[HOAX] Isaac CARET - Drones [HOAX]

reply to post by Double_Nought_Spy


I agree I think yall are getting close to busting this HOAX wide open and they are scared to death of being found out as the fraudulent researchers they are!! So they come here and cause a distraction, knowing as long as all y'all real researchers are fighting with them the hoax goes on, the book gets written and the drone queen (LMH) cashes in!!

The mentality I see demonstrated by them is the same as that of those who will present all kinds of data and drawings that the holocaust never happened. The data is already there, they know it, and re-arrange revise to suit their agenda .It takes unfortunatey actions that prevent a toxic contamination into the pool of sound reason or common sense. They use our own goodwill and manners against us. This pattern is all too familar today. Not once have they answered the questions on the real essence, the people that were, are, and continue this hoax. Its not fair to us that we have to stay pinned even after we have told them where to go, did the work, and they continue on this bizarre topic and complain about our policies blocking certain links. Wise move given all this.
Frankly, I am stymied at whats occurring.

reply to post by onthefence55


You're not serious about that cardboard "drone" are you?

Look at your fin, it's got the thin profile facing the light.

Come on ITF, that's not even funny, it's just ridiculous. You've got the bloody drone standing on it's END for crying out loud! The composited, CGI drone in the image may have been a few degrees off of perpendicular to the power pole but it sure as heck is NOT parallel to the pole.

Your little round nub IS casting a shadow on the fat part behind it by the way.

Just a pitiful example IMHO... But then, I don't need these fake drones to be real...

Springer...

[edit on 6-7-2008 by Springer]

Originally posted by Double_Nought_Spy
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.

Finally the right word has come to me to describe the big difference I see that the original drones have over anything cgi created and that is the word character.

The original drones have character, that is something you can not achieve with cgi. Character comes from real life not from an airbrush or a pixel.
There is a hard character about the drones.. like they have seen a bit too much.. or maybe I'm getting carried away with this idea..

Originally posted by onthefence55
Issue 2: Once again this "11 11" person assumes that the craft is parallel to the ground.

Why would 0ne assume that craft is parallel to the ground when you can easily get 2 of Rajman1977's images of the drone over the telephone pole, and superimpose them on top of each other and CLEARLY see that the craft supposedly "tilted" its arm towards the ground which would make the missing shadow even more noticeable?

Take this image:
www.paranormalfiles.co.uk...

Superimpose this image on top of it:
www.paranormalfiles.co.uk...

And you get something like this:


It's not a 100% accurate superimposition, but it is accurate enough to see the drone's main arm is pointed towards the ground and the shadow is still missing.

Not only that, you can compare the major mistakes the CGI noobs made. Not only are the 3 little arms shorter on the second image compared to the first image. But the second image also shows lighting that should not exist under the drone. It also shows coloration that should not exist.

Supposedly the two pictures were taken seconds apart (exif data). Yet, the comparison of both pictures shows major differences in color, size, angle, position, lighting, and shadows and even rendition settings. Why such major differences between two pictures?? Take a guess...

Look at the size difference's between both the drones in the superimposed image. It's only obvious the CGI noobs couldn't tackle 0ne of the hardest techniques in CGI which is the consistency of 3 dimensional positioning in fake environments.

....there is more proof where that came from.

p.s. Have a nice humiliating hoax.

@ Siddharta
I don't see any holes that require filling. I see some questions that we are ALL searching answers to.

@ But he (11 11) was wrong with everything else?
What else, nothing up there that I did not already explain away. I've read all his stuff before, you care to point something specific out?


@ Kris' demsonstrations?
IMO CGI is made of pixels on a screen, CG software can put pixels on a screen. Believe what you will, I believe that given enough time, any artist can create the drone images. How long do you think it would take Paul Signac to make all the drone images. I bet he is your hoaxer, oh wait, he's dead. Well, maybe he has some students or offspring that you could look up.

I am not the keeper of Brent, or Chad, or Raj. So I cannot answer for them, can you?

Why should I care about Arthur? What does he know about the drones besides the stuff that he and I both read?

reply to post by ALLis0NE


Outstanding AllisOne, simply outstanding, I wanted to click more stars but it only lets me do one.But these people are immune to reason..They are like a combination Wolfman and Dracula, it will take a Silver railroad spike to the heart to kill this absurdity.




[edit on 7-6-2008 by Sys_Config]

Originally posted by onthefence55

I am not the keeper of Brent, or Chad, or Raj. So I cannot answer for them, can you?

I can take a guess here and be fairly certain of my accuracy.

Brent: Is a wagon jumper that saw an opportunity to advance his awesome airbrush career since his love affair with Tonya Harding didn't work out!

Chad and Raj are probably the same person (or at the very least friends) and if they can be located we can collectively beat these hoaxers arses!!

Originally posted by ALLis0NE
p.s. Have a nice humiliating hoax.

If the time comes, I'll have my crow cooked, If your time comes, how would you like yours?

Originally posted by onthefence55

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.

Perhaps get a larger monitor or set your res to 800x600...Then you will be able to see the lettering...This can also be seen in the image that you have on the DRT site..Also in the image on the omf site....It does not add any
pixels that are not already present....Unless the ones on your site somehow had pixels added to them....So take a look at those and grab some knowledge of this subject....pixels2life is a good site for tutorials....

Originally posted by onthefence55
If the time comes, I'll have my crow cooked, If your time comes, how would you like yours?

Is this above quote what people say when they have been pwned? I think soooo....


[edit on 7-6-2008 by ALLis0NE]

Originally posted by Springer
Just a pitiful example IMHO...

But then, I don't need these fake drones to be real...[edit on 6-7-2008 by Springer]

I don't NEED the drones to be real either, but I have not seen any proof that they are fake. So, when provided with some proof, then I will believe.

PS. Thank you for deleting my signature, while you allow sysconfig to link to a song implying that DRT are A**holes.

The only reason I respond here is that the DRT continues to get slammed here for no reasonable reason. And I am just trying to provide some answers to questions being brought forth here.

From your U2U: "If your signature contained offensive material, or content that conflicts with our Terms & Conditions, you are likely also placed on global ignore which means no one can see your posts."

Is the dronteam website that offensive to ATS?

Originally posted by Siddharta
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?

Trying to establish proof by asserting your "talking points" is hardly in the same league as the research conducted by Fence.

You are deploying yor ad hominem abusive tactics so nobody realises you haven't got a clue what Fence is describing and little could you care..

Even I studied this a while back and make posts on it. I estimated the sun angle to be 25 to 30 degrees and just as Frence has said, there is no requirement of a shadow directly under the fin. I have recreated this shadow and sun angle test with a clothes drying rack..

What have you done??? Eh?? eh??

reply to post by onthefence55

Perhaps you care where the money is coming from, and with Didier and His People like UFO author Thibaubaut (ck sp), who owns where Didier is at.and noted French hoaxers like thierry Speth still out there, and die hard promoters like yourself refusing even with "the Money" to send it to independent laboratory, and spare everyone the nonense, one could argue well you and Didier are behind the hoax, as not once have you pressed for the evidence of pictures, and you are a fanatic of pictures, this is a great contradiction. In fact very early on in UCB it was a french poster, bison16 who appeared promoting the drones on vertually every forum and youtube iand several languages. and its is just your little circle with LMH and ovnis pushing this contrary to the evidence of absent witnesses, lying witnesses, Lying Investigators, missing experts, missing pictures, and tampered pictures. How much fake do you need?

That is my opinion, but I think more are in agreement with me, than they are with you, and quite frankly, the rest of the world that looked once, simled, and kept going, are the lucky ones, and probably the smarter of us both.
Good day.




[edit on 7-6-2008 by Sys_Config]

reply to post by Siddharta


When you go to register at the DRT site...you must agree to this in particular

This DRT forum was created for the discussion of the reality of the drones.
Other forums exist for hoax discussion.

This is a research forum ... not meant for opinions. You agree, through your use of this forum, that you will not post any material which is false, defamatory, inaccurate, abusive, vulgar, hateful, harassing, obscene, profane, sexually oriented, threatening, invasive of a person's privacy, adult material, or otherwise in violation of any International or United States Federal law. ......

Fair and balanced...yeah right

No opinions allowed except approve opinions.

Sounds like a cult

Originally posted by murnut
reply to post by Siddharta

 

When you go to register at the DRT site...you must agree to this in particular

This DRT forum was created for the discussion of the reality of the drones.
Other forums exist for hoax discussion.

This is a research forum ... not meant for opinions. You agree, through your use of this forum, that you will not post any material which is false, defamatory, inaccurate, abusive, vulgar, hateful, harassing, obscene, profane, sexually oriented, threatening, invasive of a person's privacy, adult material, or otherwise in violation of any International or United States Federal law. ......

Fair and balanced...yeah right

No opinions allowed except approve opinions.

Sounds like a cult

Under those guidelines not even the Drones can apply!

reply to post by onthefence55


OTF your drone team would not be mentioned here ever if your attack dog tomi was not constantly over here distracting the ARC investigation........ your site offers nothing that interests any reasonable person.

Originally posted by onthefence55
@ Siddharta
I don't see any holes that require filling. I see some questions that we are ALL searching answers to.

Maybe you were too busy with the pictures and didn't read any of the texts.

@ But he (11 11) was wrong with everything else?
What else, nothing up there that I did not already explain away. I've read all his stuff before, you care to point something specific out?

You explained it away? In my language this means, I don't have any knowledge and I don't know what I am talking about, thus I explain it away. As double's just confirmed, it is also used in this sense in the English language - which I was not sure of.

@ Kris' demsonstrations?
IMO CGI is made of pixels on a screen, CG software can put pixels on a screen. Believe what you will, I believe that given enough time, any artist can create the drone images. How long do you think it would take Paul Signac to make all the drone images. I bet he is your hoaxer, oh wait, he's dead. Well, maybe he has some students or offspring that you could look up.

I don't have to answer to that stupid comment, do I? It is far below your own style.

I am not the keeper of Brent, or Chad, or Raj. So I cannot answer for them, can you?

You know the answer yourself. Brent just looked for attention. Cahd and Raj don't dare to talk too much, because they realized, they could damage their pretty game.

Why should I care about Arthur? What does he know about the drones besides the stuff that he and I both read?

Because an intelligent man with much experience promised a research? I myself was curious, but when I saw, what kind of research he meant, I was disappointed.

Tomi only lurked over there, waiting for some drone, maybe, never got active.

Now, I think we have discussed enough about your problems with reality here. It is not necessary to fill 50 more pages with the "confessions of a believer".

Prove your statements or keep that discussion at that little page over there. It leads to nothing, telling us, why you are a member of the church. This won't make us convert at all.

reply to post by Sys_Config


Don't forget making legal threats against anyone asking questions about profit motive. First the DRT makes a post about writing a book, then they ignore every question about it for weeks and then they want to sue anyone who refers back to their own post (which has been deleted, by the way).

Back when the cardboard drone experiment took place I remember noticing the test drone had been offset 20 degrees vs the alleged angle in the pic. No one wanted to answer that question though.

Originally posted by tomiuk
I have recreated this shadow and sun angle test with a clothes drying rack..

What have you done??? Eh?? eh??

I put my guinea pigs in the fridge for an hour and washed them with 60° afterwards. Than I dried them on the balcony and wrote some alien lettering on them.

Sadly all the results of my research were lost, when the cat ate them...

I will try again as soon as I found some new guinea pigs.