[HOAX] Isaac CARET - Drones [HOAX]

Originally posted by onthefence55

Originally posted by Sys_Config
My thanx to Marvelous Marvin ...

Thank you for spreading Marvin's query for all to examine. It has now been adequately answered in the updated FAQ ver 1.4 with two graphic examples of the effect called aliasing that naturally occurs in all digitally sampled images.

Feel free to look up aliasing on wikipedia, or browse the many free real images on GoogleImages for comparisons to draw your own conclusion. Better yet, take your own digital photo of a scene with wires and trees.

Thanx for the link, and that example, which was a fair example but doesnt discount a general rule of thumb method for us little people in thaudience. that was the point Marvin was making, I believe.
But while reading the intro to the draft or FAQ I notice no Real names of DRT members the six including august, not a real name, or reference that the report is privately funded, or by whom, nor that as DRT members claim a independence separation , implying a distinct legal or chatrtered body, that can be held accountable for answers as it is recieving funds.. There is no credentialing of anyone doing analysis, equpment or laboratory work done, if only to to instill any sort of "confidence" in the analysis as well as those , even if amateurs, doing it. I believe thats been a Frequently Asked Question.


it sounds like an international team 6 people (based on August numbers )with a common view , and a track record of only that view, circa tomi and numbers , et. al. got together, looked over what they felt like looking, and that in 6 months have looked at all known possible earthly scenarios known to mankind, American, Chinese, Soviet, etc, and discounted all except, that craft are real. Bizarre.They took the "best of "their point of view" and repackaged it in the FAQ . The exif data is downplayed despite what the members here alreeady know, about that camera change attempt, so asto discount any attempt at Deception, therefore no proof of hoaxing. How can any intelligent person believe overlook that?/ Failing to mention that is deceptive in itself. Bizarre. Bizarre. and not in the FAQ.
That Chad Lied to Linda about location, not in the FAQ again misleading and Deceptive . Bizarre.Thats not mentioned. What is mentioned that ALL the witnesses are terrified as an almost Universal and Exclusive behavior to all others. Bizarre, its not true look at the disclosure witnesses, Jeremy, Rick, etc. Not in the FAQ examples of other known behavior..That not all the photos were analyzed, ie THe 11 Linda Has, and Wont give up to anyone. If you can analyze witness behavior of fear ,and assess so confidently, Then Earthfiles continual avoidance in providing key evidence, should be inclluded as Fear also, but of a different sort, exposure. In the FAQ in Dr. Dils info should be incorporated, to correct the misleading Timeline of LMH, not noticed by the DRT, should be the FAQ All these are glaring and Bizarre ommissions. Also that not one witness in the isaac case has been interviewed personally face to face, yet its mentioned 3 were talked to over the phone, which ones? I thought you only had shirleyP Hardly empirical data.

I hope the DRT does a little more revising than that, if a shred of credibility , at least Balance , is to be attributed to the final report. I am being as constructive as I can.

As it it stands, it is already at risk a being seen as a significantly misleading List of statements or answers, and avoiding the kind of hard questions that have been posed already, but never addressed, just ignored. .I actually recommend every ATS person look at it, And I hope OMF makes them insert an introduction caveat, that the DRTs opinion do not represent, thousands of OMF fans, but are its own opinions, and do not reflect the opinion of the OMF management. If Drt is to go on its own, then let it falll on its own. IMO this FAQ is currently lesson or guide in how NOT to prepare a list of FAQ's, to correct that , Let DRT answer the known questions that have immediate impact on the Caret issue, not the convenient ones or diffuse the issuees with sightings unconnected with the case.Then we can all make some real headway here, and not take a bicycle path like Stepehan, a joyride to nowhere.



[edit on 9-4-2008 by Sys_Config]

[edit on 9-4-2008 by Sys_Config]

Originally posted by onthefence55
Better yet, take your own digital photo of a scene with wires and trees.

Hi OTF,

I did just that today, I had to use fences , because our power lines are all underground.

I must say, I cannot follow Marvin's argument.

reply to post by Sys_Config


Hi Sys_Config, I see you are still in hot pursuit of the drone hoaxers...

With regard to trying to have a logical or even reasonable discussion with the likes of "DRT" please see my signature.

That "FAQ" is mostly pure speculation and wishful thinking combined with so many incorrect statements, ridiculous assumptions and outright falsehoods it makes me wonder if the authors did any actual research at all?

The statement "imaging experts agree it would cost millions to produce the CARET images" is such total crap I can't believe I read it.

One of the premier imaging experts on the planet has said repeatedly it could be done for FREE after the cost of the rendering software, which is a couple thousand dollars and is in just about every graphic arts computer in use anyway and could therefor have been used for free by the hoaxer(s), and would take only hours per person to create individual pieces.

That is not a "FAQ" it's HOGWASH, pure HOGWASH.

edit to add:

Thankfully, the "ovnis-usa.com" website gets less than 2,000 unique visitors a month, so it won't matter at the end of the day anyway.

Springer...



[edit on 4-9-2008 by Springer]

Originally posted by Springer
idiot ... ridiculous ... crap ... HOGWASH

Thank you for your very useful and professional evaluation.

Also, thanks for reminding us of the experts "opinion". It's too bad that the expert couldn't take those few hours in the last year to provide the replication of the drone CG model, it would be so greatly appreciated by all here.

Since you read the entire FAQ, could you point out just one item in there that requires modification? And possibly how you would have it modified.

Originally posted by Sys_Config
The exif data is downplayed despite what the members here alreeady know, about that camera change attempt,

I've had a very difficult time compiling a useful conclusion regarding the alleged camera EXIF tampering, If it's not too much trouble, can someone point me to the thread that undeniably solves this issue?

yet its mentioned 3 were talked to over the phone, which ones? I thought you only had shirleyP Hardly empirical data.

Shirley and two others that only DRT knows about who will not come forward for the reasons identified in the FAQ.

reply to post by onthefence55


Personally I don't see how replication of the model would prove or disprove anything. But in any case didn't salad fingers do just this? I know he made some videos but I don't know if he did anything original or if it was just compositions.

Where's the wedding cake!?

Originally posted by Sys_Config
I notice no Real names of DRT

When the time is right and necessary, real names will be revealed to the anonymous masses, in fact, all of our dealings with real people is done with real names.

In the meantime, are you suggesting that we should ignore all the investigative efforts at ATS (including the EXIF tampering conclusions) because it was supplied by aliased posters? Verifiable facts can stand on their own, despite the credentials and verifiability of the submitter. We welcome all the facts that anonymous ATS posters can supply.

Thankfully, the "ovnis-usa.com" website gets less than 2,000 unique visitors a month, so it won't matter at the end of the day anyway.

Springer...

Psst, Springer!

I didn't mention, how good they hide it, because I thought that is a good place.

Wait a minute, Onthefence55 are you suggesting that this is in fact a real phenomena? I am a little bit confused here.

Ok,I read further on the "FAQ" and realize where this is going. Onthefence you guys should have had someone proof read that before you released it. Not really sure what to say now....

[edit on 4/9/2008 by sputniksteve]

Originally posted by onthefence55
Shirley and two others that only DRT knows about who will not come forward for the reasons identified in the FAQ.

Ah, these guys... I see! Even more anonymous than Linda's witnesses.
Maybe you should be a little creative and invent some names for them. How about "Tom Smith" or "R2D2"?
Sometimes even "an engineer" can make eyes glow...

Originally posted by sputniksteve
... you guys should have had someone proof read that before you released it.

We welcome your suggestions. Any constructive comments will be implemented.

I went ahead and took out my cynical criticism of the piece in its entirety. I think it speaks for itself, no need for me to bash it more then its taken. I typed this instead.

Well I suppose I could go through and highlight all of the mistakes, but I am not so sure that should be my responsibility.

"Attempts where made by him tell people"

"There are only so may strokes that someone"

Yeah I know I am a stickler, but if you want to be taken seriously you have to get it right.

"3. Secret Military/Govrenment/Industrial organization make real craft
No such technology exists to keep such a craft aloft, the military has only used known propulsion technology in all their secret projects. At best, the military might be able to fly a captured craft like a child flies a remote controlled air plane, with no knowledge of the inner workings."

^^ is under the Hoax theories section. Isn't this the explanation that you are trying to argue? I mean, the documents you are defending say this is man made right? So what exactly are you saying? Who made the drones then? Your military sercret propulsion insider/expert doesn't have any more information available?

Then you have a section claiming that there are plenty of shots that the drones are not in line with trees, which proves its not being suspended. But then there is a tree in every shot used for evidence. Then in another section pictures are cropped specifically to meet your criteria.

This needs a lot of work before it is going to convince anyone with intelligence.

[edit on 4/9/2008 by sputniksteve]

[edit on 4/9/2008 by sputniksteve]

[edit on 4/9/2008 by sputniksteve]

reply to post by Springer



I like the signature

reply to post by onthefence55


Google the name David Biedny. He isn't gullible, dumb or attention needy enough to waste his very valuable time trying to replicate something so I don't understand your comment about his inability to reproduce that bollocks.

David is one of the REAL EXPERTS (not some anonymous guy who has 35 years experience in graphics" the tripe peddlers like to site to keep their heads above water) who debunked this very early on. The undeniable FACTS are in this very thread OTF.

Shadows... think shadows.

I won't apologize for my use of the word crap, when it smells like, looks like and tests out to be... crap, it usually is just that mate.

The drones are so 2007 anyway.

There is much to hold in wonder in our world that is not the produce of a con artist.

Springer...

Holy cow, Biedny has a resume a mile long and tons of awards!!!
www.surfingmonkey.com...
he is ADM, at paracast.com and coincidently the site Numbers and a few others scoff at.

Here is Davids last comment on that to marsave who tried fevereshly to get LMH to Correct her information

www.theparacast.com
David Biedny
Administrator

Posts: 823
Group: Administrators
Joined: Apr 2006
Status: Offline
Post: #5RE: I need help on Drone & Issac story

MarsAve,,

That's an excellent find, you're dead on, and we all appreciate your work at locating the spot. It's definitely the right location. Forget about LMH retracting anything, it would seem that she's happy not asking any tough questions. That CARET stuff is all fairly silly, though creative, but don't expect the person/people behind that to publicly reveal themselves. Pranksters will be pranksters.
unquote

So if OM is basing its stuff even partially on LMH, that speaks for itself.
Did DRT even talk to this Talented PRO at all? THIS is the kind of background and credentialling thats needed for such an important report DRT is attempting to make. ergo..no balance...Thats why OTF the DRT are being grilled!


As to who made the drones, a poster noted that isaac played word games, as I have noted also. The poster goes on to the effect that Isaac in his narrative used the word nonhuman sources, as coming not from ET but actually Computers, ie digital effect. I have continually noted wrd plays like that, but others ran with ET..he/she noted also..the plays on momentary flicker . Where did Raj post his pictures.. Flicker! they were there, then gone.
This is too funny, yet too much for mere coincidence. These pranksters are having a field day reference was made to work done on the lap, its true, only he means real LAP, like in Laptop. Nice post by the way by Enlightenedspeaker



@ Sidd, you mentioned Engineering type, His spirit reincarnated when he left ATS to go to OMF at the same time the other guy did. I am sure you compared their posts already also the one I posted here 2 pages ago.

Shall I stick that little alien froghead with the muliticolor sceptr with dopefish ?
I reversed some alien letters on woys jpg "AH" and got the word eye. as well as another I will discuss afterwards. I am still playing with it..

Nobody seems to like him. How did he get there?i215.photobucket.com...

PS Springer You are so right ..The answers to this mess are in Here!!!
[edit on 9-4-2008 by Sys_Config]



[edit on 9-4-2008 by Sys_Config]

[edit on 9-4-2008 by Sys_Config]

[edit on 9-4-2008 by Sys_Config]

[edit on 4-9-2008 by Springer]

Now, I thought it was time to look at Didier's work at ovnis again. It is now 1:13 over here - and should be in France.

But his report for April 10 is already online.

I only can bow my head. Either he is in Australia or a time traveler, doing April 10 on April 9 by jumping back and fro.

Maybe he also did Isaac's Q4-86-report, which was dated as "December 1986", jumping to January, looking back, making the report before the year is finished.

Wow! If it is not a Titor, than he helped them with his reports, I guess.

Originally posted by Siddharta
Now, I thought it was time to look at Didier's work at ovnis again. It is now 1:13 over here - and should be in France.

But his report for April 10 is already online.

I only can bow my head. Either he is in Australia

or a time traveler, doing April 10 on April 9 by jumping back and fro.

Maybe he also did Isaac's Q4-86-report, which was dated as "December 1986", jumping to January, looking back, making the report before the year is finished.

Wow! If it is not a Titor, than he helped them with his reports, I guess.

God Help me, I cant stop laughing, I can hear Didier and Ivo5000 screaming like a little girl, Leave those damned people at ATS alone! Look what you all have started! The Federation of of the Plane crashed, and now this! Stop it..Stop it!

@sidd so now e have french in Australia, Australians in Ca, like Dani and Alex,
Im waiting for a kangaroo, with whitley in its pocket, to come busting thru my monitor any moment hahahaha. Not even Tom hall can think like this..Scratch him the hell off my list! No wonder Virgil took a look and ran off and forgot about the mataphysics (SIC) and never came back !

[edit on 9-4-2008 by Sys_Config]

[edit on 9-4-2008 by Sys_Config]

[edit on 9-4-2008 by Sys_Config]

@siddreader ... at the time you posted your time travel piece it was exactly 01:17am April 10 2008 in France, the same date that is posted on Ovnis-USA (Jeudi 10 Avril) which happens to be located in France, From what I understand of your location (Germany), it should also be April 10 there right now. Sorry if I misunderstood the joke.

@sputniksteve ... Thank your for your spelling, grammar, and logic corrections, they have been implemented in the DRT FAQ Ver 1.5.

@springer ... Thank you for your proof of hoax. The following shall be added to the DRT FAQ:

Q. What proof is there of hoax?
A. Graphics expert David Biedney who has a very impressive resume, has provided his expert opinion that it is fake and would only take a few hours to reproduce. Also, owner/operator (Springer) of the extremely popular Internet forum ATS, exclaims "Shadows... think shadows."

As for the other undeniable facts of hoax, I shall comb through this thread. In the meantime, from memory, and a bit of random digging I submit the following ATS proven facts, corrections are welcome, I will not publish without ATS approval:

A. A dopefish facsimile was found in the noise of one highly enlarged image.
A. Syd Mead liked the design of CARET.
A. The word "AH" can be found in the noise of the highly enlarged photocopy from CARET.
A. LMH holds 11 photos hostage
A, DRT has not posted their real names.
A. Witnesses remain anonymous from the ATS forum and the general public.
A. Chad lied about his sighting location.
A. Someone in Australia likes to write Sci-Fi
A, The drones are so 2007
A. It smells like crap
A. It's a viral ad for something soon to be determined
A. Arthur Reyes did it
A. The CARET documents do not have TOP SECRET stamped on them
A. LMH hired a crop circle maker to boost her sales
A. C2CAM hired a professional hoaxster to boost their ratings
A. Banned ATS user 11 11 claims they are CGI
A. The letters are Klingon, mixed with Katakana, and some Matrix

I know it's not anyone's job, but even for the benefit of the other readers, can someone summarize all the undeniable facts in one cohesive post? I would be so grateful.

Originally posted by onthefence55
@siddreader ... at the time you posted your time travel piece it was exactly 01:17am April 10 2008 in France, the same date that is posted on Ovnis-USA (Jeudi 10 Avril) which happens to be located in France, From what I understand of your location (Germany), it should also be April 10 there right now. Sorry if I misunderstood the joke.

@sputniksteve ... Thank your for your spelling, grammar, and logic corrections, they have been implemented in the DRT FAQ Ver 1.5.

@springer ... Thank you for your proof of hoax. The following shall be added to the DRT FAQ:

Q. What proof is there of hoax?
A. Graphics expert David Biedney who has a very impressive resume, has provided his expert opinion that it is fake and would only take a few hours to reproduce. Also, owner/operator (Springer) of the extremely popular Internet forum ATS, exclaims "Shadows... think shadows."

As for the other undeniable facts of hoax, I shall comb through this thread. In the meantime, from memory, and a bit of random digging I submit the following ATS proven facts, corrections are welcome, I will not publish without ATS approval:

A. A dopefish facsimile was found in the noise of one highly enlarged image.
A. Syd Mead liked the design of CARET.
A. The word "AH" can be found in the noise of the highly enlarged photocopy from CARET.
A. LMH holds 11 photos hostage
A, DRT has not posted their real names.
A. Witnesses remain anonymous from the ATS forum and the general public.
A. Chad lied about his sighting location.
A. Someone in Australia likes to write Sci-Fi
A, The drones are so 2007
A. It smells like crap
A. It's a viral ad for something soon to be determined
A. Arthur Reyes did it
A. The CARET documents do not have TOP SECRET stamped on them
A. LMH hired a crop circle maker to boost her sales
A. C2CAM hired a professional hoaxster to boost their ratings
A. Banned ATS user 11 11 claims they are CGI
A. The letters are Klingon, mixed with Katakana, and some Matrix

I know it's not anyone's job, but even for the benefit of the other readers, can someone summarize all the undeniable facts in one cohesive post? I would be so grateful.

We quote you in context of FAQ, how can you turn around and quote Comments out of context of 5000 posts.
But the david Beidny one is a great start. The LMH photos hostage, and quote Ivos5000 own words, to the forum how he begged her! AC begged her, her fans, begged, and the excuse given also by Latitude, the DRT member, for her doing so. That would be an even better start I think.
And as an introductory statement or preface , make this mandatory :
Latitudes own words I posted previously heere. I will post them shortly again
Thanx

reply to post by onthefence55


R E S E A RC H ! It's ALL in this thread mate! TRY doing some PLEASE.

I won't do your work for you, I simply don't have the time, a business to run and all you know.

edit to add: There is IMPOSSIBLE lighting/lack of shadows in the images. They are CGI. PERIOD.

Springer...

[edit on 4-9-2008 by Springer]