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: 310
185
<< 307  308  309    311  312  313 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 6 2008 @ 10:40 PM
link   
That's odd. I could have sworn you said,


Originally posted by spf33


so from here on out i'm going to have to assume that dB is a graphics expert only and hasn't any more business scientifically analyzing ufo photographs than i do.




Sorry. My mistake.

[edit on 6/6/08 by Double_Nought_Spy]




posted on Jun, 6 2008 @ 10:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by spf33
reply to post by davidbiedny
 


aaaand, i'll keep asking...can anyone provide links to mr. biedny's in depth visual analysis of any ufo photos?



I think it's been fairly well answered as to why there is no in depth analysis of the drone / Isaac images and won't be, from Mr Biedney.

Regarding the background of any previous analysis of ufo photo's it's a fair question but really, when the man's qualifications are well known, what's the relevance ?

The DRT label the man as an expert, there is now a direct on the record opinion.

Is there a particular expert with a background of ufo photo analysis that also needs to openly comment, Bruce Maccabee maybe ?

Not to say that further research and analysis shouldn't occur, quite the opposite, you yourself have done stellar work in that respect, but there was a momentary imbalance in the force that needed to be resolved


What's your background of in depth UFO photo analysis ?

[edit on 6-6-2008 by chunder]



posted on Jun, 6 2008 @ 11:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by spf33
reply to post by nfotech
 


all these words, words, words...i all ask for is a simple link to the man's existing work that's not even related to drones.

jebus. my blood pressure rises coming to this place...



I know what you mean, I go to some sites and it's just pictures, pictures, pictures !



posted on Jun, 6 2008 @ 11:58 PM
link   
Breaking News!

New drone witnesses come forward.

Nemo pm'ed me

www.youtube.com...



posted on Jun, 7 2008 @ 12:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by chunder
I think it's been fairly well answered as to why there is no in depth analysis...
Regarding the background of any previous analysis of ufo photo's...what's the relevance ?


yes, i have been aware now for over a year why there is no db in depth analysis.
it would be nice to see, but i completely understand his position.

relevence? to you none, obviously.
to me, just to gain insight into his methods, skill levels, intelligence, you know, the standard stuff for me personally to decide how much weight to give his opinion. honestly, i'd never heard of the man before coming to ats so i have no idea where he's coming from other than him and other people telling me that he's an expert. ok, an expert at what? graphics, sure. i can read the resume.
any in depth ufo analysis, not so much.



Bruce Maccabee maybe ?


after having heard maccabee on c2c back in april with gk, i would enjoy reading a drone analysis performed by him. i'd never had the occasion to really listen to an interview with him before and really enjoyed his style.



What's your background of in depth UFO photo analysis ?


may 2007 to current (the drones)


[edit on 7-6-2008 by spf33]



posted on Jun, 7 2008 @ 01:34 AM
link   
You are in advantage, spf,

there is a search engine called google and there are even others. You can find a few things about people with real names there, seeing what they say and do.

It is a little more difficult with people who participate in the drone dilemma since the beginning and only exist as avatars, demanding real experts must be able to recreate the drones, stating, recreations don't prove, the real thing is a recreation, asking for analyses for free... and so on.

Now you say, you want some proof that David is not only an expert, but has worked in UFO analyses before? Why not go one step further: If he never saw a drone, than he can't be an expert at all!


[edit on 7-6-2008 by Siddharta]



posted on Jun, 7 2008 @ 07:39 AM
link   
Just to clarify, most of the UFO image analysis I've done has been confidential, though the NARCAP report on the O'Hare case does indeed acknowledge me openly (along with Jeff Ritzmann, my research partner in UFO/paranormal image analysis). I've done stuff for UFO magazine and George Knapp and a couple of other privtae individuals, but again, none of my work for them has been made public. As far as my background, as someone else mentioned, feel free to search my name on Google and do some homework. I've only been involved in the UFO "field" for a little over two years, before that, I was totally discrete about my experiences - and interest - in the realms of paranormal phenomena.

dB

[edit on 7-6-2008 by davidbiedny]

[edit on 7-6-2008 by davidbiedny]



posted on Jun, 7 2008 @ 09:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by davidbiedny
Just to clarify, most of the UFO image analysis I've done has been confidential, though the NARCAP report on the O'Hare case does indeed acknowledge me openly (along with Jeff Ritzmann, my research partner in UFO/paranormal image analysis). I've done stuff for UFO magazine and George Knapp and a couple of other privtae individuals, but again, none of my work for them has been made public. As far as my background, as someone else mentioned, feel free to search my name on Google and do some homework. I've only been involved in the UFO "field" for a little over two years, before that, I was totally discrete about my experiences - and interest - in the realms of paranormal phenomena.

dB

[edit on 7-6-2008 by davidbiedny]

[edit on 7-6-2008 by davidbiedny]


You could easily provide an example of your analysis skills by telling us where there are shadow inconsistencies here:
i240.photobucket.com...

As I've said, we can't find any, and it would certainly be appreicated if you could explain where they are and why.. Thanks



posted on Jun, 7 2008 @ 09:46 AM
link   
tomiuk,

Do you not understand that I WILL NOT do any work for you or your group?

You're not interested in uncovering any kind of objective truth about this situation, you want someone to agree with you and keep this delusion afloat. If you're involved with that DRT site - I honestly don't know if you are or not - their tagline is that they don't want someone to prove it's a hoax, they want some to prove it's legitimate. Their bias is right upfront.

So go have fun with this nonsense, I won't be playing along. To quote John Stewart, "I AM NOT YOUR MONKEY". Comprende?

dB



posted on Jun, 7 2008 @ 09:46 AM
link   
reply to post by davidbiedny
 


thank you for taking the time to explain. i do hope and would look forward to seeing any of your past detailed analyses made publicly available.



posted on Jun, 7 2008 @ 09:51 AM
link   
reply to post by murnut
 


Too bad Nemo doesn't have a switch like that. The robot's English is pretty good.



posted on Jun, 7 2008 @ 10:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by davidbiedny
tomiuk,

Do you not understand that I WILL NOT do any work for you or your group?

You're not interested in uncovering any kind of objective truth about this situation, you want someone to agree with you and keep this delusion afloat. If you're involved with that DRT site - I honestly don't know if you are or not - their tagline is that they don't want someone to prove it's a hoax, they want some to prove it's legitimate. Their bias is right upfront.

So go have fun with this nonsense, I won't be playing along. To quote John Stewart, "I AM NOT YOUR MONKEY". Comprende?

dB



I do understand where you are coming from because I can see you have really gotten the wrong end of the stick with regard to DRT. If I had the mistaken impression about DRT that you have, I wouldn't want to reveal what I see either.

But that's why I'm here to clarify.. DRT recently responded to your request for membership in their forum by telling you that we look forward to your contributions and ask you to please remember this is strictly a research forum and and not a venue for biased opinions.

Does that sound like a group of people who would not be interested in your contribution towards shadow inconsistencies? If you look through the forum, which you obviously have, where do you see issues like this not being freely discussed and analysed.

Now you are claiming you will not be a trained monkey for DRT. But.. in good faith we accepted your membership and looked forward to some insights from you.

It seems as if there is a lot of inconsistencies of shadows here... more than we've been able to find on the drones so far.

[edit on 7-6-2008 by tomiuk]



posted on Jun, 7 2008 @ 11:33 AM
link   
Tomi is here to Clarify!


'Fess up, Tomi, you are a writer for SNL or something!

btw, since Numbers got spanked and has nowhere to spew at the moment, why don't you ask him if he still has that red dress and those heels. You two make an awesome team, and since we can't seem to get anything useful done with you around, we might as well have your partner to hoot at, too.



posted on Jun, 7 2008 @ 11:46 AM
link   
reply to post by tomiuk
 


So DB applied for membership to the DRT?? Really?
tomi actions speak louder than words. If the DRT truly is committed to finding out the truth regardless of what it is why do you and your cohorts continually attack anyone that doesnt agree that the drones are real?? Why is every post on that ridiculous forum pro drone with posts like "Good research" following every pro drone post? Why has the DRT not released any evidence that may suggest the drones are a hoax? Why has there not been an update from your crack team of PIs recently? Why is your boss Nemo using OM as a spamming grounds LMHs website (4 posts in 4 threads in less than 24 hours advertising her new drone witnesses LOL) And why do you continually come here to distract those that really are searching for the truth and the culprits??



posted on Jun, 7 2008 @ 11:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by tomiuk

But that's why I'm here to clarify.. DRT recently responded to your request for membership in their forum by telling you that we look forward to your contributions and ask you to please remember this is strictly a research forum and and not a venue for biased opinions.


You should read your own FAQs again:

"This document explains away the many claims of hoax against the drone case."

This is the very first sentence unless you didn't change it meanwhile.



posted on Jun, 7 2008 @ 11:58 AM
link   
reply to post by Siddharta
 


Thanks, Sidd. I hesitate to mention this because we keep helping them by pointing out the most idiotic of their statements so they can change them and possibly fool some poor sap for a few minutes longer, but. The phrase "explain away" is yet another Freudian slip that gives away their true intentions. The phrase is used almost exclusively in a derogatory sense when describing something like the DRT. For example, "All this evidence is explained away by the Delirium Research Team as having come from some people who don't believe in the reality of the drones, and therefore can't possibly be thinking clearly."

Man, I wish these anal pores would go back where they belong. I'm starting to feel like one of the cool kids who gets his jollies by making fun of the retards.



posted on Jun, 7 2008 @ 12:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Double_Nought_Spy
The phrase "explain away" is yet another Freudian slip that gives away their true intentions. The phrase is used almost exclusively in a derogatory sense when describing something like the DRT. For example, "All this evidence is explained away by the Delirium Research Team as having come from some people who don't believe in the reality of the drones, and therefore can't possibly be thinking clearly."


Thanx back to you,

I have been wondering about this from the first moment, I read it. In my language it would be an insult, to say, someone is trying to explain away things.

So they even try to corrupt my efforts, learning English.



posted on Jun, 7 2008 @ 12:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Siddharta

Originally posted by tomiuk

But that's why I'm here to clarify.. DRT recently responded to your request for membership in their forum by telling you that we look forward to your contributions and ask you to please remember this is strictly a research forum and and not a venue for biased opinions.


You should read your own FAQs again:

"This document explains away the many claims of hoax against the drone case."

This is the very first sentence unless you didn't change it meanwhile.


Sidd you are confused.. go sit down dear.. I will bring you a nice hot cup of tea..


Sidd that document is the DRT faq. It has nothing to do with the conditions of being a member of our forum and posting there.

We would like to have someone come up and say, here .. take a look at this... indisputable proof this picture was faked ! Believe me.. it would be better than never having any answer at all.. We look for all facts.



posted on Jun, 7 2008 @ 12:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by tomiuk
We look for all facts.


Yes and then omit anything that does not point to the drones being real!!



posted on Jun, 7 2008 @ 01:01 PM
link   
i did indeed apply for ACCESS to the DRT forums, as I was notified by a couple of vigilant folks that there was a thread with my name on it, and I wanted to be able to have access to the forums in case I needed to defend myself. I was certainly not under the impression that requesting access to the forums would make me part of the "team". I have no interest in spending any time on this, beyond my posts right here, as I honestly don't think that the "drones" are anything beyond a colossal prank. So if you thought I was applying for access to contribute to your "research", feel free to cancel my membership.

dB



new topics

top topics



 
185
<< 307  308  309    311  312  313 >>

log in

join