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: 306
185
<< 303  304  305    307  308  309 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 4 2008 @ 11:54 PM
link   
reply to post by Anonymous ATS
 


If you took those pictures and then went public, were willing to let the experts analyze your memory card or negatives and stuck around to answer the skeptics, i feel you would be believed by many. The problem with the drones are all the witnesses are AWOL!! If Chad Raj or Ty were available to answer questions then, perhaps, this case would hold some merit! With anon witnesses i agree with everything you said....but if the photo witnesses were real it would be a whole new ballgame!




posted on Jun, 4 2008 @ 11:55 PM
link   
reply to post by Anonymous ATS
 


New page?? Sorry for the short post new page didnt show up....feel free to delete this post

[edit on 4-6-2008 by TheShadow]



posted on Jun, 5 2008 @ 12:14 AM
link   
So let me get this straight, a web server which logs the IP's of people who visit is some kind of illegal top secret hacking technology?


Someone needs to get a clue.....



posted on Jun, 5 2008 @ 12:38 AM
link   
reply to post by Anonymous ATS
 
Hi Ryan, i can see if the case were 5 cgi experts said no and 5 cgi said yes on the same thing, then its like stalemate , but here the prponents say no deal no tests, no cross exam of any witness, . As we said we are looking for hoaxers, the kind that exploit believers,, the kind that prevent serious study , and attempt to substitute serious study on a semi- skilled or amateurish level. Science sets standards. Science has experts .their is a tier that must be followed. This called lowering the bar, especially when you have a total rejection of mufon and community recognized exerts. And there is nothing hi tech about verifying witnesses, and asking germane questions, the most reliable weapon in an arsenal for truth.

300 pages is absolutely nothing taken into comparison of other hoaxes that led to millions of books, dvds, pseudo-lectures, and theories, which eventually were debunked, after years. Given what is known now, this one fat babys a$$ was spanked good., just by the local guys, even though witnesses disappeared and werent there to be caught in the lie, even though Princiopal promoters hedged questions and with held evidence. there was enough to say BS.
If we helped prevent this fraud from becoming another Roswell, then it was most certainly worth it. 300 600 pages as I said, are nothing in thescheme of these types of things. Its a success story if anything, even if the hoaxters are not caught. I think they will be. Because people are people, creatures of habit and like the witnesses that came after, they trip up.


[edit on 5-6-2008 by Sys_Config]

[edit on 5-6-2008 by Sys_Config]



posted on Jun, 5 2008 @ 01:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by Double_Nought_Spy
The burden of proof is still on the claimants, no matter how much whining or disappearing they do. No one here, or anywhere else, is required to prove the Earth is not hollow, either.


Yes, but isn't then the burden of proof on this claimant ?

"Every single legitimate, credentialed expert I have discussed the "drones" with who has looked at these images has labeled them CGI, these drones only exist in computers, this CRAP is a HOAX."



posted on Jun, 5 2008 @ 01:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by nfotech
So let me get this straight, a web server which logs the IP's of people who visit is some kind of illegal top secret hacking technology?


Someone needs to get a clue.....


I'm laughing so hard coffee went over my keyboard. Its true, I hope they can give me the url of that server i am supposed to have. Its sounded impressive in French though, only the way Didier can do it. Remember, its not the substance, or what you say, but how it sounds. He sounds great.
Well at least they know we are serious about catching a hoaxter. Thanx to ATO who got the brainstorm email, accidently, quickly passed it faster than you can say Caret to Didier and his Jackals ., the right people. I have everyones identity, and have yet to post it publicly would not do that. Simple to find, or buy.

[edit on 5-6-2008 by Sys_Config]

[edit on 5-6-2008 by Sys_Config]



posted on Jun, 5 2008 @ 01:24 AM
link   
reply to post by Sys_Config
 


Hi Sys, I know what you are saying, but what if there was also a very dangerous flu going round, life threatening even.
Had exactly the same symptoms but the treatment was completely different.
Maybe even the doctor's, whilst experts in their own right, weren't aware at the time of this other type of flu, after all it's not from round there.
However you were aware of it, having had a distant relative die of this flu in 1947.
Whose opinion do you take - the first, third, tenth - or do you want a full set of tests to get conclusive proof one way or the other before accepting an opinion.

Conclusive proof either way may not be possible but isn't that the goal here.

Sorry to rehash a previous discussion, just have an issue with any expert who offers an opinion but is not prepared to back it up. Maybe if they did look closer there could be a percentage error rather than a conclusive opinion. Either way it could only help - I've seen detailed reports on pictures of chewing gum on windows, a year later and no-one willing to stake their reputation on a quotable opinion, let alone a detailed report ?



posted on Jun, 5 2008 @ 02:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by chunder
reply to post by Sys_Config
 


Hi Sys, I know what you are saying, but what if there was also a very dangerous flu going round, life threatening even.
Had exactly the same symptoms but the treatment was completely different.
Maybe even the doctor's, whilst experts in their own right, weren't aware at the time of this other type of flu, after all it's not from round there.
However you were aware of it, having had a distant relative die of this flu in 1947.
Whose opinion do you take - the first, third, tenth - or do you want a full set of tests to get conclusive proof one way or the other before accepting an opinion.

Conclusive proof either way may not be possible but isn't that the goal here.

Sorry to rehash a previous discussion, just have an issue with any expert who offers an opinion but is not prepared to back it up. Maybe if they did look closer there could be a percentage error rather than a conclusive opinion. Either way it could only help - I've seen detailed reports on pictures of chewing gum on windows, a year later and no-one willing to stake their reputation on a quotable opinion, let alone a detailed report ?


When the people that are entrused to look at thousands of pix per year, Mufon, put people that work with history channel even, real pros, and they say BS. they dont have to issue a detailed report because they have seen it all before. They would have to do that with evry pic that looked interesting then. Who has resources for that. But the people with the resources like LMH, her own studio and production company, doesnt take the time to do it, why should david or anyone else. Why do they refuse to ask her ? DShe is their ace in the hole. Let them Ask her not David.We are not stopping DRT from issueing a book or report. In fact, we want them to. This would be a wonderful thing.
I understand you want to be fair, Truly I do, Chunder, like Mur, but Science has it for a reason to have people that have the experience and no hidden agenda and took the time to look, not the people who play by their own rules or no rules. You do that middle road and you will be chasing tail forever. as it stands now, imperfect as is, this side is closer to reality, than the other side. I ask again let then unmask themselves and say we believe this is real, we have no report, but interesting stories and studies. Thats not right. Thats double standard. One known other not.
When David and jeff and Mufon didi it, they do not wear mask, they have their name occupation and business. They can do same too, without a report. Let them do it without experts and just the interesting witnesses, I welcome that. really I do. Lets give them a free pass. Tell them its ok to come out now. A report is not required. Some diagrams are advisable of course. All good reports have them.Its safe. They work hard to make it convincing . Lets give them a chance. I am just Observer. I dont have the deep pockets they and their colleagues have.
What is holding them up. ? How much easier can we possibly make it for them?

I would have them get a hold of Thierry Speth, in Metz France, a paisano, an expert too, and have him comment, then we can have some real discussion and some fun.
there must be at least one photographic person who can advise them some where. But if not, go with what they have. No shame in that.

[edit on 5-6-2008 by Sys_Config]

[edit on 5-6-2008 by Sys_Config]

[edit on 5-6-2008 by Sys_Config]



posted on Jun, 5 2008 @ 02:22 AM
link   
Hi Chunder,

doesn't our wise advisor Tomi say it all the time? We must see the "big picture" and one can't be a "little bit pregnant".

She is right! Looking at the drone saga we only have a lot of nonsense and we can not pick one piece of it and say: "But this one smells good!"

There have been no photos at all for a long time. They just danced for a few weeks for us.

How many explanations do we need, to make the drones real? Even the DRT does not try to explain the reality of the drones in their FAQ. As they say they are "explaining away the hoax theories".

And after one year nobody ever could say, what these drones are supposed to do. Bad for the economy.

Looking at the "big picture" there is not one ounce of sense, just the glowing eyes of some childish people, who think they found paradise.

Are you really demanding scientific proof, that Peter Pan did not fly to Neverland? For a handful of people? That would indeed be some satisfaction for the hoaxers...



posted on Jun, 5 2008 @ 04:06 AM
link   
Chunder -

If we look at this big picture as we're instructed to the case just does not stand. I for one, am no debunker. I argued very passionately for this case and for the DRT. I look back at those posts and I have few regrets because I was arguing for fair and open discussion, not for a position that the drones are real. My regret is that I believed the DRT were fighting an honorable fight against a world full of misconception.

As time went on I began to see a definite bias in their investigation where only evidence pointing towards drone reality was focused on, excuses were made for every issue pointing towards hoax and the DRT proved to be an interference to true investigation in my opinion.

MUFON looked at the case, found evidence of a hoax but still placed the case "on hold" pending a named photographer. That's a position based on experience and though I questioned it once I came to respect it as the correct thing to do.

We have to find a balance in UFO investigations and that line is very, very thin:


  1. open minded without gullibility
  2. give trust but expect it to be earned
  3. trust but verify


I could go on and on but you get the idea, I hope.

Should a photo witness make a report tomorrow and be willing to be named I can honestly say I would examine that report without assumptions. I would verify the witnesses identity and the details of their account and I would analyze the evidence; asking questions for clarification as needed. I would not make excuses for my witness nor allow him or her to lie without being questioned.

I've seen the DRT step in and appoint themselves and LMH as the "official investigation team" by default. I've seen them refuse to vet witnesses, (see my signature, it's a real quote by the DRT), allow witnesses to lie without questioning them and basically be willing to accept any and all reports which support a predetermined position that the drones are real.

That is not an investigation, that's therapy. If you dare to ask serious questions or imply the drones are a hoax you will be attacked, accused of being an operative and labeled a blasphemer.

A very large sum of money is being spent to keep two detectives on the case and LMH runs a for profit website where she takes witness reports by using her appearances on Coast to Coast to place herself at the forefront of this case.

Those reports should be going to MUFON first. If they refuse to investigate then the witnesses are of course free to go wherever they want to.

If they wanted to, the DRT and LMH could easily hire all the analysts they want. It seems they want other people to perform that work on their behalf and complain loudly when they feel they weren't handed the results of analysis they did not pay nor even go out and ask for.

They claim they are doing a real investigation, including looking at possible hoaxes. Looking at their public material I see no reference to the elements of concern unless it's to debate those elements. I see a lot of name calling and insults of anyone who questions the case.

It no longer matters if there is some reality to this case. We can't find it because these people have built a wall of noise in between us all.






[edit on 5-6-2008 by nfotech]

[edit on 5-6-2008 by nfotech]

[edit on 5-6-2008 by nfotech]

[edit on 5-6-2008 by nfotech]



posted on Jun, 5 2008 @ 05:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by Siddharta
Looking at the "big picture" there is not one ounce of sense, just the glowing eyes of some childish people, who think they found paradise.


Yes, exactly!.. And this whole scene here is reminding me of the book "Lord of the Flies". Except we have snipers wearing tin foil hats..


[edit on 5-6-2008 by tomiuk]



posted on Jun, 5 2008 @ 05:26 AM
link   
Rather looks like Tennesee Williams:
Cat on the hot tin roof.




posted on Jun, 5 2008 @ 06:29 AM
link   
I suppose I should be upset that these folks are trying to drag my name - as well as Ritzmann's - through the mud, but then again, these are people who believe that these images are genuine. At this point, anyone left beating this dead-and-decomposing horse is certainly entitled to do so, but that doesn't make the evidence any more compelling. It's not like I wouldn't like to see some truly astonishing images of UFOs, but folks, let's remember that if those images appear, they are nothing but images - the UFO enigma remains just that. For those of us who have seen UFOs, we don't need to be sold on their existence. For those who haven't seen one, and are desperate to "believe", well, they'll grab a donut, toss it in the sky and declare it to be a UFO.

As far as LMH, I feel that her credibility has been seriously tarnished over the years, and I personally put very little faith in anything that comes out of her "research". Her willingness to accept crude hoaxes as proof of paranormal activity is just sad, but then again, this is all about making $$$ for her, so her standards are, to be kind, weak.

dB



posted on Jun, 5 2008 @ 07:07 AM
link   
reply to post by davidbiedny
 


Thanks for a direct clarification of your opinion, I for one really appreciate it, and I am not being sarcastic.

If you do have the time I have one question.

Is there anything in any of the images related to this affair that either
a) categorically indicates manipulation,
b) is highly suspicious of a particular form of manipulation,
or is it that,
c) taken in context with the rest of the information known about them they are highly suspicious ?

I fully understand that a time consuming detailed examination may be required in order to state that a) is the case but obviously any further thoughts you may have on any specific imaging points would be of great interest to a number of people.



posted on Jun, 5 2008 @ 07:36 AM
link   
Chunder,

I know that people are demanding a detailed analysis of the images, which I don't feel is necessary in this case. If you take into account the fact that the original image showed up on C2C's website (they PAY LMH to do her reporting work, and charge folks $$$ for access to their online archives) with the story posted by "Chad", saying that this thing supposedly showed up almost on cue for him to photograph (how convenient!), well, I already have a problem with that - as should any other thinking person. Then we go on to the issue of the image itself - which, to my trained eye, screamed out CG element composited on photographic background - and subsequent images got goofier and goofier. The big text on the thing - well, talk about another first for UFO history, no other credible report has ever talked about these types of identifiers on a genuine UFO. Along those lines, in the vast history of UFO sightings, these things stand all alone - they don't look like anything ever seen (which is not proof that they're not genuine, just another element to be considered in the overall analysis). Then there's the fact that, at this point, anyone claiming to be a witness has essentially vanished (and sorry, I don't take a single phone conversation of a witness with LMH to be credible - as I've stated, her motivation about this situation is highly suspect, IMO), so taken all together, you've got a pile of rotten compost.

If you want to put aside ALL of the personality and human issues I bring up, and JUST focus on the pictures, well, as I indicated, there are enough issues - lighting problems, rendering artifacts, shadow inconsistencies - that scream out HOAX, to make me feel that they are indeed fabricated. Show these images to anyone working in the visual effects industry, and they'll back up my professional opinion, without too much time taken to render (pun intended) an opinion.

dB



posted on Jun, 5 2008 @ 12:23 PM
link   
Thank you David. I see no misunderstanding or confusion about that.
I almost feel like just talking about this gives the opposition a thread to hang on and keep their fraud alive , like the endless diatribe described in my Signature link.
I for one have no problem with this thread being locked , rather than hearing this same topic pop over and over again, while the promoters and perps and flunkies get away with a free pass BY THE SAME PEOPLE. PEOPLE who refuse to to answer whether tthey are getting money from Thibaullt or LMH via proxies, and then sya its not THEM making a book or DVD. TRUE, but its still a LIE. The money is coming not from clouds and well wishers! THEY won't talk about that. Get these MFs out of here, they are an insult to honest dialogue.
Do you need 100% absolute proof? no! Common sense like David , Reichmuth,D antonio,and Springer and others here are how mankind has made it through history to today.

Let me make this clear to everyone,in no unequivocal terms If people cant see the the Real Fraud going on here, they need to unplug their computers from the Fn wall, put it in a box, and return it the the store.They have no business owning a computer!

Good Day.



[edit on 5-6-2008 by Sys_Config]



posted on Jun, 5 2008 @ 12:53 PM
link   
Half a lifetime ago, I had a part time job as a bartender at a little beer joint in a little town. It was great fun when the place was busy. Lots of the usual small town characters, some people you'd never seen before, and even the occasional interesting conversation. When it was not busy, however, it was a much different place. On weeknights, it was usually the same handful of drunks in their usual places at the bar, having the same idiotic arguments and telling the same stupid jokes, night after night. My four hour shift seemed to stretch on for days. It was painful.

This thread is, and always was, for people who have figured out the drone thing is a hoax or some other kind of joke (Duh!), and want to find out who did it and why. What is so difficult to understand about that? The believers don't just have their own threads, they have multiple forums and other venues. Why must they come here to disrupt one of the few places where intelligent inquiry into the who and the why is taking place? Are they really that desperate for attention? That's just sad.



posted on Jun, 5 2008 @ 01:35 PM
link   
Since this is our playground, we can dictate the focus , and rules of engagement, again, its about the people I will repeat the question perhaps our illustrious visitors can answer Something "real and tangible", flesh and blood and the money.

!.Who and what is financing DRT and would disclosure expose real conflict of interest and sources behind this event?

2.What happened to the their experts: Jack the Northrop Gruman guy, that Bren brung on so proudly, I have the letter, but he disappeared, did anyone ever validate him, or is he another "Joe schumacher", nowhere to be found either.. Can anybody see whats going on here? FOUR experts they had wont even come back!..why is that, and Jim split like a JackRabbit too. Thats 3, Jack, Jim and "Joe" , and 4 Arthur. Only one verifiable, Arthur. Why won't ANY of them come here and do like OUR experts ,even after invitation? could it be..they or what they know is a SHAM, does anyone yet visualize a conspiracy to defraud the public yet by our "fearless" leaders, like Linda and whitley, OMF,DRT etc. leaders?lets get real "scientific" about them . You need people to carry out a hoax, therforeThey are part of the "evidence chain" too, if not, the buffet line of topic subjects,Turn that high powered telescope, back around on them and see whats there. Can anyone see the Possibility they ARE part of and coordinating this Hoax and not "mere victims"?
This is the only "picture" at this point we should be concerned with as answers to these will help us dtermine the hoaxter ids. Not recounting pixels. Lets stop accommodating these innane queries already weighed in on again and again. Send them to the libary or DRT, or Ovnis even, if they want to read a comic book, and are too doggone lazy to read.



PS on a sidenote I wanna know where that smelting plant "Jim" said he works as a VP at is. I hope its not the one Colonel Rutledge worked at too. Ivo or Nemo would know. And yes Sidd, like Jacks Sofa at pisces it STINKS and a smell you will never forget.!





















[edit on 5-6-2008 by Sys_Config]



posted on Jun, 5 2008 @ 03:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by chunder
reply to post by davidbiedny
 


Thanks for a direct clarification of your opinion, I for one really appreciate it, and I am not being sarcastic.

If you do have the time I have one question.

Is there anything in any of the images related to this affair that either
a) categorically indicates manipulation,
b) is highly suspicious of a particular form of manipulation,
or is it that,
c) taken in context with the rest of the information known about them they are highly suspicious ?


Sorry everyone but again I post......Heres an example..
img341.imageshack.us...
img144.imageshack.us...

To see a clearer version click on Sys_Configs sig....



posted on Jun, 5 2008 @ 04:40 PM
link   
This is a nice post done recntly by Kris. an original and a cgi render done early on and only took in Kris words a "quick setup"
img138.imageshack.us...
img138.imageshack.us...

OK, so I did this image last year some time, and I don't think I ever shared it. But I was just comparing it to the original, and the way that mine is lit, using radiosity (the image is straight out of the renderer.. i didn't do any photoshop on it) looks strikingly similar to how the Chad drone looks. The same shadows, everything.
I wonder if you could actually get shadows (and lighting) exactly like that in real lighting conditions.
I come back to this image, as thi is the very first image I ever saw of a drone... and this is the image that made me declare in my very first posts that the drones are a product of 3d computer imaging.
See what you think...
I'm sure i'll get burnt for this lol.
At some point soon, I am going to re-address the illustrator point as well with the LAP, because I really dont think that it was understood at the time. Maybe a video might make it clearer.

Anyways, discuss if you can, argue if can't, lock the thread if you see it
.


Thank you Kris
Now to be fair, Kris recieved some nice compliments on this, however we can count on at least one DRT Numbers to whine like a little Girl. and to cry sour grapes.

Re: A direct comparison, Chad image - CG
« Reply #35 Today at 8:44pm » --------------------------------

Jun 3, 2008, 11:13pm, JakeReason wrote:Well numbers, I could certainly create, plan, orchestrate and manage all that. As an entrepreneur I've created products from imagination to reality and propagated them to a national conscience level. Each of these was immensely more complex then the drone saga.

However, I agree it would be an effort. I would say it would take me about 3 weeks with a team of 5. And there's 10's of 1000's of me's out there.
The big question of course would be WHY?[/iquote]

Not lacking in bad manners or worthless diatribe Numbers goes on to say.


I think too many people are trying to diminish the complexity level of this thing. It's very easy for some blow hard to log on and post how they could have done it with a 286 and fifty bucks. Wasn't it David Biedney who said it would cost $5000 just to have a professional look at the pics? That starts to put things into perspective.


enlightenedseeker
Long term Peer-Group Member

member is offline
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 366
Karma: -1 Re: A direct comparison, Chad image - CG
« Reply #36 Today at 9:14pm »

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And I think the same few people are diminishing the importance of any work carried here by professionals such as Kris and unbelievably suggest reproducibility would be so prohibitive as to preclude hoax. And the man already said what it would take to to do this. a handful, a few weeks, and done. As for the David Biedny crack, I believe it was posted somewhere what it would cost to analyze the photos and whether that was followed who knows. Perhaps all the experts are morons now. Correct. Thats what it sounds like .So I dont see what that had to do with Kris presentation It does its job, thank you Kris another job well done.
« Last Edit: Today at 9:15pm by enlightenedseeker


I am glad to see not everyone is a total imbecile. Thank you ES and JakeReason

This is why the contention of produce a report by these screaming meemees is shortsighted, and is an excercise in futility given their historical intransigence.





[edit on 5-6-2008 by Sys_Config]

[edit on 5-6-2008 by Sys_Config]

[edit on 5-6-2008 by Sys_Config]



new topics

top topics



 
185
<< 303  304  305    307  308  309 >>

log in

join