It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Rendlesham Forest…, A Christmas Story from 1980 - Can We ‘Let it Be’?

page: 76
87
<< 73  74  75    77  78  79 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 3 2016 @ 04:31 PM
link   
a reply to: mirageman

So where does it leave all of this if I might ask.
If this is the case, now what?
It does not change Gary's actual findings, but it begs further questions I
would have thought??




posted on Jun, 3 2016 @ 04:52 PM
link   
a reply to: Guest101

Its too late for me to look further.
When did those glyph/logo appear on that detector machine?? Any idea
Guest 101?



posted on Jun, 4 2016 @ 05:23 AM
link   
a reply to: Guest101

Guest 101. Is it possible that the company was simply
inspired by Jims symbols/glyphs?
I did go to their fb site and asked them about how
they came by their inspiration for the logo.
Its possible Gary has already done that, after all he posted the
video and pointed out to look at it, right?



posted on Jun, 4 2016 @ 05:42 AM
link   
a reply to: Marylongstockings

Actually, Jim Penniston himself sent me the Ground Penetrating Radar video on the 23rd Nov, 2015, telling me I would find it highly interesting - adding that what really caught his eyes was the fact that it had the symbols on it and that he found it very strange. Jim told me he had received a link to the video from someone else who posted it to him on that same day. He also commented that it was interesting that they should be looking at satellite GPR.

Then on the 27th Nov 2011, Jim showed me an email he had sent the company, with the title "Inquiry into the use of Intellectual Property." He asks if he could be put in touch with the General Manager of OKM or anyone who makes decisions for the company, saying he has questions as to why their company are using his intellectual (internationally copyrighted) property. He then sent me the email exchanges between him and this company, whose people appeared vague as to what Jim was inquiring into. As far as I know Jim is still pursuing this with his lawyer.

So if Jim had lifted these glyphs from this company's equipment, why would he want to bring MY attention to this?
According to Jim, it is the other way around.
edit on 4-6-2016 by Gaos0 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 4 2016 @ 06:30 AM
link   
a reply to: Gaos0

Thanks Gary, I can already see this could get twisted
so it is best to get this one really straight.
I did think this morning , about copyrights as surely
the company would approach Jim to ask for permission.

I did go to their FB page and asked what their inspiration
was on the symbols, but it is Saturday and it appears closed
So no answer as yet.

Very interesting what you have written on this though
and how this has come to be.



posted on Jun, 4 2016 @ 06:45 AM
link   
a reply to: Gaos0

I also noted that John Burroughs is talking about this thread on his Facebook page, presenting only one side to it, in that he is copying and posting the response 'rebuttal' messages on here that were addressed to me, but ignoring my responses . . . hardly fair and balanced. He has also said defamatory things about me in public. So here's my take on the situation.

For almost a full year, and when John was "friends" with Jim Penniston, John sat in on the Skype talks I had with Jim about my findings. It was obvious that he couldn't grasp any of it – often talking “word salad” with NO CLARITY of thought or expression, and going off on a tangent with the "new-age," psycho-babble rubbish that he was only then beginning to get into because he wanted so much to decipher the code himself so he could make it about HIM.

"It means this . . . no, it means that" . . . never once taking on board what I had found and what I was trying to relate to him and Jim to bring them both up to speed on it. Perhaps he felt he was entitled to interpret any meaning he saw in it himself because he was there with Jim when Jim says he received it.

Anyway, what I presented all went over John's head. The wheel was spinning but the hamster was dead so it seemed. It was clear that he had no knowledge of geometry and wouldn't know what a ‘degree angle’ was if the angle of a slanted line was labelled and placed in front of his face with a large arrow, complete with Las Vegas-style flashing lights – and it often was as I remember!! But, still he didn’t get it.
If he had really bothered to analyse and understand what I had found, then he wouldn't NOW be saying that I am "cherry picking" the data and peddling the "Dots on a Map" BS, which he got someone else to write. However, from what I have observed, he has the attention span of a gnat on swamp gas.

John also flips and turns on a dime with what he thinks is going on and plays "spin the bottle" with people and facts. He changes his mind like he changes his socks. He will say it's all associated with something one day and then he will ignore that and latch onto something completely different. And he really has no integrity.
For example, he is now slapping Ronnie Dugdale on the back . . . the latest person John is playing “buddy” with (AGAIN) . . . until that too goes wrong (AGAIN) sometime in the near future and on a facebook wall near you . . .

I remember when Joe Luciano and I were both asked by Ronnie Dugdale (and hopefully Ronnie will back me up on this) to look at deciphering Brenda Butler's pages of binary code. This was when John was still friends with Jim. On learning of this, John went ‘ape#-snarling-sasquatch-total’ and said, that because I had signed a non-disclosure form about my work on the binary code, that what I was doing could be construed as a "conflict of interests." HE then threatened to sue me on the strength of it. He also said that I should NOT be working on Brenda Butler's codes, and that also collaborating with Ronnie was not in his or Jim's best interests as he had both fallen out with them.
Contrary to what John would have people believe, I don't shrink away from a fight. I told John to "f*** off," expecting some comeback, but that was it for awhile.
Jim was just bemused by it all – and at least Jim had the sense not to fall out with me at the end of the day . . . although we have come close a few times.

In any case, again, the reason why John is now against the code and is seen to be trying to debunk it, is because he fell out with Jim and is no longer part of it, and won't be once the findings are released.

What people don't know is that when John fell out with Jim, John asked me to write a book - a fictional novel - about his own life and asked me to include some of what I had found in the coordinates from the code. So if he was always against the code as he NOW says, then why would he want to be associated with it in any way?

From the time I was introduced to him by Jim, I knew that John really wasn't important in this and after awhile it was clear to me as to how he could be of any use to what I had found. I always maintained focus on what was asked of me by Jim back in 2011 when he asked me to look at the coordinates to see if there was any additional information . . . and the fact is, there is. AGAIN, who devised it all is the question, and really that's not for me to investigate on top of everything else. And as to WHO devised it, I have no concerns about that at all - it could be someone I know or Santa Claus for all I care. The only thing I'm worried about is that it was finally discovered that John created it . . . :-)))))) That would be perfect.
The main thing for me is what it contains because personally it has led me to some answers and has inspired my latest discoveries which are part of another project entirely.
In fact, having personally got something out of it, I could have just kept what I found to myself, and really the way people have behaved in all this and what I have had to put up with (and let's face it, you can't beat stupid no matter how intelligent you are) perhaps that would be the best option.


edit on 4-6-2016 by Gaos0 because: (no reason given)

edit on 4-6-2016 by Gaos0 because: (no reason given)

edit on 4-6-2016 by Gaos0 because: (no reason given)

edit on 4-6-2016 by Gaos0 because: (no reason given)

edit on 4-6-2016 by Gaos0 because: (no reason given)

edit on 4-6-2016 by Gaos0 because: (no reason given)

edit on 4-6-2016 by Gaos0 because: (no reason given)

edit on 4-6-2016 by Gaos0 because: (no reason given)

edit on 4-6-2016 by Gaos0 because: TYPOS

edit on 4-6-2016 by Gaos0 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 4 2016 @ 07:53 AM
link   
a reply to: Gaos0

And another thing John, while you are looking in. You won't see me 'selling out' to the "UFO entertainment" crowd, or anyone else for that matter.



posted on Jun, 4 2016 @ 08:02 AM
link   

originally posted by: Marylongstockings
a reply to: mirageman

So where does it leave all of this if I might ask.
If this is the case, now what?
It does not change Gary's actual findings, but it begs further questions I
would have thought??



I think I understand what Gary's standpoint is now. I am sure he is fully aware of any criticisms that may come his way. But he's found something that he perceives to be important no matter what the source of these binary codes are. So there is little point carrying on that debate with him.

Now the other interesting issue is Jim Penniston supposedly claiming the 'glyphs' are his intellectual property.

How exactly does that work?

Seems like Jim is claiming a case of "seeing is conceiving".

If he saw them on a 'craft of unknown' origin then what right does he have to claim them as his own intellectual property.

Unless he's claiming he designed them so it's his intellectual property?



posted on Jun, 4 2016 @ 08:13 AM
link   
a reply to: mirageman

Jim actually discussed this issue with me, and acknowledged that they had originated with the craft he claims he witnessed, but at the end of the day, the glyphs came through him. He drew them down, and so without any solid proof of the craft he saw, then 'technically' at the end of the day they originated from Jim. But, that does not imply that he created them, as you are implying.
edit on 4-6-2016 by Gaos0 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 4 2016 @ 08:55 AM
link   
I am having a good look over this.

Surely the first thing would be
to find out from the company what inspired them
with the glyphs they are using for their logo on the
machines? Is it their own design, or were they
inspired to use Jims glyphs on their machines?
I already checked a couple of things and I can see
some of their equipment has been used at Rendlesham
But my computer wont let me get into the links
am trying to access so can only see limited info.



posted on Jun, 4 2016 @ 12:52 PM
link   
a reply to: Gaos0

Actually Gary, the situations has got beyond ridiculous now.
I am not on Johns FB page, but I do know he shares over some
of my material from time to time. After I saw the ATS string posted
there and the comments made. I went and made a comment
there and mentioned there was also a very interesting comment
you had made in relation to that photo of the machine and
symbols. I notice that I am now blocked ? again.

You are correct on one thing. The "friend" situation, it is so strange.
LOL re the thoughts of John having created the binary story.

Now that would surely kill us all



posted on Jun, 4 2016 @ 02:24 PM
link   
a reply to: Guest101

He could not have copied the symbols 101
The symbols where in the Georgina book. Andrew Pikes
colleague just mentioned some things to me just now.
If the company started in aprox 2001
Then that rules out Jim using them from
the machines, right?


edit on 4-6-2016 by Marylongstockings because: correction



posted on Jun, 4 2016 @ 03:12 PM
link   
a reply to: Marylongstockings

Jim didn't copy the glyphs from the OKM equipment. It makes no sense if he is now pursuing legal action against the company for using the glyphs which he says were automatically copyrighted when they were featured on the official Rendlesham Incident Website - as copyrighted at the bottom of every page.
And how would that affect my work/findings if he had copied them?
The results I been able to derive from decoding the 'coordinates code' found in the binary has nothing to do with the glyphs.



posted on Jun, 4 2016 @ 03:21 PM
link   
OKM were founded in 2002:
www.okm-gmbh.de...

But they are big distributors. Did they buy out a prior company around in 1980 who manufactured the device in question?



OKM was founded in 2002 and belongs to the leading manufacturers of geophysical measuring instruments


edit on SatAmerica/ChicagofSat, 04 Jun 2016 15:24:20 -0500pm306America/Chicago630 by Defragmentor because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 4 2016 @ 03:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gaos0
Then on the 27th Nov 2011, Jim showed me an email he had sent the company, with the title "Inquiry into the use of Intellectual Property." He asks if he could be put in touch with the General Manager of OKM or anyone who makes decisions for the company, saying he has questions as to why their company are using his intellectual (internationally copyrighted) property. He then sent me the email exchanges between him and this company, whose people appeared vague as to what Jim was inquiring into. As far as I know Jim is still pursuing this with his lawyer.
It sounds to me like Jim doesn't have "standing" to pursue any claim if the symbols didn't originate with him. Further, all the company using those symbols has to do is claim that they copied them from some mysterious craft in the woods like Jim claims he did, meaning Jim isn't the creator of those symbols. Jim basically would have no argument against this since that's what he claims he did.

So the only entities with "standing" to pursue legal action would be the owner or designer of the craft on which the symbols appeared, which for what it's worth I'm assigning more credibility to Jim's statement he never got within 50 meters of the craft and therefore based on that distance I don't think he got a good look at any symbols.



posted on Jun, 4 2016 @ 03:27 PM
link   
a reply to: Gaos0

I agree it does not make sense .

The glyphs are the thing though which initiated the binary
code into Jims mind Gary.

Defragmenter makes an interesting comment?



posted on Jun, 4 2016 @ 03:31 PM
link   
a reply to: Defragmentor

Now that I have no idea, I guess one would have to look into this if
there is doubt now re the symbols.



posted on Jun, 4 2016 @ 03:41 PM
link   
a reply to: Gaos0

The company OKM had chosen the glyphs from reading about Jim's account and seeing them in his notebook. The company based their symbols on the modified renditions of the glyphs. After their equipment was actually used to find and retrieve what the coordinates are leading to, the company then became a huge corporation in the future that invested in time travel, and so it was the company that sent the triangular 'time machine' craft back to 1980 with the glyphs on the side, so as to plant the seed that would lead to the find.
I'm astonished as to why no one has worked that out yet . . .



posted on Jun, 4 2016 @ 03:43 PM
link   
a reply to: Gaos0




posted on Jun, 4 2016 @ 04:08 PM
link   
a reply to: Arbitrageur

@ Arbitageur: I think you're absolutely correct about the apparent (obvious) lack of standing.

@ the thread participants in general and those who are reading and posting elsewhere:

This reminds me of the hoaxed "Isaac-CARET Drone Symbols/Language" of 9 years ago...

You can read all about it here: www.abovetopsecret.com...

I'm not saying it's the same set of circumstances, or even related at all. I'm just pointing out that this isn't the first time a large corp has used "symbols" found only online and seemingly connected to UFOlogy and/or the Paranormal.

Dell used the Isaac CARET symbols to market AlienWare computers after they bought AlienWare in 2008 or 2010 (I don't recall the exact year), I actually have an AlienWare desktop with the symbols etched into the acrylic on the bottom third of the case and loaded as screensavers.

Either way, from where I'm sitting it looks like the copyright infringement suit has about as much chance of holding water as a sieve does. Obviously that's just my opinion, but, I've been round and round with copyright law over the past twenty years and would be willing to bet a fiver I'm right. ;-)

Excellent discussion none the less.



new topics

top topics



 
87
<< 73  74  75    77  78  79 >>

log in

join