Friday, April 4, 2008



The following information was compiled by the Drone Research Team (DRT) who are members of the Drone Research Team Forum and consist of...

* Tomi01uk (UK)
* Onthefence (Canada)
* 10538 (USA)
* Nemo492 (France)
* Raska (France)
* Elevenaugust (France)


This document explains away the many claims of hoax against the drone case. Generally, hoax claimers are using fact-free opinions, and or ignorance of photography etc. Hundreds of people have devoted thousands of hours to the answers found in here.

You can submit your own comments to



By, OnTheFence

Starting from the bottom, and working upwards at an event paced journey (not time based).

1. Servant of Information: The witness thinks of them self as an everyday person who fits into a society were people serve each other. This witness serves his information to society for the purpose of sharing and understanding, thinking that all people are equal and will understand what he saw as well as he understands what he saw.

2. Defender of account: Depending on the incredulity of the sighting (drones=high, fuzzy spots/lights in sky = low), the witness must defend his sighting to that degree. The witness will get little negative reaction when telling a story about a saucer or fuzzy light in the sky, it has been reported millions of times before him. A witness to something as spectacular as a California drone will take a lot of heat since there has been no path paved for such reports.

3. Disillusioned with reactions: Because of all the negative reaction (despite some positive acceptance), most witnesses will become disillusioned by popular reaction they receive from their story. Some will reply in anger, or separate themselves from the event and stop there because they are no longer welcome by the society they thought that they fit into before. There is no reason to share information with the public at this point; they are no longer a servant of the public. I suspect that this is where most of the drone witnesses are right now.

4. Contemplation of event: If the witness made it past the previous stage without blocking the event from their life. They will have time to contemplate what has transpired. If given enough resources, they may come to new conclusions on their own.

5: Enlightenment: At some point the witness may come to this stage of knowing that what they saw was in fact real and has meaning beyond the rat race of human existence. If compelled, they may once again open up and share their story, but not for the purposes of serving the public, more for the purposes of helping the public become aware.

By, Alien_Contactee

I have a theory why they don't stick around for your constant prodding:

The human is easier to figure out then most know or realize. You just happen to know, you naturally sense those things where most others do not. Your explanations are more an example of the psychology of man and how we think.

We pick up information through our life that is so basic that we don't really pay attention to it. This pertains to commonplace information more so. However, when need be, simply by taking any particular subject and looking at it while asking, "what ifs" like 'what would I do if that were me', you'll always find your answers. They might not always be 'dead on' but you'll find answers.

I would also like add a thought here that was not found in 1-5, which is certainly a harsher criticism. This is regarding a blatant betrayal by others involved, originally involved as well and the witness was Isaac. Actually, over the past year I have witnessed two incidents regarding the drones where the witness asked the original individual they reported to, not to divulge their personal information but did it anyway. Consequently, the witnesses saw that such had been passed on to another. They witnessed such simply by reading any of the UFO forums.

When this happens, witnesses completely lose faith in whomever it was they originally divulged said information to. We take such things too lightly sometimes because we're anxious for information ourselves so we tend to allow it because of our 'need to know'. However, such things are done while not considering the witnesses personal life, job, friends, etc., that are all on his/her mind, which is why they did not want their personal information divulged to begin with. In the case of Isaac, it could have easily become a legal matter with the U.S. Government. In the process of such, others see this and decide not to come forward either.

Regarding (1)
Exactly, and the key word here is 'thinks'. We all assume that everyone thinks like us so we react accordingly.

Regarding (2)
And the worst part of it is that most do not realize how hurtful their words can be to such an individual who has done nothing but come to share, only to have eggs thrown at him/her. Ridicule, embarrassment and guilt are three of the most powerful human emotions and they dictate how we act in a given situation. Technically, those emotions literally take over the psyche due to specific chemicals being dispensed by the brain when such things occur. If they stand in the forefront of any such conversation, that conversation will go south like a duck in winter.

Regarding (3)
Very well said and I can only imagine how many people have been disillusioned by the comments of others. Words hurt, even when they're not necessarily hurtful words. Worse yet is the 'acceptance' part. Imagine not feeling wanted or accepted when you know you have something that's real and you have more than a handful telling you otherwise, while at the same time you've been shunned or worse yet, exiled by your peers.

Regarding (4)
That's the problem though; they lose much of the event over time. If they have the immediate resources - good for them but they're not the big numbers.

The bigger numbers of individuals don't think past the thought of what they witnessed. Over time the event becomes vague unless it is brought forward in their mind frequently as to renew the picture in their head in order to keep it alive in their long term memory.

Quite often and over the years I have heard the words, "I had a sighting a long time ago and". Rule of thumb, they didn't run over the event enough times to hold all of that visual information in their long term memory and it's somewhat dissipated. The only thing that tends to remain is the basics like the color, where they were when they saw it and approximately what year it was.

Regarding (5)
And we all wish for that and hope that everyone ends up there.

While typing (and in my head), what keeps coming to me is how we react to the witness and not how we react to our own experiences. We have to treat the witness with kid gloves and that means everything that comes out of our mouths must be something we wouldn't mind having said to ourselves. (Yes, I will exclude those who have premeditated hoaxes designed only to upset Ufology. They have it coming to them actually, some just don't get it.) You know what I mean.

This is why I like having my own forum. I have control, I have the power of the 'delete' and/or 'edit' button when someone decides to be a smart ace to another or even just snide. Some would say that that is going a bit too far but that only means that they can probably take it because they also probably dish it out. What they don't realize is that most can't take it and they are also rarely ever the ones to dish it out. What the witness may become though is someone who retaliates since that is a natural human reaction. The witness just had their feelings hurt and isn't that the first reaction we have to such pain, we retaliate.

Some forums have just a profanity filter or a warning, I have a special filter in my mine that says, "Read what was just said and pretend it was said to you" (as in me). That's my filter and its fine tuned.

More simply stated, which also encumbers everything you have portrayed here, which is that none of us 'think' like the rest nor do we 'feel' like the rest. It's all about feelings and thoughts.

That was a very nice and overdue statement OnTheFence. You basically said all of those things that everyone needs to read and comprehend. Wouldn't that be nice? Comprehension that is.