I’ve wrote about the complexity & the intricacies of the original 2007 CARET/Isaac/Drone debacle and some of the main, “Players” many times and at several different online venues. I stopped writing about them quite a while ago now mainly as I compiled what I believe to be the relevant information at a Drone-dedicated website I put together.
I haven’t updated the site for a couple of years now mainly because I have always maintained there were only FIVE original Drone witnesses (or more specifically the original five eyewitness accounts that included images and subsequently spawned many, many thousands of forum posts) and so this is where my focus has always been.
Much has happened regarding the Drones since they first showed up in 2007, and to list all related events of any worth is far beyond the scope of this meager post so instead here’s a quick breakdown of Drone-related events which I believe are relevant to what is currently being discussed.
May – June 2007 – Five Drone Reports submitted by anonymous witnesses.
Linda Moulton Howe (LMH) – Promotes the Drones as real objects and is openly critical of all who disagree.
Drone Research Team (DRT) – A splinter group formed by members of the Open Minds Forum (OM) who were sick of debating the credibility of the Drones and so formed a website to discuss ONLY the reality of them, writing that:
“This DRT forum was created for the discussion of the reality of the drones. Other forums exist for hoax discussion.
This is a research forum … not meant for opinions.”
DroneHoax.com – A website I put together cataloguing what I and others perceive as signs that the Drones were an internet hoax as well as flaws in the original images & Isaac/CARET information.
Ted Connors (Pseudonym) – An eyewitness of the Drone who claims originally seen the Drone on June 25th 2007 & who LMH interviewed & published his account on June 29th 2007. Ted also claims that four weeks after he saw the Drone he was visited by two men from the military who quizzed him about his sighting and that he thinks that the decision by his employers to downgrade the infrared cameras he uses at his workplace in November 2007 may be related to the Drone appearing in June of 2007. Ted also thinks that the deterioration in health of the tree directly below where he first seen the Drone could somehow be related to this event, the tree was felled in 2010 by a storm at which point Ted collected some samples which, after testing, is alleged showed a small amount of the precious metal “Palladium”. (Several other claims were made such as being followed for more than 150 miles when visiting a friend as well as receiving a phone call mentioning the “Drone” by name and requesting further details).
Then in 2010 Ted says that he revisited the place where the tree stood and established telepathic contact with the intelligence responsible for the Drone technology and received a telepathic ‘download’. In December 2010 Ted located a book at his local library containing references to the word “Oltissis” only to have two men turn up two days later and confiscate the library book citing the ‘Patriot act’.
Before I start it’s perhaps prudent to point out at this juncture that I have nothing but respect for the collective effort that the *DroneResearchTeam* (DRT) have put into investigating the original Drone witnesses & their respective locations and regarding Ted Connors, personally I’ve found his interviews a joy to listen to and thoroughly enjoy his anecdotes as he is certainly the most interesting Drone-related witness to appear since the original five sightings. Even more strangely in the spoken interviews I’ve heard Ted give he sounds amiable, genuine & sincere (strange only when considering my personal [dis]belief). And as for Linda Moulton Howe (LMH), well I admire her consistency because from what I’ve seen her MO has been pretty much the same since the early eighties…..
Back in 2007 a witness whom LMH assigned the pseudonym of Ted Connors stated that he’d witnessed a Drone at his place of work, LMH interviewed him and made the interview available at her website as well as the actual audio via a podcast. Every Drone-related interview or report that LMH has given at her own website or on the Dreamland podcast (Whitley Strieber) or Coast2Coast radio show etc. she has asked for other Drone witnesses to contact her and there has been no shortage of these, however only ONE has ever provided an alleged photograph of a Drone (other than the five original witnesses in 2007) and this was later found to be from a hoaxer who had previously submitted a hoaxed Drone photograph to the main UFOCasebook website. The only reason I mention this fact is because at least three of her witnesses have cited this unique hoaxed image (unique as it looks nothing like the other Drones) to be nearest to the Drone that they themselves had witnessed, of course LMH has NEVER published this (i.e. it was a CG hoax) information or publicly acknowledged that the original Alabama Drone was a hoax, I suspect the reason for this is because two of her earliest witnesses cited the hoaxed Drone as being the one they seen and so this would greatly diminish the time-span she likes to constantly remind us of a time-span which LMH currently claims is in excess of 22 years.
LMH ALWAYS fails to state that EVERY subsequent witness contacted her AFTER May 2007 choosing instead to list her timeline using the dates it is alleged that the encounter actually occurred, hence the oft-repeated 22 years thing.
Impressive at first glance but VERY misleading…..
I won’t go into any detail here but I documented the entire LMH aspect of the Drones and more importantly the major part she played (and still does) in perpetuating & promoting a Drone-reality back in 2008, this can be read at Dronehoax.com, “The LMH Effect.”
But back to Ted Connors, Ted first appeared on the DRT forum back on April 22nd, 2010 and a couple of days later on April 24th (Reply #14) Ted wrote about LMH:“We spent weeks after my sighting on the phone and exchanging emails, going over my sighting and reviewing other sightings trying to find a common thread in all of these.We have stayed in contact over this time and she always shares the latest updates with me.”
Then on May 11, 2010 (Reply #43) DRT administrator *OnTheFence* asked five questions, two of which were as follows:
After speaking with you some more on the phone, I think there are some important events in your case that have not yet been exposed. Thank you for giving me permission to bring these items into the public, and I hope that you can expand in your own words on these points:
Sometime after your sighting, you were visited by two men apparently from the military, could you describe what they wanted from you?
Your company was using a specific type of IR camera which the manufacturer later informed you had to be removed for a less capable camera. Can you explain any more details on this?
Ted’s answer regarding the two military personnel who visited was posted on May 11th 2010 (Reply #45) as follows:
“A2. A few weeks after my DRONE sighting i received a visit at my home during the day from 2 men. One of the men introduced himself as Col. ——-(*name deleted). The other man never introduced himself to me. The Col. was dressed in a dark business suit and the other man was dressed in a UNUSUAL looking Military style uniform with no rank or branch insignia. The Col. began by asking me if i had seen anything out of the ordinary in the sky during the week in question and i told him i did not wish to discuss anything with him at this time. He then asked if i was aware of any military exercises that had taken place at MAXWELL AFB during the week in question. I told him again that i did not wish to discuss whether i knew it or not. I asked both of them to leave my residence and that i had nothing further to say. At this point i was sure he was going to produce some type of legal document or worse place me under some kind of arrest, but to my complete surprise they politely thanked me for my time and left. I saw them when they arrived and they were driving a late model dark blue or black Ford Crown Victoria. I did not watch them leave as i was concerned that they might try to return and i was trying to decide on my next move, as you can imagine. I never saw these two men again and never received any more visits to my home. The reason for my reluctance to discuss this with them is because of the interview i had recently given to Linda Moulton Howe in regards to my sighting and ongoing discussions with her in regards to this event. I did not feel comfortable discussing this with ANYONE other than her at that point. I contacted her to let her know what happened and the context of my conversation with them.
* The Col.’s name is deleted for obvious reasons.”
Much was made of the two men visiting Ted and understandably so as I’m sure you agree it must have been a terrifying experience prompting Ted himself to later write on December 17th 2010 (Reply #208):
“The look of terror and urgency was apparent from the moment i opened my front door. I was in a state of shock and they started firing questions, so i did not get a chance to ask any questions. They provided ID that looked Authentic, but i thought it odd that it was U.S. Navy Dept. ID and not USAF as Maxwell AFB is the closest Military Installation.“
Ted decided to return to the site of his original 2007 encounter in October 2010, upon his asking he promptly established telepathic contact with an extraterrestrial intelligence that then proceeded to answer his questions via a telepathic download, over to Ted and a post he made at the DRT forum in the early hours (GMT) of 7th October 2010 (Reply #139):
For the last 3 ½ years I have been searching for the answer to the EXISTANCE, the ORIGIN, and the PURPOSE of the Drone Craft I encountered. I have pondered, wondered, and worried over this phenomenon since my sighting, I have researched, networked and discussed this event over and over with no real answers. A few days ago I decided to take a simple and direct approach. To return to the exact location of my experience at the same time of the morning and see if anything would happen. This morning 10/06/2010 at 05:15, I returned to the site. The following is a detailed report of what happened.
At 05:15 this morning I returned to the site of my experience with the Drone Craft in 2007. I sat near the location of where the tree had been during my original sighting. The tree is no longer there as it fell during a storm in the summer of 2010. The stump was removed a week after the tree fell. As I sat there, I began to verbally ask the following questions. ” I HAVE RETURNED, ARE YOU HERE? WHO ARE YOU? WHAT IS YOUR PURPOSE? WHERE ARE YOU FROM? IS THE DRONE YOURS OR OURS? CAN YOU GIVE ME ANSWERS?
There was no immediate response. I sat for a few minutes longer. I decided to get up and leave. As I began to rise, I felt a surge of what felt like electrical current surge through every part of my body. At the same instant I received what I can only describe as a telepathic message clear and explicit with the following message. (Quoted)
“WE ARE OF OLTISSIS”. “THE 23rd PLANET IN OUR SYSTEM” ” THE VESSEL IS OF OUR ORIGIN” “WHAT DO YOU SEEK” ?
My reply was tell me all you can so I can understand.
(Okay, at this point I am totally freaked out!!!!)
The information begins to roll into my thoughts as if it is being downloaded from a computer.
Here is everything I remember given in telepathic message.
The Vessel is an information probe that enables us to understand your environment. Our native environment is unlike yours, so we wish to learn so that we might be able to function in your environment. We are able to create a TEAR in what you perceive as Time and Space in order to travel great distances for our research. We repair the tear when we return to our own planet.
Our Planet is smaller than EARTH and has 4 of your MOONS. Two of these moons we inhabit. One of these is for QUARENTINE of those of our world who are ill or injured. It is necessary that those be separated from the rest of our world until healed. The other MOON is for production of the CRYSTALS that provide our power and propulsion for our vessels. The Production of the CRYSTALS is a highly volatile and dangerous procedure that could harm our environment.
Your worlds interpretation of what you call TIME & SPACE is incorrect. ALL is INFINATE.
The VESSEL creates communications points at the locations where we make contact with your species . These communication points remain open until such time as the contact returns to initiate contact with us. After this contact it is closed.
At the given time, we will initiate contact with your species. There is much to prepare before any contact with your world. We have observed your world evolve and there is still much that could be harmful to our world through contact with your world. Your world could not understand our physical or mental forms at this time, or the means by which we are able to traverse “ETHOS”.
Our Traverse’s are possible due to the absence of what your world is limited to by the presence of a Physical form. Our existence is of the PROCESS and not the FORM.
Some of our species have been lost during our research and their PROCESS ended due to interaction with your world. Your world is warned to respect, protect, and nourish the PROCESS.
We value all PROCESS of our species and find it the most important element of existence.
We have watched you and researched your worlds attempts to traverse “ETHOS”
We have many different VESSELS designed for specific research of the worlds of our research.
We find your world interesting for the structure of so many elements.
Our world is devoid of these elements as they are not necessary for the existence of our PROCESS.
Our VESSELS travel at will and initiate contact with yours and other species as needed for our research.
Your world in it’s infancy is of “ETHOS”
“WE ARE OLTISSIS OF ETHOS”
(End of message)
The ANSWER I have pursued has been given.
I could not ask for more.
This account was the first thing LMH has posted about the Drones for over two years and would actually be three years if it wasn’t for the Petten, Holland ‘Drone’ photographed in 2007 & reported to UFOCasebook in 2009. This time however LMH didn’t have exclusive access to the witness as he joined & posted several comments at the CB forum and the Drone classification was an assertion which the witness (Ruud) himself stated his surprise & dismay about, mainly as it in no way reminded him of a Drone:
“I have seen pics of that phony thing you are calling a drone all speaking about that it is an hoax.
It never had my interest because it looked so unreal.
Also there is no resemblence with the pics I took.”
Alas Ruud’s earlier protestations were evidently to no avail as LMH defiantly announced that:
“No other 2007 photographs of the mysterious “drones” emerged – until now…..So now, I am adding another line to the chronological list of eyewitnesses”
Anyhoo, Ted’s above account was the first of a two part account that LMH posted on June 30th & May 1st 2011 titled, “Dragonfly Drones, Oltissis and Ethos” has since added two more articles regarding “Ethos” & “Oltissis” but due to the unique way LMH archives then charges a subscription to read her website if you want to check it out then I suggest you do so sooner rather than later.
(Linda Moulton Howe – Earthfiles)
- 06/30/2011 – Part 1: Dragonfly Drones, Oltissis and Ethos
- 07/01/2011 – Part 2: Dragonfly Drones, Oltissis and Ethos
- 07/07/2011 – Earthfiles Viewer Letters About Oltissis
- 09/07/2011 – Front Cover of “Ted Connor’s” Confiscated Greek Book
So unfortunately due to some of the reasons detailed above then I am reasonably confident that LMH would never enter into a dialogue with me and as there is no way I can post the questions to the DRT then Ted is effectively shielded from me and as I have a couple of questions for Ted I’m hoping that when searching for the keyword “Oltissis” he may stumble upon this post and be able to address my questions.
1) So Ted, in the second part of her report posted on 1st July 2011 LMH started with the following text:
July 1, 2011 Montgomery, Alabama – After the early morning October 6, 2010, second encounter at the then-dead southern yellow pine tree at his work facility, Ted Connors began to look for the word Oltissis. Two and a half months later on his Monday day off December 20, 2010, Ted took time to explore a library. On a table were some old books to check out or purchase and one was entitled, Ancient Greek Gods and Lore Revisited © 1962 by Fredrico Ionnides (spelling as remembered by Ted Connors.) Ted checked the book out and found three references to Oltissis in the index. One reference was a footnote that the name Oltissis referred to historic pleasure palaces in Greece and China’s Xanadu. See Websites below.
Ted Connors put the book on the front seat of his car with the intention of reading more, but by Wednesday morning, December 22, 2010, the book was still in his car when he was surprised at the end of his all night work shift to receive a phone call to report to his boss’s office.
This is very specific information especially with Christmas a mere five days away plus coinciding with your day off then I think it’s fair to say that the chances of you being mistaken about this particular chronology is extremely unlikely. Especially as you say that you started your shift the next day and then the book was confiscated at the end of this shift, it is all quite believable and I would even venture to suggest that if this was found to be in error then it would greatly damage the credibility of this particular claim.
So hopefully you are able to satisfactorily explain why three days prior to this you posted the following to the DRT forum in the early hours (GMT) on December 17, 2010:
Update on OLTISSIS and my continuing search for the Greek Connection.
I found a book at the local library titled “Greek Legends and Lore Revisited” by Fredrico Ionidies. The term OLTISSIS is mentioned twice in reference to a Mythological Place of Pleasure to be compared with the Chinese Pleasure Palace of “XANADU” of the 4th century A.D. Quite Interesting!!!!!!
Because as I’m sure you can appreciate that as this predates the timeline that LMH describes by three days so it seems that it shows that the backstory you included with this particular event to also be in error, can you shed any light on this?
2) On May 11th 2010 at the DRT forum you wrote that:
“In November 2007 i was informed by my superiors at work that we would be changing all our equipment back to Level 3 IR. This change took place in late November 2007. It has remained the same since. Did the Level 4 equipment allow for my DRONE sighting?? I have a suspicion but no proof that it did. I tried to get more information from my supplier on this issue but with no success. I also reported this to LMH by email and she responded with her thoughts as well.”
And on May 17, 2010 (Reply #59) you wrote:
“After i had read these documents at work i took it upon myself to investigate further on my own and at the time, found nothing on the Internet other than some vague undocumented statements about a “BAN” on Level 4 IR cameras posted. At the time i contacted Linda Moulton Howe and she also undertook an investigation of her own with similar results.”
This seems strange to me because, if as you say, back in November 2007 both you and Linda were aware of the ban and were actively researching it online why do you think this wasn’t mentioned on March 10th 2008 when she posted an email she received from someone on March 5th 2008 informing LMH for apparently the first time of this ban?
Seeing as she actually titled the post as, “Viewer Comments About Drone Mystery and Homeland Security Ban? On Infrared Cameras” and as you said yourself on April 24, 2010 (Reply #14) that:
“I want to take a moment to thank Linda Moulton Howe of Earthfiles.com for her help in my case. We spent weeks after my sighting on the phone and exchanging emails, going over my sighting and reviewing other sightings trying to find a common thread in all of these. We have stayed in contact over this time and she always shares the latest updates with me.”
Then I don’t understand why firstly your personal experience was never mentioned by Linda in 2008 as you said you’d already shared it with her in 2007. And secondly I can’t understand why if Linda shares everything with you that you also failed to mention this much earlier reference to a major aspect of your own experience. Seeing as the first reference most of us heard of your infrared related information was when *OnTheFence* (OTF) posted the following on May 10th 2010 (Reply #43):
After speaking with you some more on the phone, I think there are some important events in your case that have not yet been exposed. Thank you for giving me permission to bring these items into the public, and I hope that you can expand in your own words on these points:
4. Your company was using a specific type of IR camera which the manufacturer later informed you had to be removed for a less capable camera. Can you explain any more details on this? “
Which when coupled with the lack of information you were able to provide upon request regarding any corroborative details or indeed the genesis of the terms “Level 3” & “Level 4” (as they relate to the infrared technology you are responsible for maintaining) could lead a more sceptical observer to consider that perhaps the 2008 email that Linda posted was the genesis of the alleged homeland infrared ban. In fact if such an observer was conspiracy-minded then I believe that a reasonable case could be made for the silence over this issue being a predetermined & intentional omission, the reasons for this being as mentioned above OTF wrote that after speaking on the phone with you he wanted to bring this into the public domain on May 10th 2010 (Reply #43) yet a little further down OTF writes:
“In regards to the Level 3 and Level 4 nomenclature; I recall looking that up in 2008 and it seemed to be a distinction used to sell IR cameras at some web sites. I cannot find that any longer.”
(May 17, 2010 Reply #62)
However it’s quite peculiar that OTF doesn’t say how he was aware of these recent claims regarding the ‘nomenclature‘ way back in 2008 or what compelled him to check out the “distinction used to sell IR cameras” because I am unaware of any other prior references that would support this line of research.
What are your thoughts on these ommisions?
3) On March 21st 2008 Linda posted an article titled: “Part 2, Dragonfly-Shaped Aerial Craft: Current Media Misinformation Versus Eyewitnesses 1987 to 2007” in which she wrote:
“Alleged Government Agents Tell Alabama Eyewitness to ‘Keep Your Mouth Shut’
A month after that interview with me, two very human-looking men approached the Alabama infrared security technician at his work place. One was dressed in a military officer’s uniform; the other was in a dark blue suit. Both had on dark sunglasses, which they took off to speak to the tech. The two men showed United States government identification and told the infrared security technician to “keep your mouth shut.” He was shocked and angered at the blatant arrogance of anyone representing themselves as working for the U. S. government and threatening him, when his own work is involved with security for agencies of the U. S. government.”
So as you were constantly in touch with Linda during this period and again this information Linda posted predates the recent update by a couple of years, then why in all recent retellings of this story do you state that the two men visited your home address and not your workplace?
Further to this on May 11, 2010 (Reply #45) you wrote:
“A few weeks after my DRONE sighting i received a visit at my home during the day from 2 men.
I asked both of them to leave my residence and that i had nothing further to say. At this point i was sure he was going to produce some type of legal document or worse place me under some kind of arrest, but to my complete surprise they politely thanked me for my time and left.
The reason for my reluctance to discuss this with them is because of the interview i had recently given to Linda Moulton Howe in regards to my sighting and ongoing discussions with her in regards to this event. I did not feel comfortable discussing this with ANYONE other than her at that point. I contacted her to let her know what happened and the context of my conversation with them.”
So you contacted LMH & discussed this with her at the time of the occurrence and she reported it a few months later yet it differs greatly from your current account. At first I thought Linda may have been mistaking these two persons with the two persons whom recently confiscated your Greek book but obviously as the above occurred in 2008 then this couldn’t be the case. Also you now recall them being polite whereas in your earlier account you allege they were threatening you.
And on December 17th 2010 (reply #208) you wrote:
“The look of terror and urgency was apparent from the moment i opened my front door. I was in a state of shock and they started firing questions, so i did not get a chance to ask any questions.”
With the reference to your front door being another clear indicator that it was your personal residence then one of the accounts is obviously in error, can you shed any light on this inconsistency?
4) On June 05, 2010 (Reply #98) you wrote:
“The change in the condition of the tree from 2007 until present”
And after an absence of several months you returned and posted what you call the “OMG document” you suffixed this with a brief introduction on October 07, 2010 (Reply #139):
“At 05:15 this morning I returned to the site of my experience with the Drone Craft in 2007. I sat near the location of where the tree had been during my original sighting. The tree is no longer there as it fell during a storm in the summer of 2010. The stump was removed a week after the tree fell.”
So the tree was still there in June 2010 and in October 2010 you further clarify this by saying it was removed in the summer yet in the following quote which you wrote only a month later on December 18th 2010 (Reply #214) rather than inferring it was within the last three months or even the recent summer you now state it was ‘early 2010‘:
“I had watched the decline of the tree since 2007. In early 2010, the tree was finally felled by a windstorm.”
As June is the sixth month of the year and the tree was still there then can you expand on what you mean by early 2010 and why the inconsistency?
Also you specifically state that:
“The stump was removed a week after the tree fell” (Reply #139).
Yet on the 30th June 2011Linda writes in the first part of her 2 part report that:
“Eventually in 2010, most of the tree was cut down and hauled away. Only a stump remained.”
This is a minor discrepancy but it strikes me as strange for an author who asserts that she accommodates the higher ground when it comes to journalistic prowess which is why I find all of these little inconsistencies disconcerting.
Anyway, staying with the tree, on December 16, 2010 (Reply #203) you wrote:
“The traces of Palladium were discovered after the dead tree fell during a wind storm. I had pieces examined by a mutual acquaintance of a friend who worked for the Alabama Dept. of Forestry. I was able to save a small sample for my future use and records.”
About the palladium you later claim that: “I think it was 0.85% palladium element inside the tree.“
So just to be clear, are you alleging that this friend of a friend performed a test on a piece of bark you gave him using a spectrometer, a test that usually costs several hundred dollars, and supplied you with no documentation detailing the results of the tests?
And on December 18, 2010 (Reply #214) you wrote:
“I had watched the decline of the tree since 2007. In early 2010, the tree was finally felled by a windstorm. Having questions about the possibility of the Drone Craft interaction with the tree, i decided to obtain some samples and see if they could be tested for any foreign elements,diseases, or chemicals. The test’s that were done were inconclusive except for small non visible traces of the mineral Palladium. The consensus of the technician who tested the samples was the trees decay was caused by PINE BLIGHT, which is common her in the Southern U.S..”
I’m not sure I understand this, firstly the term, “Consensus” suggests more than one person was involved with the testing and if the tests were inconclusive then how could anyone’s consensus be that it was a result of pine blight? Plus if palladium was found in the quantities you reference then how was it determined not to be the cause so as to render the findings as inconclusive?
If a ‘go-to’ technician of an Alabama Department of Forestry official, a technician who you assert is also a forestry expert tells you it is pine blight then why do you later tell Linda that pine blight wasn’t the cause?
Linda published the following account on 30th June 2011:
“Part 1: Dragonfly Drones, Oltissis and Ethos
I was able to obtain samples of the tree, examined by a forestry expert. I was shocked when I got the information back because the pieces that I submitted for examination, came back with traces of the element palladium in the tree bark. I think it was 0.85% palladium element inside the tree. They could find no pine blight. There was no beetle damage and no larvae from beetles. The only thing they could find were metallic traces that were in the tree of the element palladium.
NO ANSWER TO THE CAUSE OF THE TREE’S DEATH?
All of Ted’s replies denoted by (Reply #) are from the DRT thread titled “Ted Connors – Alabama” and is located here.
If Ted would like to reply I will post his full unedited response.
Check out the original article here.
Author: Michael Naisbitt