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: 322
185
<< 319  320  321    323  324  325 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 11 2008 @ 01:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by spf33
they can take care of themselves, i batter weak arguments and opinions.


Is that why you completly ignored these posts?? Because they are strong and not weak?

www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

SPF33, do you understand the true nature of the post below? Do you understand what kind of tool it was?

www.abovetopsecret.com...




posted on Jun, 11 2008 @ 01:07 PM
link   
reply to post by spf33
 


What is not cool? Sys pointing out the glaring similarities between your known work and the drones??

Can not deny that their are many dronesque and isaac-like features in your previous work!!





[edit on 11-6-2008 by TheShadow]



posted on Jun, 11 2008 @ 01:26 PM
link   
reply to post by TheShadow
 


That second one from the top is really interesting. I'd be pretty worried too, if I were in his position and had Isaac's desktop buried in my portfolio!



posted on Jun, 11 2008 @ 01:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by ALLis0NE
Because they are strong and not weak?
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...


i'm sorry, i've explained the first already.
the missing shadow has been noted, and yes
i put this info in the hoax column. but i'm still not convinced there aren't
some alignment issues that can be resolved resulting in no shadow being cast.

the second link has been discussed at omf as well. go there and read my opinion.



SPF33, do you understand the true nature of the post below? Do you understand what kind of tool it was?
www.abovetopsecret.com...


this links to your post asking me if i am the hoaxer?
no, i am not.


Originally posted by TheShadow
What is not cool? Sys pointing out the glaring similarities between your known work and the drones??


no, sys posting my work which can identify me. specifically disregarding my request to remain anon.



Can not deny that their are many dronesque and isaac-like features in your previous work!!


no, i can't deny it. i accept the accusation of lifelong interest of ufos and art.
ask my mom and dad, who are both aware of my investigating the drones here at ats and omf. hi mom! hi dad!

part of the fascination with drones is because of this very fact. ask fence, i gave him the link to all my work after the steven photos went up, a year ago, in a paranoia that someone knew who i was, found my work and was poking fun at me. i still feel that for other reasons currently...
and i was worried that if anyone were to see my old work they would instantly do what is happening here right this moment.



posted on Jun, 11 2008 @ 01:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Double_Nought_Spy
reply to post by TheShadow
 


That second one from the top is really interesting. I'd be pretty worried too, if I were in his position and had Isaac's desktop buried in my portfolio!


Yea One word comes to mind........ BUSTED!!!

Looks like Syscy doo and the gang solved the case of the hoaxed drone!! Time to get in the van, have some scooby snacks and wait for the next mystery to unfold....... perhaps it will be the case of Anon 6 and the Serponauts



posted on Jun, 11 2008 @ 01:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by spf33
i'm sorry, i've explained the first already.
the missing shadow has been noted, and yes
i put this info in the hoax column. but i'm still not convinced there aren't
some alignment issues that can be resolved resulting in no shadow being cast.

the second link has been discussed at omf as well. go there and read my opinion.


I'm sorry SPF33 but I am only a member at AboveTopSecret.com and not any other forum. Would you mind explaining your views on this thread?

Also, I highly doubt you explained away the green question mark on my second link.

How do you explain the major difference in color saturation between both of the Rajman1977 images? The color of the wood doesn't match, yet the same camera was used, and the pictures were taken only seconds apart.

It seems like you love to "tip toe" around the strong arguments and only attack weak 0nes.



posted on Jun, 11 2008 @ 01:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by ALLis0NE
Would you mind explaining your views on this thread?


well if you weren't so rude i might. otherwise, it's on omf.



Also, I highly doubt you explained away the green question mark on my second link.


2 things. 1. unknown photo history, did raj or his brother try to clean up the photos before going public? 2. go out with a cheap digicam and take a few photos of poles from different angles. get some motion blur in there, change your orientation to the sun, etc. i think you will find lots of differences along the lines of what you are seeing in the green area.



The color of the wood doesn't match, yet the same camera was used, and the pictures were taken only seconds apart.


i think the differences are allowed for the circumstances. they don't appear too dissimilar enough for me to cry hoax.



It seems like you love to "tip toe" around the strong arguments and only attack weak 0nes.


perhaps. who doesn't? i attempt to remain fair all the time.

[edit on 11-6-2008 by spf33]



posted on Jun, 11 2008 @ 02:27 PM
link   
You know what I have been an admiter of your work even before I discovered those.
But reading everything you have said it keeps coming back to the same like these workds of yours



i see no proof that the objects in these photos are any of the things mentioned.

i see no proof that the photos are anything beyond what they are reported to be.

i see no proof that the photos are as real as they claim to be.

which is why i'm still here after a year with hundreds of hours of thought and consideration and hundreds of illustrative studies later.
« Last Edit: Jun 6, 2008, 10:51pm by spf33

hope your 2 other teams have a more reliable history than the darmouth\hany farid team.


the usg doesn't even have a clue when it comes to cg manipulated photographs.


U.S. District Judge Nancy Gertner in Massachusetts ruled on August 11 and November 22, 2006;

"If photographic experts as a general matter are inadequate to the task of identifying computer-generated images, then no level of experience in that field will suffice to qualify one as an expert"


To you, wanting to keep this going, is like the same thing Lev said a year ago.
But this has taken on a new dimension for me. A good friend, A good Guy. A great guy left his job, becuase of the pressures of your group.
rather than see it encouraged and promoted, he so loved truth, he said no more.
You its is a game. My name is on a nice marquis saying I am a hacker when I am not. I can barely keyboard. But because I said hack tools, that made me a hacker, saying I was about to get info illegaly.

How can you talk of defamation. We have been hurt far worse than you.
What does it make you.
When your own words show you have such a contempt for others who know more, at least as much, and know very well this is a hoax.

I will tell you what.
I will take these pictures down. I will not post the link and other contacts I have uncovered.
You say your mom and dad looking, Then do the right thing by them, if you care for no one else.
That they raised an honest boy to be be an honest man
Answer this mans questions , and put an end to this charade.
Now.
I then decide what to do.
I believe in honorable endings.
Do not disappoint me.
I do keep my word.

Manuel aka Sys



[edit on 11-6-2008 by Sys_Config]



posted on Jun, 11 2008 @ 02:39 PM
link   
reply to post by spf33
 


Hi spf,

as far as I understand you here, you say, okay, it looks very bloody, for your old works remind very much to IsaacCaret.
You also say, okay, I have to answer those questions about the Rajman account.

And I also understand you that way, that you say, if the presented model was your's, than it would indeed be suspicious, but it was rwiggin's.

What does this mean to you about rwiggins then? I took a review and saw, he did participate in the CGI debate before he came to the conclusion that it is neither helpful nor necessary. But the old pics seem to be deleted now. And I only find serious research done by him.

Secondly does that mean, you accept Wayne's finding? You did not try to say, they are due to jpg compression, as you served the DRT "their" explanation.

BTW the funniest thing I found in that thread was the example with the ceiling fan, which made Nemo write about Wayne:

"He was SO confident about this one... Just needed a ceiling fan to look at."

Haha! That sentence could make history. I called the Chad drone a ceiling fan from the very first moment. "Just needed a ceiling fan to look at."



posted on Jun, 11 2008 @ 02:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sys_Config
To you, wanting to keep this going, is like the same thing Lev said a year ago.


i want to keep this going until it is resolved one way or another, where is the crime in that?



But this has taken on a new dimension for me. A good friend, A good Guy. A great guy left his job, becuase of the pressures of your group. rather than see it encouraged and promoted, he so loved truth, he said no more.


ok, for the last time. i'm not officially part of the drt, i do better in my own group of one with input and conversation with members of the drt, omf, and ats.

what you are saying is unfortunate and i have no details about it so it's tough for me to comment on. perhaps a pm. i in no way wish to cause that kind of harm by simply looking at and commenting on ufo pictures.



I believe in honorable endings.


manny, if there is only one thing you can be absolutely sure of in this whole drone case it is this; i am not the hoaxer and i had not one iota to do with creating any fake drone photographs. i promise you that on my honor, sir.

-sean



posted on Jun, 11 2008 @ 03:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Siddharta
What does this mean to you about rwiggins then?


it doesn't mean anything about rwiggins.
am i not being clear?
i checked and the model, the file, the scene i created a year ago using what i think is rwiggins model has the nubs aligned.

there is no misalignment of the geometry itself.

the misalignment only appears as perspective foreshortening thru the camera.



Secondly does that mean, you accept Wayne's finding? You did not try to say, they are due to jpg compression, as you served the DRT "their" explanation.


no, i do not accept waynes opinion.
jpg distortion is only a possibility or in combination with other possibilities, as is lens barrelling\pincushioning, as is perspective foreshortening.



posted on Jun, 11 2008 @ 03:03 PM
link   
admin edit: We don't allow links to sites that promote hoaxes.

[edit on 6-11-2008 by Springer]



posted on Jun, 11 2008 @ 03:06 PM
link   
reply to post by spf33
 


So you are saying if you were the hoaxer, you would just admit it at this point and accept that you're busted? I doubt it. Your denial does not erase the suspicion surrounding you, your art work or your involvement, from upgrading flickr to being involved in this drone hoax since day one.



posted on Jun, 11 2008 @ 03:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by tomiuk
If you want current and accurate information about the research of the drones and Isaac saga, you can't do any better than to visit this site and read up: ...


I nearly spilled my drink all over the keyboard. Thanks for the best laugh I've had all day.


[edit on 11-6-2008 by s_q_t]



posted on Jun, 11 2008 @ 03:24 PM
link   
Did anyone actually check to see if some random credit card holder could really upgrade someone else's account on Flickr? I wondered that at the time, but I don't recall seeing any verification of it.



posted on Jun, 11 2008 @ 03:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Anonymous ATS
So you are saying if you were the hoaxer, you would just admit it at this point and accept that you're busted? I doubt it. Your denial does not erase the suspicion surrounding you, your art work or your involvement, from upgrading flickr to being involved in this drone hoax since day one.


i have no idea what a hoaxer would do when confronted.

he surely wouldn't be putting a link to his personal website in his ats profile if he\she had something to hide.

i deleted the link to my site on ats a few months ago in anticipation of being accused - ask springer.

why did this just now come up?

you are free to suspect me as i am free to suspect sys because of his constant shinning of the spotlight on the case.



posted on Jun, 11 2008 @ 03:28 PM
link   
reply to post by Double_Nought_Spy
 


I had wondered the same thing and there was a short discussion over at OMF about it. It turns out that, althought it's not possible anymore, at one point you apparently could "gift upgrade" someone's Flickr account without their knowledge or acceptance.



posted on Jun, 11 2008 @ 03:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by ALLis0NE

Is that why you completly ignored these posts?? Because they are strong and not weak?

www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

SPF33, do you understand the true nature of the post below? Do you understand what kind of tool it was?

www.abovetopsecret.com...


Look, this has gone too far. Allisone, let me clue you in.. the reason why nobody jumped on your examples above, is because they are so obviously wrong.. ok??

As someone said who has better things to do than bang his head against a wall like this .. "basically allisone asked how can two
photographs taken at different angles with auto lighting be showing
different angles with different lighting. haha, is he marvin?"

I say no.. he is not marvin, allisone is someone who like many here is exhibiting the exact kind of behavior they are campaigning against..
Your twisted display of the two drones does not show the sun angle accurately. Also the pole. I'm not a modeling or CGI expert, and it's obvious to me. I was going to do a work-up of this last night, and I'm sure others were thinking the same.. but then it is such an obvious blunder that I'm sure many like me just said why bother..

So please get off your high horse and it would be nice to treat Spf33 with a certain amount of respect. He is not a dronie and anyone with any brains at all knows he is not THE hoaxer.. what a joke this logic is to begin with.. A complete waste of time, unless grandstanding is your idea of a career move.



[edit on 11-6-2008 by tomiuk]



posted on Jun, 11 2008 @ 03:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by tomiuk I'm not a modeling or CGI expert...


I don't think you need to point that out, tomi...


[edit on 11-6-2008 by s_q_t]



posted on Jun, 11 2008 @ 04:04 PM
link   
reply to post by tomiuk
 


Here is an interesting document that has been around for a while:

www.apa.org...

Two warnings-- it's a PDF and it is written by experts.




top topics



 
185
<< 319  320  321    323  324  325 >>

log in

join