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: 323
185
<< 320  321  322    324  325  326 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 11 2008 @ 04:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by spf33
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.


Spf33, I know you don't need anyone standing up for you, but this cries to be answered by a third party and I volunteer.

First of all.. all that has really happened is you have now joined a very elite group.. of the many people accused by this ragtag team of being THE hoaxer.. You have joined the ranks of many.. Geeze, there is even a girl in this group because she called herself "spirals".. Any similiarity at all to anything even remotely close in appearance to this drone saga and they all over them like a wet suits.. I'm amazed they haven't been hit with restraint orders yet...

Ok.. maybe it's an eclectic group.. you have spirals, Mead, Lev... a poor professor, and about 20 others who this team has labeled THE hoaxer.. Suffering loves company.. you are not alone


[edit on 11-6-2008 by tomiuk]




posted on Jun, 11 2008 @ 04:09 PM
link   
reply to post by spf33
 


Hi again, spf,

I know, you are confronted with a lot right now and tomi's help is rather damaging at that point.

But still I want to repeat my question: Did you buy that hacker story of Rajman's account shortly after you updated it?

And another question, which arose after reading your answers: Are you ONLY a pictures guy or did you also read the testimonies and the document? And if so, did you never have doubts? You are not DRT, I know, but do you follow their way to explain away the questions, which came up?

Since there are too many, I don't want to repeat them all. Let's just take a look at the first witness, Chad, who saw the drone very often, never brought anything new and than dissapeared, and the last witness, Bren, who airbrushed some nice pictures, followed the invitation to come to DRT, instead of OMF, and fell in silence, since numbers asked him, how Tim's girlfriend could make him not to talk to LMH, after he had decided to do.

Between these two witnesses... Did you never have doubts in the stories, we were told? Or did you just look at pictures?



posted on Jun, 11 2008 @ 04:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Double_Nought_Spy
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.


Why don't you digest it for me and spit it out..


You know this is reminding me more of a book by William Golding..



posted on Jun, 11 2008 @ 04:13 PM
link   
reply to post by tomiuk
 


Yes you have joined an elite group of paranoid delusional people that believes every picture they have ever seen is authentic!! CGI does not exist and the internet is not a breeding ground for hoaxers.....they also believe they have just won the lottery in some third world country and simply need to mail a check for $17,000 to an honest gentleman that sent them an anonymous email and they stand to receive BILLIONS in cold hard cash!!

Edit to add: Of course their PIs, having discovered the true location of this individual claiming they have won the lottery, will not ask this person any questions or attempt to verify his story!

[edit on 11-6-2008 by TheShadow]



posted on Jun, 11 2008 @ 04:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by tomiuk
No, I'm not a modeling expert or cgi expert, but I've got a good brain


...but a bad memory...


and a good eye for things. (ok lev's pic was an exception, but still worthy of seeking a definitive answer to..)


Hehe, good, you remembered this time, that this was a hoax. So I don't have to be unpolite to you.



Another plus on my side is realistic logic, something that seems to have escaped from this thread..


Guess, it escaped into the fifth dimension and you are posting in the fourth. Wonder, how you could not see Whitley's drone yet.

What was it again, you wanted to say, before you started to write?

Edit to make the fith dimension fit to the fifth.

[edit on 11-6-2008 by Siddharta]



posted on Jun, 11 2008 @ 04:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheShadow
reply to post by tomiuk
 


Yes you have joined an elite group of paranoid delusional people that believes every picture they have ever seen is authentic...


Shads, haven't you learned the secret yet? Only the pictures with character are authentic. That's the critical test.



posted on Jun, 11 2008 @ 04:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by tomiuk
No, I'm not a modeling expert or cgi expert, but I've got a good brain and a good eye for things. (ok lev's pic was an exception, but still worthy of seeking a definitive answer to..) Another plus on my side is realistic logic, something that seems to have escaped from this thread..


tomiuk,

Look at these two images that were superimposed on top of each other:



The reason for the above image was to show that the CGDRONE actually tilted, banked, turned, rolled, or whatever you want to call it. Because of this, it further proves the point that there is a missing shadow underneath the drone, as calculated in these two posts:

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

Then, SPF33 himself took the liberty to make this animation, which further proves the shadow is missing:



Yet, SPF33 is still lying to himself when he says this isn't a hoax.



The above point's alone sink this titanic hoax.

To further drop this ship to the bottom of the ocean, I have pointed out more lighting inconsistencies in these images with this post:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

So, tomiuk, please leave the debate for the experts.



[edit on 11-6-2008 by ALLis0NE]



posted on Jun, 11 2008 @ 04:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by s_q_t

Originally posted by TheShadow
reply to post by tomiuk
 


Yes you have joined an elite group of paranoid delusional people that believes every picture they have ever seen is authentic...


Shads, haven't you learned the secret yet? Only the pictures with character are authentic. That's the critical test.


For those that lurk here that is again..
www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Jun, 11 2008 @ 04:32 PM
link   
reply to post by ALLis0NE
 


ALLisONE, good post once again, but I predict you'll find this is like arguing with a brick wall, unfortunately.

[edit on 11-6-2008 by s_q_t]



posted on Jun, 11 2008 @ 04:42 PM
link   
I can't believe K-ooops Tomi is allowed to sidetrack you fellas at the most important discussion this thread has ever had. I ask everyone to place her on ignore until the issues are resolved. This is a deliberate distraction and I will start spewiing more data than an cray vax system if she does not shut up and let theSP and the others continue.
I do not like what her crew did, and who it hurt. I want this to proceed without interruption from her. she has nothing to offer. Allisone is an expert, and so is SPF33 , wayne, CF , and DB. When they are done, she can gab till doomsday.



posted on Jun, 11 2008 @ 04:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by spf33
now that omf user hpo has generously lent his very nice drone model to the investigation i plan to re-examine that study.


Thanks for that hint, hpo seems to be good.

Just read his post of this evening:


About the shared vanishing point,..I think you are right, that is very odd, strange that I didn't notice that before, one of my hobby's is to photograph planes and I think I couldn't position myself the way Rajman did.
All vanishing points and crossing points of the poles and cables are exactly the same in both photo's, that can not be.


Seems the sandcastles are floating away at all sides...



posted on Jun, 11 2008 @ 04:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Siddharta
But still I want to repeat my question: Did you buy that hacker story of Rajman's account shortly after you updated it?


something happened to it. raj, hoaxer? one in the same?

doesn't make any sense why a hoaxer would have even put the images with exif up to begin with knowing that someone could gift the high res.

and why in the heck fake hack when i already downloaded the images and posted the link on omf immediately after downloading them?

by the time the account was hacked omf was already discussing the photos and they were into the wild.

would be nice to get flickr's take on it, but i don't see that ever happening.



Did you never have doubts in the stories, we were told? Or did you just look at pictures?


i see nothing wrong with the reluctant witness chad and his account. but how could i not have doubts about every witness story? do i believe all of them? certainly not.



posted on Jun, 11 2008 @ 04:53 PM
link   
SPF33 which of the witnesses dont you believe just for the record and why not.
Thank you

[edit on 11-6-2008 by Sys_Config]



posted on Jun, 11 2008 @ 05:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by spf33
doesn't make any sense why a hoaxer would have even put the images with exif up to begin with knowing that someone could gift the high res.


That's assuming that the hoaxer (assuming it's not you, spf
) knew that you could gift upgrade someone without their consent... I've been a Flickr member for several years, and I never knew you could do that. I did know that if you had a regular account then you could only download smaller resolution pictures, without the original EXIF data.

The fact that the account was supposedly "hacked" so soon after the original pictures--with the Photoshop CS tags--were made available, was always very suspicious to me...



posted on Jun, 11 2008 @ 05:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by ALLis0NE
To further drop this ship to the bottom of the ocean, I have pointed out more lighting inconsistencies in these images with this post:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

So, tomiuk, please leave the debate for the experts.



[edit on 11-6-2008 by ALLis0NE]


If you think that you can convince anyone of lighting inconsistencies when the drones in the original photographs are at different angles to the sun.. then you have some gullible believers here.



posted on Jun, 11 2008 @ 05:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by spf33
would be nice to get flickr's take on it, but i don't see that ever happening.


Should not be so much of a problem, if they keep records more than twelve months.
The story happened on th 4th of June. I didn't note the address, but you surely can give me that URL. I will try to find out.



posted on Jun, 11 2008 @ 05:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by tomiuk
If you think that you can convince anyone of lighting inconsistencies when the drones in the original photographs are at different angles to the sun.. then you have some gullible believers here.


Are you SPF33's mom?

Or his dad?

If you don't think the drone is a hoax, I think YOU are the gullible 0ne lol.



posted on Jun, 11 2008 @ 05:15 PM
link   
reply to post by tomiuk
 


You are in way over your head. There is a time and a place for your comedy act, but this is not it. Now I am going to take Sys's suggestion and put you back on Ignore. G'bye!



posted on Jun, 11 2008 @ 06:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sys_Config
SPF33 which of the witnesses dont you believe just for the record and why not.


sys, with an ongoing drt investigation with some of the witnesses
i don't want to damage my relationship with the drt or their relationship to the witnessess.
for now, i'm keeping my opinions to myself on this matter. sorry.


Originally posted by Siddharta
Should not be so much of a problem, if they keep records more than twelve months.
The story happened on th 4th of June. I didn't note the address, but you surely can give me that URL. I will try to find out.


really, good luck with that. what link do you mean?
i can't imagine flickr will give up any info in regards to the security of their site being at issue, combined with official privacy matters.

although, it could be in their interest to say "no, same ip that created the account hijacked it" to avoid the how secure is flickr question.



posted on Jun, 11 2008 @ 06:23 PM
link   
Ooops, seems that one supporter disappereared like the drones and the witnesses here.

Never mind, I add and answer to spf than: It surely depends on the question. I surely would not ask "Are you Isaac?" and I surely would not ask "Did Raj hack his own site?"

But you already took care, in case, the possible answer could not fit to your picture:

"although, it could be in their interest to say "no, same ip that created the account hijacked it" to avoid the how secure is flickr question."

I guess, you wanted to hinder tomi, to say, the MIBs will threat them to death, so they won't answer at all.

There are only four realistic answers:
1) Yes we know what happened, it was like this...
2) We don't share such informations.
3) We never heard about this before.
4) This is impossible.

They surely won't tell me, the same IP created the site that hacked it. Maybe they tell me, there was only one IP able to edit the site.


[edit on 11-6-2008 by Siddharta]



new topics

top topics



 
185
<< 320  321  322    324  325  326 >>

log in

join