New Drone, similar to the C2C one, page 24

The poster of the YouTube footage,saladfingers123456 has added a more detailed explanation in the comments section of the YouTube page, saying in his first post,

"Hello everyone... This isn't real. I did it as part of an investigation as to the legitimacy of the original images supplied by 'Chad'. I'm trying to see at what point can we be convinced by CG images, and what are the things to look for when disseminating an image that could be 3D in origin."

And then in his second post,

" I'd send you a link to the discussion, but youtube wont let me. pfff typical

p.s. Linda, I think you should tell everyone it isnt real.. and the reason I created it.

BTW where can I hear this radio show? Thanks!"

Those are his two posts in full.

Linda Moulton Howe's performance on this case is a great disappointment to me. I've always tuned into her broadcasts on Coast to Coast AM and on Whitley Streiber's Dreamland radio show, and I'm pretty sure I've listed to every single report of hers on C2C since I've been listening to Art Bell and George Noory over the past six years. Her statement that this Youtube footage was real could have been easily avoided. A thorough reporter would not have made such an obvious mistake. Now I have to wonder about everything she has said and reported. I have to wonder if she completely disregarded "saladfingers123456" intial remarks of the footage being "CG". Since, I've always approached paranormal topics with great caution, it is especially disappointing to witness such a terrible performance from someone who usually offers convincing investigative reporting. This is the only time I've ever been able to independently verify anything that the Linda has reported, and it does not stand up to scrutiny.

And it further deepens the mystery as to why she has yet to consult any CGI/imaging professionals to give commentary and analysis of the available evidence of this increasingly frustrating case. With her connections to George Noory and Noory's connections in Hollywood, CA, she could very easily find some of the best in the CGI/imaging business to go on the record, as many of them have in the past in relation to paranormal phenomena, with commentary and analysis. Why has this road been studiously avoided by Linda Mouton Howe and George Noory to this point is as real a mystery as any other. It does not make any sense. No one, zero witnesses, have attached their real names to this case. Now contrast that with farmers associated with crop circle formations. The comparison doesn't mean much but it does show that some people have the guts to stand by their experiences, and to allow intrusion as the price to pay for their willingness to reach an understandable conclusion.

The standard reporting on paranormal phenomena should be raised higher. Extraordinary claims should be backed by extraordinary people in addition to extraordinary evidence. If someone claims to experience something "all of the time" then those who would be in charge of investigating those claims should be allowed to draw a comprehensive profile of the person(s) making those claims. Much more comprehensive than "Chad" or "Susan". It's one thing to protect identity, and it's another to protect identity at a distance. If someone like, Linda Moulton Howe, cannot travel to the location of where the extraordinary claims have been made, then the story should not be reported. If she is not allowed to handle original photos supporting extraordinary claims, the story should not be reported on. If the original photos are not allowed to to undergo professional analysis, the story should not be reported. If Linda Moulton Howe or others like her fail to verify sources and the evidence that they present as being bona fide, the story should not be reported on. If any of this criteria is not met, the story should not be believed. That's my take on it.

[edit on 26-5-2007 by Areal51]