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: 311
185
<< 308  309  310    312  313  314 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 7 2008 @ 01:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by tomiuk
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.


What are you telling me now? First you bless the world with your answers and than you start unbiased researches in your forum?

So what happens to your FAQs during that process? Do you change it after every new insight or do you "explain away" everything, that does not fit to your purported answers?

Maybe you just keep those multiple realities besides each other, like LMH just again put the Chad sighting on May 6th in her last report. To her it doesn't matter, that her different reports tell us different dates.

Why should the DRT bother about answers they gave before they started to research.




posted on Jun, 7 2008 @ 01:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by davidbiedny
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


Believe it or not, there would be a lot more appreciation of you over there if you would just show us the shadow inconsistencies instead of talking about them. Of course we will debate it, but it will not escape consideration and objectivity and it will help move this case along.

Same with anyone out there who says they see something, show us the anomaly. Any serious observations made demonstrable will be treated with all due respect.



posted on Jun, 7 2008 @ 01:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Siddharta

What are you telling me now? First you bless the world with your answers and than you start unbiased researches in your forum?



Our forum has always had people in it who are not staunch drone believers, but who actually think it may be hoaxed. The difference is they contribute to the research. The material produced is discussed openly and with respect for the effort involved regardless of the conclusion. Don't you read? Reader?

If there were shadow inconsistencies found in the Chad photos then the FAQ would reflect that finding.



posted on Jun, 7 2008 @ 01:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by tomiuk
Don't you read? Reader?


If I have to look into your FAQ every now and then to see, if anything has changed... No, than I don't. The first version was absolutely sufficient.



posted on Jun, 7 2008 @ 02:00 PM
link   


Same with anyone out there who says they see something, show us the anomaly. Any serious observations made demonstrable will be treated with all due respect.


Well the best researching tool that you have available at your disposal at the moment is Google..You and your group are the supposed researchers so use the typing skills that you seem to have and type away..its amazing what you find with the right string of text typed in the search box...I still have not seen most of the issues that were raised by others rather than the DRT..So find these by doing your own research and explain these evident facts away....or at least try..

If you cannot or have to ask others for their research then perhaps you should close down the site......Or take some serious study or learn how all kinds of software exactly works and how they affect not only images but the entire graphic and movie industry..Then can you get in the right frame of mind distinguishing between the real and fake photos........



posted on Jun, 7 2008 @ 02:02 PM
link   
reply to post by tomiuk
 


Even though I swore I wouldn't do your work for you it seems I must...

Here's your shadow problems tomi, just review good old "11 11's" posts and you'll find TONS of PROOF these images are fake.


www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

And then finally the proof of the edits in exif data...
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Please go find something that has at least a small chance of being REAL will ya?

Springer...


[edit on 6-7-2008 by Springer]



posted on Jun, 7 2008 @ 02:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Siddharta

Originally posted by tomiuk
Don't you read? Reader?


If I have to look into your FAQ every now and then to see, if anything has changed... No, than I don't. The first version was absolutely sufficient.


What changes continually until conclusions can be drawn, is the forum discussions, Reader. Doh!!



posted on Jun, 7 2008 @ 02:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Springer
reply to post by tomiuk
 


Even though I swore I wouldn't do your work for you it seems I must...

Here's your shadow problems tomi, just review good old "11 11's" posts and you'll find TONS of PROOF these images are fake.


www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com...
Springer...

[edit on 6-7-2008 by Springer]


Thank you very much Springer. We will certainly give it a good look with objective analysis. No squelch there. It's grateful I am to see an opinion here backed up by example. In CGI analysis it's a first for the dones. Let's hope it sets a precident for other's to provide what they see as well.
Thank you.



posted on Jun, 7 2008 @ 02:32 PM
link   


Originally posted by Springer

Even though I swore I wouldn't do your work for you it seems I must...



Almost seems like being in school and having that kid sitting next to you during a test who always leans over and looks at your paper..C'mon let me copy off your paper..


[edit on 7-6-2008 by CFandM]



posted on Jun, 7 2008 @ 02:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by tomiuk

Thank you very much Springer. We will certainly give it a good look with objective analysis. No squelch there. It's grateful I am to see an opinion here backed up by example. In CGI analysis it's a first for the dones. Let's hope it sets a precident for other's to provide what they see as well.
Thank you.


tomi, It is not a first for the drones as all that information has been here for a while....it is not new!! Had your research brought you with open eyes you might have found that without Springer having to post links that have been available to you all along!! All you had to do is read!!

Cant wait to see your team discredit them in the usual DRT fashion!



posted on Jun, 7 2008 @ 02:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by CFandM


Originally posted by Springer

Even though I swore I wouldn't do your work for you it seems I must...



Almost seems like being in school and having that kid sitting next to you during a test who always leans over and looks at your paper..C'mon let me copy off your paper..


[edit on 7-6-2008 by CFandM]


The incredible thing is she still gets them wrong because she can't copy right.
I have copied and posted the above into My library annex .
If you want to change to reading some hilarious conversations go to DL1027 (numbers) amazing youtube videos . The comments are more revealing than the videos for sure and explain the resonance effect in other forums and uselessness in arguing even with proof in their face.
www.youtube.com...



posted on Jun, 7 2008 @ 02:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by tomiuk

In CGI analysis it's a first for the dones. Let's hope it sets a precident for other's to provide what they see as well.
Thank you.


WHAT?!

It's been right here on ATS (like I told you a month ago), in THIS VERY THREAD for NINE MONTHS!

Honestly, I can't believe you lot have the cheek to use the word research in your group's name.


pfffft

Springer...

[edit on 6-7-2008 by Springer]



posted on Jun, 7 2008 @ 02:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Springer
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
Springer...


Issue 1: That study is an incomplete analysis, a jump to a conclusion, a simple assumption at best.

Read the real reason to why that fin shadow appears as it does. The assumption from your link of "11 11" is that the craft is parallel to the ground. In fact the craft is not at an angle of zero degrees. Read my analysis of the shadow and you will clearly see that lack of fin shadow is because the fin is pointing towards the Sun:

If you read the thread above at OMF, you will see another anomaly about shadows that has not yet been solved. I have not yet attempted to solve this issue which clearly is a complex multi-variable problem including determining factors of angles and distances of pole/craft/Sun/camera and Field of view.

Issue 2: Once again this "11 11" person assumes that the craft is parallel to the ground.

Have a nice reality.

Issue 3:You CAN have a shadow under the arm, without casting a shadow onto the body... PERIOD.



I will say to you now as you said to me before: Shadows! Shadows! Shadows!

Issue 4: EXIF tags are read into software, stored in RAM on the computer, then copied back to a file. In the case of the Raj images. a secondary program was used to read images from the camera before writing those images back to the disk. Do YOU know the exact path that the images took to get from the camera to you, NO. If a secondary utility is used to read images and that utility does recognize some EXIF tags, then it will not be able to read and copy those back to disk. If you want to read the exact EXIF, the you must directly copy the file from the camera and not use a secondary utility like Adobe xxx to read it. Unfortunately many computers today come with built in software that takes over the reading of cameras, also installing software like Adobe xxx usually takes over the chore of reading camera files and pulling them into an editor right away.

You have brought up two points; 1. shadows, and 2.computer data (EXIF), you have not provided answers, and neither has anyone else. Absence of answers does not mean absence of reality, at best this thread should be labelled [POSSIBLE HOAX].

PS. Accckk!! if you are so keen on learning the answer to anything, then why do you insist that OMF links be blocked, are you afraid it will disturb your preconceived conclusions. Oh well, tinyurl.com comes to the rescue here.



posted on Jun, 7 2008 @ 02:56 PM
link   
Wow!


I had decided to call it the Delirium Rehash Team, but they can't even do rehash with any competence. I'm starting to be embarrassed to even be in this conversation.

Here is a nice avatar for someone to use:





posted on Jun, 7 2008 @ 03:00 PM
link   
www.youtube.com...
Hmm sets a precedent for what they want to see she means I think.
On this you tube by numbers the comments section there reveals what happens when a Cgi person and The channel did that ufo hunters and a commenter references it. after his remarks a student replies.


GordonStudent (1 month ago) Show Hide 0 Marked as spam Reply Wow are you ever a JERK. Did I bother to watch? Sway opinion? Are you fkn for real?Look man, I believe in UFO's you don't have to sell me, I'm simply relaying what the dude on UFO Hunters said. You don't have to be SO RUDE. Wow man, settle down fireball, I'm sorry I posted anything at all. Do you treat everyone like this? Jeez, I'm an ally buddy you don't have to treat me like #, with these cases we need as many friends as we can. Change you attitude and know who the real enemies are.


I hope Springer they will allow us to move unimpeded towards the hoaxter
and will spend their energiy persuading Linda to release the pictures as well explain all the missing experts from Reyes, Joe, to Jim and Jack.
They are after all best friends with Linda.

PS I think it so appropriate that OTF responds with a cardboard box, the essence of their case. This is unbelievable. You have the patience of Job Springer. But at some point we have to move on past this.

[edit on 7-6-2008 by Sys_Config]



posted on Jun, 7 2008 @ 03:03 PM
link   
As I said: The first version of DRT's FAQ tells it all:

"Hasn't AboveTopSecret.com already proved this as a hoax?
No.
The ATS Internet forum, run by "Springer" is the gracious host of hoax-believers who constantly pat
themselves on the back for the great lengths they go to in providing; insults , baiting , snide remarks ,
ridicule , and mockery.
Not one of these people is capable of analysis of evidence, they all take the wildest obscure references
to the case and draw firm conclusions that it must be a hoax. What they call research is simply grasping
at nonsensical links to a hoax. No effort is ever provided or encouraged to analyze any possibility of
truth in this case.
Any challenge to their pro-hoax stand is swiftly knocked down by the members and administrators of
the forum.
To follow the thinking of this crowd is a dangerous blind trip over a cliff. Research the case for
yourself, analyze the supplied information, especially analyze the hoax points deeply to see if they
make the least bit of sense. You may be surprised what you find."

No need, to comment this at all...



posted on Jun, 7 2008 @ 03:12 PM
link   
reply to post by onthefence55
 


Just a couple of thoughts....There are plenty of ways to modify the Exif data..Also do you know for sure that a camera was even involved other than just the background being taken then the drone added later after the background had been processed...That would mean that the data stays in tact making it look like the drone was part of the original image....Then the compositing issue that I posted..Click on sys-config sig to find that......
Any thoughts....



posted on Jun, 7 2008 @ 03:14 PM
link   
All of this stuff would be moronic enough if we didn't have Kris's images and videos. He has proven beyond any reasonable doubt that the photos could have been done on someone's computer. With no evidence of any sort to back up the photos, they prove nothing. They do not need to be debunked. They are not even photos of UFOs unless you define UFO as Unclaimed Fake Object. All this chasing of tails over images that have no provenance and no substantiation is lame and embarrassing. The truth is to be found with the people here, just like in any paranormal case. They will eventually be found. As long as we keep feeding these trolls, they will continue to distract us, which is likely the point in the first place. Let them and their audience of three or four half wits have their little fantasy. They make fools of themselves without anyone else's help anyway.



posted on Jun, 7 2008 @ 03:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by onthefence55
you have not provided answers, and neither has anyone else. Absence of answers does not mean absence of reality, at best this thread should be labelled [POSSIBLE HOAX].


And abscence of witnesses, and absence of drones... How much absence are you going to accept, and how many explanations do you have in your drawer, to explain all the holes in every single story?

YOU are claiming the extraordinary and you are trying to prove it with a nice model made out of hard paper. 11 11 was quite close, when he reckoned the time, the photo was shot. But he was wrong with everything else?

Kris' demsonstrations are also very convincing. Are you rather following the little devil, who says Kris is manipulating people and it is not, as Kris says, because he just says so?

Where is Bren, btw? Gone with the wind? Where are Chad and Raj, where is Jack Sahakian? Why did the DRT not join Arthur, who was searching for young intelligent people?



posted on Jun, 7 2008 @ 03:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by CFandM
Just a couple of thoughts....There are plenty of ways to modify the Exif data..


Agreed, many possibilities exist.


Also do you know for sure that a camera was even involved


No. Does anyone know that a camera was not involved?


Then the compositing issue that I posted.


Do you have a diagram with larger lettering? The description text is quite small.

Also, please use the original images, rather than running them through interpolation re-scaling. The re-scaling you used performs averaging and makes detail where there was none.




top topics



 
185
<< 308  309  310    312  313  314 >>

log in

join