead by 
Whitley, that quite frankly, could only have been pulled out of a hat.



One cannot claim to be open minded to the possibility of a hoax, then go on 
to make conclusions "just in case" it isn't a hoax.



Some specific examples of conclusions from unverified assumptions from the 
latest journal entry would be:



What is happening now is that this skill is being offered on a gigantic 
scale...



Quite simply, because the hoaxer is probably a close encounter witness 
himself...



What they do, we do not yet know, but I have a thought that some of them, at 
least, are used in making crop circles...



If/when a hoax is proven, then how will Whitley explain away how he came to 
such a thought based on something that was made up? It will bring into great 
doubt all that he has previously said or written.



I'm very clearly taking a strong stand in this forum against the idea that 

these drones are likely to be anything other than a hoax, but please don't 
think I'm doing so as some kind of anti-believer skeptic. I've been reading 
Whitley's books for 20 years and followed the subject closely all my life, 
from the point of view of someone who believes that aliens are not only 
real, but also here. His writings have been invaluable, but what I am seeing 
today is an almost complete lack of true objectivity.



What I am doing is trying to bring some rational open-mindedness into this 
forum at a time when it would seem to have closed itself off to such 
thinking.



In his previous journal entry, Whitley referred to the drone event as 
possibly being a release of information to test reactions to said release. 
As there is no verifiable information in any of what has supposedly been 
"released" then there is nothing in any of it to differentiate it from every 
other UFO related story or hoax. Any test of real information release would 
contain something in it that can be verified so that those who see it will 
have something to truely react to rather than just more questions or a 
"belief". Issac could easily have identified the location of PACL without 
giving away his identity. I would quite like to view the place - Google 
Earth coordinates please Issac.



Whitley has been far too quick to draw conclusions here, and is now past the 
point of being able to avoid looking foolish should this be shown to be a 
hoax. Perhaps damage control can be attained to a degree by sprinking all 
the conclusions and detailed ponderings with the odd admittance it might not 
be real, but his general view is quite obviously that he has taken the 
"likely real" stance, despite the complete lack of verifiable information.



Here's something to ponder should the hoax be proven - will any media pieces 
written about Whitley in the lead up to the release of the Grays movie be 
negative or positive toward him in the aftermath of his becoming someone who 
gave credibility to a hoax and even went into great detail over the meaning 
of the drones, despite them not being real? If negative, then will Whitley 
be successful in getting his true message out through the movie, as planned, 
or will it be released in conjunction with storys and articles discrediting 
Whitley Strieber with a much stronger voice than any earlier attempts to do 
so?



It is quite possible that he has been set up. I would very much like to see 
such an outcome avoided, but right now, at the very least, see some 
semblence of objectivity put back into this forum. I do not wish to spend 
any more time than necessary in alien/UFO forums that do not hold in high 
regard the ability to know a fake when it stares them in the face.



I will end with this simple request of Mr Strieber for an answer. In your 
latest journal you wrote:



but there are now too many witnesses on tape.



Have you, or someone known to you, met with at least one of these witnesses, 
or at least verified the true identity of at least one of these witnesses?




(Message edited by geoff on July 01, 2007)