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.

 

[HOAX] Isaac CARET - Drones [HOAX]

page: 117
185
<< 114  115  116    118  119  120 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 19 2007 @ 12:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by 11 11

Standard autofocus in this day and age is exactly the focus your camera has. Research Dimage x camera and you will see the it uses spot focus, and automaticaly finds objects that get the best focus, and focus in on them. If he took a picture of the sky with this type of camera, it would get lost and unfocused, unless there is a tree or mountain in the shot, then it would focus on the mountains and trees, while the sky is still the center of the image. Just look at these pictures....


Dimage X has single area (not spot, totally different beast) TTL Contrast detection (Video AF) AF. The area doesn't reach the mountain area in the picture. Look here for sample. Furthermore you're jumping to the conclusion that these images are taken with that same camera thought there is no indication of that. As far as I can remember the big basin poster didn't mention the camera model, and the image format doesn't match what minolta produces.




posted on Jul, 19 2007 @ 01:04 PM
link   
11 11, I think some of your idea is possible but would it be done. Not sure.

"Its a simple click and drag motion to put the RAW images back onto the camera's memory. Actaully, it would be 10 times more difficult to edit the EXIF then it would to upload the images back to the camera. He would put the RAW images back to the camera, so he could either tell the camera to convert the image to a JPG, or he can use Adobe Album to convert them to JPG from the camera, keeping some but not all EXIF."

Are you sure the camera can do a RAW to JPG conversion in camera? Also the Exif data would be set when the picture was taken so it would stay the same if the data was moved back into the camera. Set when the exposure happened. Either the Exif is what was there originally and it is what it is or it was edited later.



posted on Jul, 19 2007 @ 01:16 PM
link   
It cant do the conversions, see here.



posted on Jul, 19 2007 @ 01:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by ExquisitExamplE


This indicates to me that these hoaxers must have a high level of education , I don't think they are just amateur cgi enthusiasts. Hmmm, Intriguing.


Yes I agree with your thought that Isaac (or who ever) has high level of education and never thought he was just a game programer
I believe this to be full of half truth’s here making it all the more believable
So here's my speculative profile on Isaac”

He’s got some engineering background (structural engineer )and has worked with cad programs : (many aspect of the craft look engineered, if you were to see “the wing” laying on a someone’s tail gate at a r/c club at a flying field, you wouldn’t think twice, if you saw center ring at a junk yard, it would just think it was part of a truck, if you saw the top” bird cage or juicer” at the dump it wouldn’t look out of place because there’s nothing that unusual about it, the wire is not to thick or thin just about right for a basic wire cage that some company would structural engineer for a product
He may have some education on AV’s Autonomous Vehicle, (this is based partly based on the “pipeline pig” and that this drone is an Autonomous Vehicle)
His writing suggest some literary background
May have been in the military
May be a linguistic
All the above sung to the tune of “Half truth’s”
Gets off on fooling people ,I think that this is his only motive ,I met people in my life that felt when they fooled someone it gave them more power than the one’s they were fooling ,low self esteem
Anyway I’ve posted this link a few pages back, but can’t see how it would hurt to post it again. It give the whole time line with pics and testimony that lets you download as a pdf (with pics) or word or plain text

www.scribd.com...



[edit on 19-7-2007 by moonking]



posted on Jul, 19 2007 @ 01:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by moonking
*Cell phone “My husband and I were in Lake Tahoe over the weekend”

*Chad “Last month (April 2007), my wife and I were on a walk”

*Raj “This week I was visiting my fiancé’s parents in Capitola (we were actually there to tell them about our engagement”

*Stephen “I look up and there is this _huge_ who-knows-what-the-xxx”
“I don't even need to tell you that so far this is a pretty crazy situation”

*Ty “I don't have to tell you that this thing is intense to behold!!!”
“We all stopped short and practically went over the damm handlebars!”
“Here was the most amazing thing I had ever seen”


Very nice catch, I noticed these weird simularitys as well..

The "Ty" testimony seems far to fake, and even gives us the motive and reason for the hoax.

www.earthfiles.com...

*Ty "First of all, I have been a big fan of C2C and have been listening since before even Noorey hosted. Of course I'm very familiar with your work as well and am quite honored to be able to submit something that i feel is of value to an ongoing investigation of yours! I caught up with the "Chad drone" story about a week after everyone else due to a backpacking trip that kept me away from the radio (also in Big Basin, intrestingly enough), but I have been hooked ever since and I am still besides myself with amazement that I suddenly find myself involved in it first hand!"

So study the above quote's carefully, and you see a motive, an excuse, and a few coincidences.

First he is a huge fan of C2C and Earthfiles Linda, and is "honored" to submit his images. This to me is a motive. This tells me the hoaxer is doing this whole drone thing, just to get some mention on his favorite radio show. Kind of like a die hard fan trying to get on television on one of those "Morining Shows" in New York by standing outside the window with a big sign.

Second, he knew about the "drone" from the radio show, before he actaully "witnessed" it with his own eyes. He tells us that. So what are the chances of a C2C listener/life long fan actaully seeing a "drone" that is being talked about on his favorite raido show? Its a huge coincidence.

Third, he gives us the common "vacation" excuse as to his where-abouts when the drone was first released, hinting that he couldn't possibly be involved with the hoax because he was "on a backpacking trip".

-Police officer- So where were you on the night of the murder?
-Suspect- Oh I was far away on a backpacking trip, so it couldn't of been me!
-Joke

The same Ty guy also talks about a "biking trip". This guy takes a lot of "trips" don't you think? Is this a coincidence that the Cell Phone picture was taken at "a weekend in Tahoe". Or Raj's "visiting my fiancé’s parents in Capitola"? These witnessess seem to travel a lot...

Oh wait, even Springer contacted that Keith guy that worked at Palo Alto, and supposidly he was ALSO on a "trip" and couldn't answer e-mails quick enough..

Very odd, don't you think?

These coincidences link ALL of the witnessess together in a way.



posted on Jul, 19 2007 @ 01:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by 11 11
So study the above quote's carefully, and you see a motive, an excuse, and a few coincidences.

Add one more to your motive’s list 11 11
I’ve mention the "attention junkie"
Ty” I am still beside myself with amazement that I suddenly find myself involved in it first hand!"



posted on Jul, 19 2007 @ 01:37 PM
link   
By the way, welcome back 11 11.

I am always doubtful about stories where almost every aspect is hazy. I suspect at least part of the take on the background info irregularities has merit.
In this day and age more solid supporting evidence should be available in more of these sightings. At least that's my opinion. Seems like the researchers/reporters with website ought to request better background information to help build a better case.



posted on Jul, 19 2007 @ 01:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by 11 11
Side note- dont forget to notice the artificial white halo around the drone above.

I don't know if it is humanly possible to make more sense than I have been, but when I say "layering" i'm not talking about layering abilities within Photoshop using transparency, I am talking about generaly layering objects over eachother to make them appear behind each other, giving them a "rank" in distance. This is one of many "monocular cues" known as "occlusion". Mr. Expert.

en.wikipedia.org...


You are making a sort of sense, but stop using terms that falsely imply industry terms. Ask any professional Photoshop user what they understand by the term "layering" and they will answer as I have. Ask them about "compositing" instead, as that is the process you are talking about. Using grabbed terms from a wiki aren't really indicative of professional level familiarity either.

Please explain how compositing, as you describe, can give rise to the white halo you are referring to. You have just shot yourself in the foot, 11 11, inadvertantly pointing out an imaging artefact that is indicative of the drone being photographed conventionally. If the image were composited, even if the original render was on a white background, this is not a natural consequence of composition. Getting the soft white halo would be a detail that the majority of people, in my opinion, would miss out. Any object darker than the sky will result in a soft halo slightly lighter than the rest of the sky, which is what I see when I darken the image. I see no hard white halo, which would be expected if the rendered craft had been cut out from a white background. If there were no lightening of the pixels immediately bordering the dark pixels defining the edge of the "drone", then I would be more suspicious.

Some examples: zoom in on these....
static.flickr.com...
www.worldofstock.com...
diamond-back.com...
www.circlinghawk.com...
www.richard-seaman.com...

I have always thought that the "drone" images were 3D renders, but the points you keep on being insultingly and smugly certain about are bunk. How about the Isaac images? You have said very little about those.

(edit to add the Q in consequence.
And to finish a sentence.)

[edit on 19-7-2007 by Karilla]

[edit on 19-7-2007 by Karilla]



posted on Jul, 19 2007 @ 02:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Karilla
You are making a sort of sense, but stop using terms that falsely imply industry terms. Ask any professional Photoshop user what they understand by the term "layering" and they will answer as I have. Ask them about "compositing" instead, as that is the process you are talking about. Using grabbed terms from a wiki aren't really indicative of professional level familiarity either.


Karilla, I would absolutely LOVE to use industry terms, but the fact is, the majority of people here would have no clue what I am talking about, so I reduce these terms to "layman's terms" so anyone can get an idea of what I am talking about. Last time I used industry terms, I confused the heck out of a lot of people. This is why I have resorted to illustrations as it eliminated any term all together and you don't really even need to know how to read. The term "layering" is what I used, because its just a standard word for placing and object on top of another...

I still don't think you understand my point, because I am not talking about "compositing", im talking about "occlusion". Yes, the over all processes that I claim the hoaxer is doing (adding a 3d model to a real photograph) is known as "compositing", but I am talking about the layering of objects already inside of the photograph.



You see the "tree" the "building" and the "telephone wires"? You see how they are "layered" on top of the drone? This is called "occlusion", but there are better words for it like "layering".


Originally posted by Karilla
Please explain how compositing, as you describe, can give rise to the white halo you are referring to. You have just shot yourself in the foot, 11 11, inadvertently pointing out an imaging artefact that is indicative of the drone being photographed conventionally.


I never said the white halo is caused by "compositing". Actually I am 100% certain I said "SIDE NOTE", which doesn't actually have anything to do with what I was talking about, it was just a note about another one of the pictures flaws. Because if you study the picture, you can clearly see that white halo does NOT belong there, and must have been added later. I never linked the white halo to anything, yet you are jumping to conclusions.


Originally posted by Karilla
Any object darker than the sky will result in a soft halo slightly lighter than the rest of the sky, which is what I see when I darken the image. I see no hard white halo, which would be expected if the rendered craft had been cut out from a white background. If there were no lightening of the pixels immediately bordering the dark pixels defining the edge of the "drone", then I would be more suspicious.


Now you are trying to make things more complex than they need to be. The hoaxer did not "cut out from a white background" like you claim, actually, the entire background of the drone render is transparent, meaning he didn't need to do any cutting, he just pasted it into the picture.

What I am saying is, that white halo does NOT belong there. It is "light". Everything in the world that we see, is light. Without light, we can't see anything. Now tell me, where is this "light" (white halo) coming from? Not the sun, not the object. It was an effect the hoaxer added into the image to make the drone's overall brightness and contrast match the image better. Thats what the halo is. The hoaxer must have used a "lighten/darken" tool set to a low opacity.


Originally posted by Karilla
Some examples: zoom in on these....


Those images show absolutely nothing, and they are irrelevant to anything I have ever said.



Originally posted by Karilla
I have always thought that the "drone" images were 3D renders, but the points you keep on being insultingly and smugly certain about are bunk.


I insulted nobody. Do not even mention that. The reason you think my points are "bunk" is because you do not understand anything I type. Thats a problem with you, not me.


Originally posted by Karilla
How about the Isaac images? You have said very little about those.


You are kidding me right???

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Read the first few links of the post above, all of those links and illustrations were created by me. Actually the ISAAC CARET images are so blatantly CGI, that I have debunked them and moved on to the original drone photos, to debunk this from start to finish.... I have moved on from the isaac caret images because they are so fake its not even worth spending time on it.


[edit on 19-7-2007 by 11 11]

[edit on 19-7-2007 by 11 11]



posted on Jul, 19 2007 @ 03:27 PM
link   
First, 11 11, let me say that I agree with most of your points and think you're highly underrated in this argument by the die-hard believers who either don't understand or don't want to understand the quality of the points you're making.

However, I still take serious issue with this:


Originally posted by 11 11



You see the "tree" the "building" and the "telephone wires"? You see how they are "layered" on top of the drone? This is called "occlusion", but there are better words for it like "layering".


While this is a vaguely relevant curiosity, it's hardly the major evidence you're claiming it is.

First, you're being way too selective about your photos. Chad, Tahoe person, and Rajman have all provided photos in addition to the ones you've posted here that depict no direct occlusion at all. And in fact, the VAST majority of the big basin photos (of which there are *17* in total, I believe) depict no occlusion either. I'll have to check again but I believe there were only a few among Ty's shots that had an overlapping tree branch or whatever.

Much more importantly, however, you're ignoring the fact we're SURROUNDED by vertically oriented structures and plant life. In my mind, there's nothing strange at all about the amount of occlusion in these photos, especially since these are allegedly low-flying objects.

I'll take myself as an example. In my day to day life, whether I'm driving to work, or running errands, or just out for a walk, if I were to suddenly spot a low-flying drone-type-thing and wanted to get a picture, it's very, very likely that I'd end up getting a decent amount of occlusion. There are buildings, trees, signs, street lights, overpasses, billboards, and all manner of other things that stand in the way of me and a wide-open view of the sky. In fact, the only way I'd really be likely to get an entire series of unobstructed shots would be if the drone was literally flying parallel to the street; any other trajectory would eventually take it off the "grid" so to speak, placing it directly above (and therefore, behind, from my perspective), any of the obscuring things I mentioned above.

1) The Chad photos were taken in a forest-type area, which means the guy is literally covered in trees. Occlusion is no surprise.

2) The Tahoe pictures were taken in a similar environment. Same argument.

3) Raj took his pictures in suburbia. That means narrow roads flanked by houses, buildings, telephone poles, and trees. Occlusion is no surprise.

4) Was there a fourth set before Big Basin? I feel like I'm forgetting something.

5) Jenna takes wide open shots of a much higher craft in Big Basin, hovering over a valley. No occlusion, as you'd expect.

6) Ty takes a picture of what might have been the the same craft from what might have been a similar vantage point (although we're not sure of any of those details as far as I know). Most of his 12 shots aren't occluded, a few of them are. Again, this hardly seems unreasonable.

Furthermore, that "woman" that sent the sketch and the story to LMH also claimed that she first saw the thing "through the trees". She didn't have any photos to hoax, and yet she still made direct mention of the occlusion. Why? Because a low-flying drone in a wooded area is bound to be occluded!

I should say that after all the recent arguments, many of which have been yours, 11 11, I've never been more sure this is a hoax. However, I feel that we do ourselves a disservice by focusing on issues that aren't, in my opinion, valid, as it casts a shadow on the myriad of valid ones. There are SO many reasons why this is BS, we don't need to limit ourselves to weak arguments like this.



posted on Jul, 19 2007 @ 04:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by alevar
1) The Chad photos were taken in a forest-type area, which means the guy is literally covered in trees. Occlusion is no surprise.

2) The Tahoe pictures were taken in a similar environment. Same argument.

3) Raj took his pictures in suburbia. That means narrow roads flanked by houses, buildings, telephone poles, and trees. Occlusion is no surprise.

4) Was there a fourth set before Big Basin? I feel like I'm forgetting something.

5) Jenna takes wide open shots of a much higher craft in Big Basin, hovering over a valley. No occlusion, as you'd expect.

6) Ty takes a picture of what might have been the the same craft from what might have been a similar vantage point (although we're not sure of any of those details as far as I know). Most of his 12 shots aren't occluded, a few of them are. Again, this hardly seems unreasonable.

Furthermore, that "woman" that sent the sketch and the story to LMH also claimed that she first saw the thing "through the trees". She didn't have any photos to hoax, and yet she still made direct mention of the occlusion. Why? Because a low-flying drone in a wooded area is bound to be occluded!

I should say that after all the recent arguments, many of which have been yours, 11 11, I've never been more sure this is a hoax. However, I feel that we do ourselves a disservice by focusing on issues that aren't, in my opinion, valid, as it casts a shadow on the myriad of valid ones. There are SO many reasons why this is BS, we don't need to limit ourselves to weak arguments like this.


Excellent points alevar, however they seem to lend credibility to the debate, not detract from it. Please do not tell me you think this is a hoax based on 11 11's arguments? His arguments, while some good points have been made, are very fragmented and most certainly biased. As a professional graphic artist I can say that with certainty. He has never once kept an open mind to the possibility that these craft could be real, and therefore all his opinions and so-called "evidence" are self-reassuring to his own die hard beliefs. One must be open to the possibilities that this can either be real or a hoax in order to decipher through all the debate in a logical and rational manner. Unfortunately since the witnesses haven't come forward on ATS as of yet, we still have no way of definitively proving this real or a hoax. It can only be of hope that one of us will see a drone for ourselves and then be able to pass that evidence on to the rest of our group.


[edit on 7/19/2007 by pjslug]



posted on Jul, 19 2007 @ 04:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by 11 11
I never said the white halo is caused by "compositing". Actually I am 100% certain I said "SIDE NOTE", which doesn't actually have anything to do with what I was talking about, it was just a note about another one of the pictures flaws. Because if you study the picture, you can clearly see that white halo does NOT belong there, and must have been added later. I never linked the white halo to anything, yet you are jumping to conclusions.


You're forgetting that this is a photograph, we have no way of knowing what filters & objectives were used so that halo might actually be a normal image artifact. Not to mention haze or some kind of athmospheric effect. You're right everything we see is light, but ccd's / film aren't like our eyes and pick up more/less depending what is used.

From the image size btw it might be possible that it was taken with a canon 350D (Digital Rebel XT). It has that image size as one of presets and was a very popular camera once. So the possiblities of different lenses and filters is huge



posted on Jul, 19 2007 @ 04:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by alevar
While this is a vaguely relevant curiosity, it's hardly the major evidence you're claiming it is.


I never claimed this as "hard evidence" I merly presented you with these coincidences. Actually, I didn't even select the photos, they were just all selected by ISAAC. Go to isaaccaret.fortunecity.com and you will see, HE selected these and they are all supposidly "from different people".

The only reason I presented the information about the occlusion is that it supports the FACT that these images have fake depth perception, and falty depth of field.



Originally posted by alevar
First, you're being way too selective about your photos. Chad, Tahoe person, and Rajman have all provided photos in addition to the ones you've posted here that depict no direct occlusion at all. And in fact, the VAST majority of the big basin photos (of which there are *17* in total, I believe) depict no occlusion either.



Yes, the reason I ignore these because they can be so easly debunked by me. The rest of the images show the drone in the sky, with a pure background behind them. You might as well just use a Blue Screen.
en.wikipedia.org...

It makes it 1000000000000000000000000% easyer to fake the drone when you have a solid background such as the sky. And the hoaxer knows this, so that is why he takes pride in his occlusion photos, and posted them in a row in isaaccaret. The hoaxer was smart enough to know that if he kept releasing photos of the drone against a solid blue sky, people would catch on to how easy it is to fake. So he made a few occlusion photos...


Originally posted by alevar
I should say that after all the recent arguments, many of which have been yours, 11 11, I've never been more sure this is a hoax. However, I feel that we do ourselves a disservice by focusing on issues that aren't, in my opinion, valid, as it casts a shadow on the myriad of valid ones. There are SO many reasons why this is BS, we don't need to limit ourselves to weak arguments like this.


It may be weak to you, but these occlusion images tell us more about this hoax than you can see.... a picture is worth 1000 words, why not research these images and find those 1000 words... I have...

That said, later in the day (not right now) I will come back with every single photo that does not have occlusion involved, and I will show you that almost every single one of them has "a white halo" in the background... Almost every image of the drone has a misterious bright white aurora around, or near it. The fact that these drones are all being photographed at almost the same time of day, with the same white light background against the solid sky, shows that all these images are taken by the same person, and the same techinique of image manipulation was used on all of them...

stand by.



posted on Jul, 19 2007 @ 05:05 PM
link   
11 11,

I would also like to welcome you back to the thread from your leave of absence. The way you come across may seem to some to be a little harsh, and i read all your posts prior to you vacating but your delivery and evidence presented is fresh and welcoming as far as i'm concerned.

With regards to layering there was a guy in another forum who did a different kind of layering showing the Big Basin drone by splicing the photographic images presented and showing it "In motion" so to speak without cgi and it was very interesting to see how or even if it moved, some dude on ufocasebook put it together but i find their site sporadic to say the least, it would be interesting to see what you think of it though.



posted on Jul, 19 2007 @ 05:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by alevar
I'll take myself as an example. In my day to day life, whether I'm driving to work, or running errands, or just out for a walk, if I were to suddenly spot a low-flying drone-type-thing and wanted to get a picture, it's very, very likely that I'd end up getting a decent amount of occlusion. There are buildings, trees, signs, street lights, overpasses, billboards, and all manner of other things that stand in the way of me and a wide-open view of the sky. In fact, the only way I'd really be likely to get an entire series of unobstructed shots would be if the drone was literally flying parallel to the street; any other trajectory would eventually take it off the "grid" so to speak, placing it directly above (and therefore, behind, from my perspective), any of the obscuring things I mentioned above.

Yes, but you would point the camera directly at the most incredible thing that you ever saw wouldn’t you? Unless later on you thought your “drone “ would look better if it was placed some were other than in the center, where you supposedly honed in on it





posted on Jul, 19 2007 @ 05:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by moonking
Yes, but you would point the camera directly at the most incredible thing that you ever saw wouldn’t you? Unless later on you thought your “drone “ would look better if it was placed some were other than in the center, where you supposedly honed in on it


That is a good point. Why isn't the object centered in the photos?
If you were looking at something amazing, surely it would be the focal point and most important part of the image. We do not know, however, if the object had already moved or was moving when they took the shot. If it was moving all around, by the time they snapped the shutter it could be towards the end of the frame.

Interesting point, moonking. It certainly raises questions, and in my opinion is one of the most notable finds so far.


However, that being said, there are plenty of photos taken so far where the drone is in the center of the image.


[edit on 7/19/2007 by pjslug]



posted on Jul, 19 2007 @ 05:49 PM
link   
No it's not a good point.

If you saw the most exciting thing in the world, would you be breathing hard, pulse pounding, shaking even?

How many real amateur photos are centered? I have no idea and I would guess about 10%?

I thought it had been proven that the photos are not doctored with editing software.

The more relevant question is are these the work of skilled human artists.


Originally posted by pjslug

Originally posted by moonking
Yes, but you would point the camera directly at the most incredible thing that you ever saw wouldn’t you? Unless later on you thought your “drone “ would look better if it was placed some were other than in the center, where you supposedly honed in on it


That is a good point. Why isn't the object centered in the photos?
If you were looking at something amazing, surely it would be the focal point and most important part of the image. We do not know, however, if the object had already moved or was moving when they took the shot. If it was moving all around, by the time they snapped the shutter it could be towards the end of the frame.

Interesting point, moonking. It certainly raises questions, and in my opinion is one of the most notable finds so far.


However, that being said, there are plenty of photos taken so far where the drone is in the center of the image.


[edit on 7/19/2007 by pjslug]



posted on Jul, 19 2007 @ 06:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by pjslug

That is a good point. Why isn't the object centered in the photos?
If you were looking at something amazing, surely it would be the focal point and most important part of the image. We do not know, however, if the object had already moved or was moving when they took the shot. If it was moving all around, by the time they snapped the shutter it could be towards the end of the frame.
Interesting point, moonking. It certainly raises questions, and in my opinion is one of the most notable finds so far.


First off I like to reiterate my respect for every on this forum, I just love it here and hope I never come across as arrogant
Now on to business
PJslug
From all accounts, this thing moved slowly, when it didn’t hyper space out of town
I would like to interject at this time something that I left off an earlier post about Isaac’s possible connection to the “Big Basin gang” and that is that Ty is the only witness that said this thing disappeared, to which Isaac said “These crafts, assuming they're anything like the hardware I worked with in the 80's (assuming they're better, in fact), are equipped with technology that enables invisibility”
It seems as if Isaac was trying to include the big basin sighting because the apparent credibility it gained and the credentials it would lend to his story



posted on Jul, 19 2007 @ 06:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by plopunisher
I thought it had been proven that the photos are not doctored with editing software.


Actaully the exact opposite has been proven. As of today we do not have a valid image that can be labeled "creditable" because all of the images provided have been through 3rd party software. It has actually been proven that we do not have an image that hasn't been through some type of image program.


Also, the hoaxer was aware that not all images are "centered" so he purpously made some drones "off center" for added "realisim". Although, he over exagerated it a bit.

[edit on 19-7-2007 by 11 11]



posted on Jul, 19 2007 @ 06:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by plopunisher
No it's not a good point.

If you saw the most exciting thing in the world, would you be breathing hard, pulse pounding, shaking even?
How many real amateur photos are centered? I have no idea and I would guess about 10%?
I thought it had been proven that the photos are not doctored with editing software.

Well taken,
Even though all account of this drone had it hovering slowly , I would still be breathing hard, pulse pounding, shaking even, (and yet the picture's seem so steady, no motion detected (IE : no Blurred pic’s in the series I posted with cross hair’s) and notice the Raj pic’s in my cross hair’s taken within a minute of each other (2 &3 of 4 in my post) nice and clear ,same spot but slightly tilted upward (not a sign of someone flipping out to the point where they couldn’t point the camera at the most incredible thing they ever saw) and yet not centered and if I were Raj, when I reported this, I would probably come across as “totally freak out and shaky” but yet Chad,Raj and the cell phone lady merely asked if any one knew what this could be



new topics

top topics



 
185
<< 114  115  116    118  119  120 >>

log in

join