Friday, December 07, 2007

The following is from Whitley Strieber's UnknownCountry.com newsletter:

Whitley Strieber Sees a Drone

This morning at 4:53 AM, Whitley Strieber saw a drone over Santa Monica, California. The Striebers are in California seeing friends, and Whitley has sent me the following email, with permission to publish it. He will write a journal entry about his experience that will be posted on Saturday, December 8.

SUBSCRIBERS: Listen to Linda Howe's Drones reports in Dreamland, 6/16, 6/23 and 6/30/07.

And remember, there are a lot of people out there lying about the drones and trying to debunk them. But these people ignore ONE THING: Linda's interviews with credible eyewitnesses. Do not be deceived about this.

This is his email:

Well, in one sense the drones mystery is solved because at 4:53 this morning, I saw one.

I had an extremely restless night, full of complex and astounding dreams that I will record in a journal on my website. They also involved my book the Key and the crop circles, and have led me to a very clear understanding that there is a new level of consciousness available to us now. The dreams lasted from about 3:00 to the moment I woke up and saw the thing outside, which was at exactly 4:53. (I know the times because I sent one of my agents an email at 2:47 about a business matter, then went to bed and was shortly asleep. When I saw the drone, I was looking across the bedroom toward the window, with my wife's lighted clock just visible below the window.)

I woke up lying on my side, and saw the thing moving just below and in the bottom edge of the clouds. It was stormy. The object was enormous, and from where I was lying it must have been no more than a few hundred feet overhead. It appeared almost level with the line of the roof that is visible outside my window. It was moving toward our building at a stately pace, gliding easily, like a dirigible. I had the impression that it was quite large, but obviously, no way to tell for sure. Because of the clouds, I did not see the characteristic tall antennae on it, but I did see structure that looked a lot like what the bicyclists photographed. I immediately woke Anne up and went to the window. But we could not see it from the window.

I looked for a while, trying to see if I could spot some edge of it in the clouds. It had not been moving fast at all, so there was reason to believe it was still there. Not seeing it, I went to the dresser and got my cellphone, which has a camera in it, and put it beside the bed. I then lay down and turned over to the same position I had been in when I first saw it--and there the thing was again, clearly visible just below the cloud cover. Now it was much closer to the house. When I moved my head to get up again, I could no longer see it. When I returned to the original angle, I could see it again. This time, it was gliding west, toward the ocean, only its lower structure visible in the clouds. I opened the cellphone, in an attempt to take a picture of it from that angle, but by then it had passed beyond the edge of the window. I saw nothing more of it, but there is no question in my mind at all but that they are real.


Unless he's lying or confabulating, it appears he saw something. But a "drone"? The text of his email gives little persuasive reason to suggest he witnessed one of the now-infamous craft described by "Isaac." As Strieber himself notes, "I did not see the characteristic tall antennae on it" -- presumably because of clouds. Intriguingly, he also notes that "I did see structure that looked a lot like what the bicyclists photographed," which, of course, assumes that something was in fact "photographed."

15 comments:

Anonymous said...

Could it be that Strieber is an undiagnosed bipolar type, with psychotic features, who has parleyed his illness into his work as a novelist? I mean, let's apply Occam's Razor here. Whadduya think?

richelle said...

Oh fun...celebrity diagnoses. Looks like we're starting this round with Strieber.

Anonymous said...

Why are people having difficulty with the concept of what it sounds like to me -- an experimental aircraft? Assuming that these sightings are neither hallucinatory (admittedly always a possibly in Strieber's case) nor a hoax (always a possibility period), what does that leave? Either a real "nuts and bolts" alien spacecraft or -- an experimental aircraft. And I'm guessing that if this were a bet, the smart money would be on the latter....

--W.M. Bear

Mac said...

Don't forget that this could have been a simple misidentification. He very well could have seen *something*. But a "drone"? Probably not unless someone was playing a prank, which I find unlikely.

Anonymous said...

I've always categorized Strieber's work in the fiction section.

Anonymous said...

Yeah, Strieber's description of this incident indicates a fiction of some kind, either intentional or delusional. He is, was, and will always be highly unreliable--he has absolutely no credibility at all, imho.

Anonymous said...

Greetz Mac!

I understand that this comes out at the same time as his book The Key. dealing with cropcircles which also is LMH ( of the infamous Earth files) favorite topic, (lets get whooty here)who also is his science advisor,and who also has been sitting on drone witnesses for eons now and refuses to release any statements regarding same.
I like whitley but havent we evolved past the "I saw something strange out my window as news even for ufologists?"
His statement cant be challenged, or studied except as a personal experience..like what a saved again Christian who says " I saw jesus come into my heart" Interesting, inspirational even but adds nothing to drone credibility and investigation.
If he so believes, and I dont doubt it then I hope He makes LMH either release her data or come clean . That would increase my credibility with Him.
That might be a great point to make on your upcoming Podcast Mac..it really is important.

Sys

Dustin said...

Nice point Mac. While I was reading that all I could think was "why does he think he saw a drone?" There wasn't any bit of info that made me think that.

Interestingly, after more scrutiny his way, I've been told that Kris, aka SaladFingers has basically dropped off the planet.

Mac said...

Sys--

His statement cant be challenged, or studied except as a personal experience..like what a saved again Christian who says " I saw jesus come into my heart" Interesting, inspirational even but adds nothing to drone credibility and investigation.

The "drone" business has been exceptionally suspicious from the start, and I fear Howe and Strieber have muddied the waters beyond repair. You're right, of course, about the subjective nature of Strieber's experiences. On a certain level one must accept that he's essentially truthful or that he isn't. I plan on devoting a post to this.

Dustin--

Since "Saladfingers" played a major role in creating the "drone" myth, it will be interesting to see if there are anymore "independent" sightings.

(Why can't Strieber just say he saw a UFO and leave it at that?)

Anonymous said...

I think we are witnessing the devolution of the old paranormal UFO complex..LMH whit and c2c who, like general motors and the other 2 essentially propped themselves synergistically and by agreement. I believe podcasts and blogs like this will build up the nuclei necessary to undertake some real discussion and analysis and may very well take us to an entirely new level with the new blood transfusion.it certainly is obvious here and I m not blowing smoke up anyones orifice..its the truth....Thank Zeus for you and the George bishops..and all otheres who come here bend and rub elbows at the bar of life. (Terrible simile but I do need a drink right now)
As for Isaac..despite lmh, alienware,c2c, and creative distractions..something interesting may develop..I will sure post it here when it does from an artists point you will love it mac!

sys

Greg Bishop said...

sys,

Thanks for the attention, but it's GREG Bishop. I sometimes with it was "George," as in countless 1950s contactees!

I agree with you about the "old guard" clique, but I also feel that Streiber (at least) lets himself be influenced by his friends. His best contributions to new thinking come from from the Communion series, I think.

Anonymous said...

Well I hate to say it, but I am starting to agree with the first commentator. I have read Whitley's books since Communion, but he always seems to be in the right place at the right time, etc. As my author (and skeptical) friend put it when I described Communion as being one of the most important books ever written if it is true, "but if it's not then it's the biggest pile of shit ever written..."

Mac said...

The story gets even better. See the link to Strieber's latest journal entry...

John Sawyer said...

There's a lot in Strieber's post that doesn't make a lot of sense to me--I'm not saying he didn't see something, but his description is weird too:

"I woke up lying on my side, and saw the thing moving just below and in the bottom edge of the clouds. It was stormy. The object was enormous, and from where I was lying it must have been no more than a few hundred feet overhead."

This means the clouds were pretty low--just a few hundred feet overhead. I don't remember ever seeing storm clouds that low. Fog, yes, but not storm clouds.

"It appeared almost level with the line of the roof that is visible outside my window."

Huh? First he said it was several hundred feet overhead. Is he saying the line of his roof is hundreds of feet above the window? That makes no sense, unless he was in a very tall building, on a floor hundreds of feet below the roof, but he wasn't--he says he was in a house--and even if he were in a skyscraper, line of sight in such a building wouldn't align things up that way. If he meant that his line of sight placed the object seemingly in line with the edge of his roof, but actually at some distance away, he should have said that.

"I immediately woke Anne up and went to the window. But we could not see it from the window."

Huh? He just said he could see it from the window, where he was lying in his bed. I can't imagine being able to see something outside a window, lying in a bed, that I couldn't see if I got up and walked to the window, since you get a wider view of what's outside a window when you move towards it; at best, you might have to squat down to the windowsill to see at the same angle as when lying in bed. If the object had moved, I could believe it couldn't be seen while standing in front of the window, but he says it didn't move that far, until later in his description:

"I looked for a while, trying to see if I could spot some edge of it in the clouds. It had not been moving fast at all, so there was reason to believe it was still there. Not seeing it, I…lay down and turned over to the same position I had been in when I first saw it--and there the thing was again, clearly visible just below the cloud cover. Now it was much closer to the house. When I moved my head to get up again, I could no longer see it. When I returned to the original angle, I could see it again."

None of this makes sense. He's saying it's something that could be seen only when he was lying down, and looking at a certain angle. Is this a new addition to the Strieber mythos--things that can be seen only when looking at them from a certain angle?

"This time, it was gliding west, toward the ocean, only its lower structure visible in the clouds. I opened the cellphone, in an attempt to take a picture of it from that angle, but by then it had passed beyond the edge of the window."

So why not go outside to get a better view? Was it too cold? He was in Santa Monica--not likely. Damn that window--it was in charge of the whole event.

"…there is no question in my mind at all but that they are real."

This is contradictory--"in my mind, they are real". Is this another one of Strieber's little hints that some of his "factual" writing is actually as fictional as his fictional writing?

No matter what the case is, this isn't up to Strieber's usual writing skills.

Mac said...

John--

Excellent breakdown of Strieber's "sighting." I think the whole thing was misperception healthily fleshed out by Strieber's obvious will to believe.