New Drone, similar to the C2C one, page 10

Originally posted by bprintz1

By the way, Linda Moulton Howe published the 'Chad" photos, and a guy experienced in communacations(Honeywell and the Navy) commented on it. He believes it may be authentic and explains why. It's on the home page, just scroll down a bit.

earthfiles.com...

Whatever, it sure is interesting. My guess is it's a military device.
I want a ride.

[edit on 21-5-2007 by bprintz1]

I urge everyone to listen to the interview George Noory conducted with Linda Moulton Howe a couple of weeks ago. It is the saddest "investigation" I've ever known Linda to conduct, even if it were only a preliminary one. Both Noory and herself are approaching this case from the standpoint of their beliefs. Neither are appropriately objective. Neither have consulted imaging professionals, CGI or otherwise, to examine the photos and offer an analysis. Yet Linda includes comments from an anonymous communications specialist, and anonymous e-mailers in her reports. The communications specialist draws fantastic conclusions about propulsion because he has a "background in materials science"? Well, he could easily make that claim just by reading the page devoted to it on Wikipedia! Since his identity is unknown to us we can't verify his claimed credentials for ourselves.

Who are these people? Everybody with something to say is an unknown! Except, of course, the professionals here. The articles posted on Howe's website are just about as farcical as "Chad's" photos are. Her articles don't add up to anything except belief and opinion. Now, what the professionals have provided here add up to more than that, and they stick to what they know. Linda Moulton Howe and George Noory have offered, opinions based on beliefs. In contrast the ATS imaging professionals here have presented tangible evidence to the contrary of the alleged authenticity of the photos. How can the communications specialist even speculate about propulsion when there is not any video footage of the craft in flight available? How can he speculate on the craft's communication apparatus when he does not know for a fact that the craft is capable of communication? It's one thing to say, "Maybe it's some type of military reconnaissance craft." It's another to comment on, "...the antenna and the element array arrangement." How does he know what he is looking at, and the function of what he is looking at? He may as well speculate about some of the spaceships gracing the covers of Poul Anderson sci-fi novels. Everything the communications specialist says adds up to nothing more than a guess. And Linda presents it as an authoritative statement, but to anyone listening it clearly is not. Again, the imaging professionals here have provided us with much more than a guess.

It's not the best performance for Linda. She is much more thorough in her crop circle investigations. It's true that she hasn't been able to see firsthand the subject of "Chad's" photos for herself, but she obviously is not performing as well as she could given the limitations this case has imposed upon her. Where is the commentary and analysis in her investigation that could be made by CGI/imaging professionals? Why after all this time has she failed to contact even one? And if she did contact one who has responded to her requests, why haven't we been presented with that person's commentary and analysis? It seems to me that the most logical and natural thing to do when questioning the authenticity of photographic images, and the veracity of the events shown in those photographs, that CGI/imaging professionals would be consulted. Unfortunately, it seems she's building a case based on the belief that the photos are authentic and that the craft is real. Fortunately, however, many of us are not as credulous as she, George Noory, and the anonymous communications specialist are.

[edit on 22-5-2007 by Areal51]