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: 308
185
<< 305  306  307    309  310  311 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 6 2008 @ 09:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by davidbiedny

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 -



You will really have a problem with it when you realise and see what our team realised about this location.

No answers, just more questions. And this "spot" where the pictures were taken would be ridiculous to choose if one was hoaxing this... that's the reality on the ground at the "spot".




Then we go on to the issue of the image itself - which, to my trained eye, screamed out CG element composited on photographic background



We are waiting to see the substance of this David. Other experts are not quite so confident they can really tell. Let's see what your trained eye sees. After one year of debate is substantive examples too much to ask for. I don't think so. And if you are able to show what you see, and enlighten the UFO community who is still pondering this drone question after one year, would it not be a great contribution to the cause and your profession? So many have devoted so much time and expenditure to this saga already, we hope you contribute your insights for examination as 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


Infotech's "expert" says it is not CGI. I have sent these images to a team at Lucas studios and they "can not possibly comment". We have sent these images to other big names at MIT, etc. all results come back inconclusive. Our PI's have asked forensic investigators working for the police depts in Ca. to assess these images. They can find no indications of CGI. We are trying David.. please provide what you see.. Thanks





[edit on 6-6-2008 by tomiuk]




posted on Jun, 6 2008 @ 09:36 AM
link   
reply to post by chunder
 

Thanks, chunder. Your recent posts have been fine examples of questioning "authority" without being nasty or even cranky. I hope some of our fans were paying attention!

I think it wold not be a waste of time to put together a collection of posts and comments from experienced CG people, kind of like the excellent work done by Doc and Sidd. I know there is a lot of info like that on Sys's profile page, but that is a smorgasboard of information of all kinds. A page of "What's Wrong With These Pictures" would be interesting. I would try it myself, but the results are easy to predict. I'd get half done and wander off. Again, such a page is not vital to the investigation, but it would be interesting and also a good way for newcomers or people who have not spent days looking into this to get a handle on what's been done. There really is a surprising amount of good work scattered across several forums and many moons.



posted on Jun, 6 2008 @ 10:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by tomiuk

Originally posted by davidbiedny

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 -



You will really have a problem with it when you realise and see what our team did about this location.

No answers, just more questions. And this "spot" where the pictures were taken would be ridiculous to choose if one was hoaxing this... that's the reality on the ground at the "spot".




Then we go on to the issue of the image itself - which, to my trained eye, screamed out CG element composited on photographic background



We are waiting to see the substance of this David. Other experts are not quite so confident they can really tell. Let's see what your trained eye sees. After one year of debate is substantive examples too much to ask for. I don't think so. And if you are able to show what you see, and enlighten the UFO community who is still pondering this drone question after one year, would it not be a great contribution to the cause and your profession? So many have devoted so much time and expenditure to this saga already, we hope you contribute your insights for examination as 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


Infotech's "expert" says it is not CGI. I have sent these images to a team at Lucas studios and they "can not possibly comment". We have sent these images to other big names at MIT, etc. all results come back inconclusive. Our PI's have asked forensic investigators working for the police depts in Ca. to assess these images. They can find no indications of CGI. We are trying David.. please provide what you see.. Thanks





"my" expert is not a CG artist - one of the many reasons why trying to rekindle that debate is a waste of time.

"can not possibly comment" does not = "inconclusive". It means "we can't give you a response" - a comment which more than likely means they don't want their corporate name dragged through a UFO investigation.

It took me less than 5 minutes to find an expert for free who would offer an opinion. Granted, by taking advantage of his offer of free work I have to accept that he does not have time to write up his results as well as I would have liked. The fact the DRT has been unable to secure an expert to write up a full analysis speaks volumes. At this point, 3 or 4 experts would pretty much be required in order to overcome the number standing on the "hoax" result.



posted on Jun, 6 2008 @ 11:05 AM
link   
reply to post by tomiuk
 


tomi, why on Earth would David waste time appeasing your silly little group of believers when we all know even if he proved it beyond a shadow of a doubt you would dismiss it? As i said before you need to be willing to see and accept the evidence. Your PIs can not be seen as credible IMO any longer as their paycheck comes from a group that is only looking for proof of drone reality....a fact i am sure they are well aware of and they are not going to risk their paycheck by providing proof you dont want to see!! So naturally any experts they claim to have had look at the photos are not going to find evidence of hoax and if they do they will do what the DRT does and just twist the facts to make their employers (the DRT) happy!!



posted on Jun, 6 2008 @ 11:11 AM
link   
I just saw who posted that

[edit on 6-6-2008 by Sys_Config]

Why does she not answer the questions on the their experts, the witnesses, and of course the "money". Is DRt a for profit or non Profit group. Does it have any kind of legal charter, and why when asked where to send donations, were TK Davis asked to be the recipients rather than the main Principal ? Since TK is collecting monies, and merchandising, is their a tax deduction or does it go into the "general funds"? Either way, Does the State and IRS require something to be filed for recieving Gifts and donations like that, especially any funding from foreign sources..Hmm..
Does Tomis script not allow any answers or does it tell her and the crew avoid answering at all cost?





[edit on 6-6-2008 by Sys_Config]

[edit on 6-6-2008 by Sys_Config]



posted on Jun, 6 2008 @ 11:33 AM
link   
reply to post by Sys_Config
 


I would be willing to bet $20 that at least one of their "inconclusive" results is based on sending an imploring email to some big shot at MIT or wherever, and getting no response of any kind.

"See? Another inconclusive! Now we have a bit of breathing room until Raj's conscience gets the better of him, and he sends an email from his new address."



posted on Jun, 6 2008 @ 11:49 AM
link   
Tomiuk,

Thankfully, I have a full and dynamic life, and don't intend on spending precious hours on a band of folks who desperately want to believe in these silly images. You sent stuff to a group at "Lucas studios" (you apparently can't be bothered to know the actual names of the companies you're trying to pull into this nonsense), and they told you, in a very nice way, to blow off, and you're surprised? Some hacks in a police department looked at them and decided that they weren't CG? Any their expertise in CG and visual effects is the result of what, watching Star Wars a few dozen times?

Listen, you can believe in anything you want, nothing that anyone will ever say can change your mind about your beliefs. Have fun, but if you think I'm going to play in your sandbox, think again. Thanks to The Paracast, I have access to some of the best minds considering these issues today, and I've had a really deep look into how the fringe element of this "field" behaves, and treats this subject like some sort of demented religion. As someone who has had some serious exposure to the legitimate, actual world of paranormal phenomena in my personal life, I have a finely-tuned bull# detector with regard to this subject, and I know a dud when I see one. If you're so hellbent on making this dud into your personal Jesus, have at it, but leave the rest of us out of it.

dB



posted on Jun, 6 2008 @ 11:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheShadow
reply to post by tomiuk
 


tomi, why on Earth would David waste time appeasing your silly little group of believers when we all know even if he proved it beyond a shadow of a doubt you would dismiss it? As i said before you need to be willing to see and accept the evidence. Your PIs can not be seen as credible IMO any longer as their paycheck comes from a group that is only looking for proof of drone reality....a fact i am sure they are well aware of and they are not going to risk their paycheck by providing proof you dont want to see!! So naturally any experts they claim to have had look at the photos are not going to find evidence of hoax and if they do they will do what the DRT does and just twist the facts to make their employers (the DRT) happy!!


No they certainly wouldn't do that. Their liscense and their orders to uncover the facts about this case, no matter what conclusion they have to come to, is what is important to them.

If you think that these mature responisble men, who are part of a much bigger network of police and their affiliates, would do such a thing, you are uninformed about their profession. They are members of CALI and that membership brought them to us and it means more to them, their livelihoods and their reputations than any drone investigation ever would.

In the past I have misjudged police enforcement myself. I've learned to have a great deal admiration and respect from what I have learned about this side of life working with them.

They are not dependent on the money they earn on this case. In many instances, it is a labor they devote a great deal of time to because of their interest in it. They think about it as much as we do, trying to figure the angles out. I'm sorry you have to judge everyone so harshly. But you could try for a change to look at things from a more balanced perspective. In this case you are completly wrong.



posted on Jun, 6 2008 @ 12:03 PM
link   
post removed because the user has no concept of manners

Click here for more information.


admin edit: While I happen to agree with you to some extent Sys, we just don't go that far on ATS.


[edit on 6-6-2008 by Springer]



posted on Jun, 6 2008 @ 12:04 PM
link   
reply to post by tomiuk
 


Well if you say so it must be fact!! No member of the DRT would twist or misconstrue the facts...we all know this is true from the quotes falsely attributed to Springer and the way the DRT has twisted infotechs experts report......tomi, I was raised by a law enforcement official....one who had no problem twisting facts to make sure the bad guys went to prison (and in one case made sure the perp never hurt another child again)...so please do not preach to me about how law enforcement works, I know firsthand!



posted on Jun, 6 2008 @ 12:09 PM
link   
reply to post by davidbiedny
 


db, may i ask for links to any of your official, or casual for that matter, visual investigative analyses on any other ufo photos or videos?



posted on Jun, 6 2008 @ 12:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by davidbiedny
Tomiuk,

Thankfully, I have a full and dynamic life, and don't intend on spending precious hours on a band of folks who desperately want to believe in these silly images. You sent stuff to a group at "Lucas studios" (you apparently can't be bothered to know the actual names of the companies you're trying to pull into this nonsense), and they told you, in a very nice way, to blow off, and you're surprised? Some hacks in a police department looked at them and decided that they weren't CG? Any their expertise in CG and visual effects is the result of what, watching Star Wars a few dozen times?

Listen, you can believe in anything you want, nothing that anyone will ever say can change your mind about your beliefs. Have fun, but if you think I'm going to play in your sandbox, think again. Thanks to The Paracast, I have access to some of the best minds considering these issues today, and I've had a really deep look into how the fringe element of this "field" behaves, and treats this subject like some sort of demented religion. As someone who has had some serious exposure to the legitimate, actual world of paranormal phenomena in my personal life, I have a finely-tuned bull# detector with regard to this subject, and I know a dud when I see one. If you're so hellbent on making this dud into your personal Jesus, have at it, but leave the rest of us out of it.

dB


Ok fine. I can see you will be no help at all in the graphics end of this. I can see you have put zero time into looking at the work already produced. Would you care to explain the lense effect seen in the Chad photo.. or do you not know about many aspects we have already uncovered as facts regarding these photos.

I guess you don't want to know, because your mind is made up and you don't care to share your insights. Ok.. well I promise that one day we will figure this mystery out. And when we do, I will take the facts we discover, and shove them so far up .... let's not go there..
I'm through trying with you David, I have a pretty keen bs detector too.



posted on Jun, 6 2008 @ 12:10 PM
link   
reply to post by tomiuk
 



"a more balanced perspective"

Did that actually come from Tomi? How ironic. Perhaps the DRT should follow her wise advice.



posted on Jun, 6 2008 @ 12:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by tomiuk
I have a pretty keen bs detector too.


Really?? And yet you follow the Queen of BS herself LMH and believe the nonsense she spouts as fact......me thinks your BS detector is on the fritz!!!!

[edit on 6-6-2008 by TheShadow]



posted on Jun, 6 2008 @ 12:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheShadow

Originally posted by tomiuk
I have a pretty keen bs detector too.


Really?? And yet you follow the Queen of BS herself LMH and believe the nonsense she spouts as fact......me thinks your BS detector is on the fritz!!!!

[edit on 6-6-2008 by TheShadow]


I would much rather have LMH as a person to work with in getting to the bottom of this mystery than allienating her. It does not make sense any other way does it??



posted on Jun, 6 2008 @ 12:39 PM
link   
reply to post by tomiuk
 


..Whats your take on the compositing evidence......

[edit on 6-6-2008 by CFandM]



posted on Jun, 6 2008 @ 12:39 PM
link   
reply to post by tomiuk
 


No it does not make sense knowing she is withholding vital information and using you and your group to increase her revenue! It only makes sense if it is a two way street...meaning if she is giving you as much info as you give her! Not to mention she does not even credit your group when you give her new witnesses and info she then uses to promote herself.

Dance puppet dance!!

Edit to add: And do you really think LMH wants to get to the bottom of this?? Why would she....when its proven to be a hoax her book sales will plummet faster than her credibilty already has!!

[edit on 6-6-2008 by TheShadow]

[edit on 6-6-2008 by TheShadow]



posted on Jun, 6 2008 @ 12:48 PM
link   
There she goes again, counseling a "balanced perspective!" Man, you don't get that kind of comedy for free anywhere else. Well, LMH doesn't charge for the current stuff, I guess.

This childish claptrap goes in cycles. Seems obvious that this outbreak was triggered by the server crash that took out the DRT's lifeline to constant reinforcement of their delusions. Maybe it will quiet down soon, and we can look at some interesting stuff that's turning up.

Tomi's BS would be a lot easier to tolerate if she would answer even the most basic and legitimate questions, but then the DRT doesn't even answer those when they are asked with great flattery and obsequiousness by their friends, so I don't know why we should expect anything from them.



posted on Jun, 6 2008 @ 01:20 PM
link   
My apologies for an ill mannered post that went beyond pale earlier . It happens when we keep speaking to walls.

Sys

[edit on 6-6-2008 by Sys_Config]



posted on Jun, 6 2008 @ 01:43 PM
link   
If there is anything remarkable about the DRT, it's just how small the person count is. I would say how small the numbers are, but there is potential confusion there. But anyway, I would expect such a cult of hard core believers, even after a year, to be made up of a couple dozen or so desperate souls. Instead we have just a few. Three are total crackpots (well, one is really more of a blowhard) and a few others who really should know better. In looking over some of the exchanges various intelligent people have had with the crackpots over the past year, it's clear they don't have much of a clue about reality in general. Again, I would expect more, and I think it is a testament to the intelligence of the general population of curious folk that hardly anyone fell for the hoax, ultimately. I am sure there are many others out there who have not yet made up their minds, or have forgotten about the silly business, but all this noise is coming from a tiny group of cultists. Even Heaven's Gate was bigger!




top topics



 
185
<< 305  306  307    309  310  311 >>

log in

join