[HOAX] Isaac CARET - Drones [HOAX]

reply to post by Sys_Config


I checked every mailbox, you ever used. Don't see any problem... Do the MIBs catch my drones, before they are in my net?

Must be something like that! I also getthe first post on the new page recently... They want to make me invisible!!!

Originally posted by Sys_Config
This guy could have taken the best pic from each batch including the LAP scan, and run it thru his program that does light and shadows.
ES wrote him and and it was expensive, about 20 hours at 200 dollars an hour. But compare that to whats been spent, on PIs, websites, bad feelings, and all our time too.
If DRT had been serious that would have been the first thing done.
Instead they rejected every expert tooth and nail.
I have some of his work in the library here.
He is also the developer of this light analysis prg.
www.technologyreview.com...
hanyfarid.org...
www.cs.dartmouth.edu... and Lab head who is internationally known. At least in the area of photo forensics.
Again, it does scanned pix too.
Enigma a poster at another forum had written also, and the same professor recalls the photos in question and said they looked fake to him, but he would take analysis to make it official, or otherwise. So Farid, in essence, is saying, don't throw away your money.

Well Sys, that just confirms a little bit more the integrity of the Raj/pole photo, looking seriously at the examples above (and thank you for those links too), the light issue coming from any real divergent directions doesn't exist, as far as all examination has proven so far, it's the subtle shadow effects we are in a mire about.. Cheers tho.. good sources of info and possible consultation.

Sys, armchair detective.. did it ever occur to you why I use the spelling tires??

Originally posted by tomiuk
It's the subtle shadow effects we are in a mire about.. Cheers tho.. good sources of info and possible consultation.

Sys, armchair detective.. did it ever occur to you why I use the spelling tires??

I can guess and in that case shouldn’t, *mire* be, *moire*?

Mhm, tomi does not have an armchair?

What kind of chair are you using than? I am already suffering from a little pain in my right shoulder. Any tip for me?

Originally posted by DrDil

Originally posted by tomiuk
It's the subtle shadow effects we are in a mire about.. Cheers tho.. good sources of info and possible consultation.

Sys, armchair detective.. did it ever occur to you why I use the spelling tires??

I can guess and in that case shouldn’t, *mire* be, *moire*?

Subtle Shadows..I remember Springer said that very same thing. He didn't let it quagmire him. That was some time ago too

Sorry bout typos, but I am barely legally blind, and I must make do.. Try Phonetics and Ebonics, its the future! Interesting on moire as that deals with artififacts and patterns when using overlays sometimes. And Mire, uuugh ..certainly don't want to be in that substrate.Are they experimenting already? Douglas should have done that, why let everyone else do all the work. Just more whining about the PTB.. It was more fun listening to Jim, he had some really kool graphs!, He must have like an MBA in Ufology.

[edit on 31-7-2008 by Sys_Config]

Originally posted by Sys_Config

Originally posted by DrDil

Originally posted by tomiuk
It's the subtle shadow effects we are in a mire about.. Cheers tho.. good sources of info and possible consultation.

Sys, armchair detective.. did it ever occur to you why I use the spelling tires??

I can guess and in that case shouldn’t, *mire* be, *moire*?

Subtle Shadows..I remember Springer said that very same thing. He didn't let it quagmire him. That was some time ago too

Sorry bout typos, but I am barely legally blind, and I must make do.. Try Phonetics and Ebonics, its the future!

It’s not WHAT you see Sys, it’s HOW you see it.

It’s also how you perceive, interpret, process, qualify and quantify what you see.

And with that you have no problems whatsoever…..

Originally posted by DrDil

It’s not WHAT you see Sys, it’s HOW you see it.

It’s also how you perceive, interpret, process, qualify and quantify what you see.

That's the problem here! Nobody deals with Epistemology
It's a Moore's paradox for sure in this camp

You are very keen with nothing in hands, little kitty!

It gets boring lately. If there only would be a punchline... That's all I am waiting for...

reply to post by tomiuk



Yes, and Tomi, you should never forget the principles of FALLIBILISM no matter where you "camp."


Fallibilism
The doctrine that knowledge is never certain, but always hypothetical and susceptible to correction.


And those dronies who say "they always gotta surely be real" could be a victim of Münchhausen-Trilemma, another way of saying 'get agrippa yourself!'



[edit on 31-7-2008 by klatunictobarata]

Originally posted by tomiuk

Originally posted by DrDil

It’s not WHAT you see Sys, it’s HOW you see it.

It’s also how you perceive, interpret, process, qualify and quantify what you see.

That's the problem here! Nobody deals with Epistemology
It's a Moore's paradox for sure in this camp

Oooohh Tomi, I was playing so nicely as well.

I was under the distinct impression that Moore’s approach to philosophizing involved focusing on narrow problems and avoiding grand synthesis, or in Tomi-speak, “The Big Picture”?

Never mind about epistemology, what about the science of belief?

Here’s one I feel particularly relevant given the present company.



Terminology:
True-believer syndrome.

Definition:
The condition of continuing to believe an event/phenomenon after it has been debunked.

Signature:
Belief continues without grounds or base.

M. Lamar Keene (1976)

reply to post by tomiuk


And here’s a science you (are?) should become extremely well versed in.

Remind you of any particular modus operandi?


Identifying pseudoscience

A field, practice, or body of knowledge might reasonably be called pseudoscientific when it is presented as consistent with the accepted norms of scientific research; but it demonstrably fails to meet these norms, most importantly, in misuse of scientific method.

The following have been proposed to be indicators of poor scientific reasoning.


Reversed burden of proof.

In science, the burden of proof rests on those making a claim, not on the critic. "Pseudoscientific" arguments may neglect this principle and demand that skeptics demonstrate beyond a reasonable doubt that a claim (e.g. an assertion regarding the efficacy of a novel therapeutic technique) is false. It is essentially impossible to prove a universal negative, so this tactic incorrectly places the burden of proof on the skeptic rather than the claimant.


Lack of openness to testing by other experts

Evasion of peer review before publicizing results (called "science by press conference").

Some proponents of theories that contradict accepted scientific theories avoid subjecting their ideas to peer review, sometimes on the grounds that peer review is biased towards established paradigms, and sometimes on the grounds that assertions cannot be evaluated adequately using standard scientific methods. By remaining insulated from the peer review process, these proponents forego the opportunity of corrective feedback from informed colleagues.

The science community expects authors to share data necessary to evaluate a paper. Failure to provide adequate information for other researchers to reproduce the claimed results is a lack of openness.

Assertion of claims of secrecy or proprietary knowledge in response to requests for review of data or methodology.


Personalization of issues - Tight social groups and granfalloons.

Authoritarian personality, suppression of dissent, and groupthink can enhance the adoption of beliefs that have no rational basis. In attempting to confirm their beliefs, the group tends to identify their critics as enemies.

Assertion of claims of a conspiracy on the part of the scientific community to suppress the results.


Use of vague, exaggerated or untestable claims.

Assertion of scientific claims that are vague rather than precise, and that lack specific measurements.

Failure to make use of operational definitions. (i.e. a scientific description of the operational means in which a range of numeric measurements can be obtained).

Failure to make reasonable use of the principle of parsimony, i.e. failing to seek an explanation that requires the fewest possible additional assumptions when multiple viable explanations are possible.

Use of obscurantist language, and misuse of apparently technical jargon in an effort to give claims the superficial trappings of science.


Lack of boundary conditions

Most well-supported scientific theories possess boundary conditions (well articulated limitations) under which the predicted phenomena do and do not apply.

Lack of effective controls in experimental design.


Over-reliance on confirmation rather than refutation

Assertion of scientific claims that cannot be falsified in the event they are incorrect, inaccurate, or irrelevant.

Assertion of claims that a theory predicts something that it has not been shown to predict.

Assertion that claims which have not been proven false must be true.


Over-reliance on testimonials and anecdotes.

Testimonial and anecdotal evidence can be useful for discovery but should not be used in the context of justification.

Selective use of experimental evidence: presentation of data that seems to support its own claims while suppressing or refusing to consider data that conflict with its claims.


Psychological explanations

Pseudoscientific thinking has been explained in terms of psychology and social psychology. The human proclivity for seeking confirmation rather than refutation (confirmation bias).

reply to post by tomiuk


And just in case you missed my earlier ponderings…..

Originally posted by DrDil
“A delusion held by one person is a mental illness, held by a few is a cult, held by many is a religion.”


Cult: Typically refers to a cohesive social group devoted to beliefs or practices that the surrounding population considers to be outside the mainstream.


Compact Oxford English Dictionary.
Current English Definition of “Cult”

1: A system of religious worship directed towards a particular figure or object.
2: A small religious group regarded as strange or as imposing excessive control over members.


It is hypothesised that three ideas are essential to the concept of a cult.

1) Thinking in terms of us versus them with total alienation from "them."
2) The intense, though often subtle, indoctrination techniques used to recruit and hold members.
3) Charismatic cult leader. Cultism usually involves some sort of belief that outside the cult all is evil and threatening; inside the cult is the special path to salvation through the cult leader and his teachings.

The indoctrination techniques employed by cults are many and varied but most notably include, “Social disruption, isolation and pressure,” and not surprisingly the, “Control of information.”

=============

Communal Reinforcement
Communal reinforcement is the process by which a claim becomes a strong belief through repeated assertion by members of a community. The process is independent of whether the claim has been properly researched or is supported by empirical data significant enough to warrant belief by reasonable people. Cult leaders know the importance of communal reinforcement as when combined with isolating cult members from contrary ideas then the resulting environment is more conducive to achieving the desired results. Cults generally provide a safe haven completely insulated from the outside –and real- world and consequently shielding its followers from all opposing viewpoints and beliefs.

=============

Coercive Persuasion
Coercive persuasion comprises social influences capable of producing substantial behaviour, attitude and ideology change through the use of coercive tactics and persuasion, via interpersonal and group-based influences.

=============

And again you make me wonder, how you have all these things right at your hand, Dill. You must be an alien and probably you watch all our moves with a drone... Don't have no other explanation right yet.

reply to post by tomiuk


It’s been a while since any of the DRT have indulged me so I feel it only appropriate to address your original concern of Epistemology, or a modern variation of it, i.e. how the knowledge is instilled.

The haven all memes depend on reaching is the human mind, but a human mind is itself an artifact created when memes restructure a human brain in order to make it a better habitat for memes. The avenues for entry and departure are modified to suit local conditions, and strengthened by various artificial devices that enhance fidelity and prolixity of replication: native Chinese minds differ dramatically from native French minds, and literate minds differ from illiterate minds. What memes provide in return to the organisms in which they reside is an incalculable store of advantages --- with some Trojan horses thrown in for good measure. . .
Daniel Dennett, Consciousness Explained

May I also be so bold as to suggest that for further reading you check out Richard Dawkins’ take on it, i.e. “Viruses of the Mind” or “Mind-parasites” as it offers an insight into your inherent proclivities.

It’s always a pleasure Tomi, now don’t be a stranger and don’t you DARE go changing just to try and please me….

DRONE CASE BOGS DOWN MAN STILL TRAPPED !

Kanyu C. Menow
Sentinel HiTimes




"We just dont know what happened, people were so happy to see our Charts and schematics with every speculation grounded in solid, yes solid cutting edge pseudo science, metaphysics, and circular logic" then all of a sudden , we began to sink in this "quagmire" ,thick as bricks. Every time someone threw some real science , like the sun shines, the Earth is round, and solids create shadows, into the mix, we REALLY started sinking. The more verbose and elaborate we got, fear set in, and deeper we went.. We even tried correcting their typos and grammar, to make them seem illterate, even that did not work.We thought we would never make it. We had 70 members and still can't get Numbers out. Its sheer pandemonium,, a nightmare, God help us! "This according to Tomi UK , lead spokesperson and "chops buster" for the DRT, after being pulled out herself babbling in an almost incoherent and hysterical state as she was led away from the scene.

According to Brent Yerrrr-out, Army corps of Engineers who arrived on the scene with a small armada of emergency vehicles, "the situation looks mighty grim" I even used my best airbrush. Could not paint him out of that corner." I'm really freaked out..it always worked before like magic.
"It (the bog) has been drying too long now, and it seems harder than cement, and when this kind of manure cures in the sun, its a done deal, even projectiles made from it can pierce 1/2 inch sheet rock at 200 ft. its going to take some REAL manpower and equipment, possibly may even have to "saw him in half" .. what the heck, I'd suggest notifying next of kin and a man of the cloth for him and their case."

"This is what happens when people start believing their own lies, its a cascade of superglue and popcorn all rolled into a ball" said DrDil from Oxford, and Dr. Sidd from The Max Planck School of Psychology who stopped by to help as good Samaritans were almost at a loss for words, but remarked to this reporter, , this was "the worse case they had ever witnessed of Bogging down , and intended making it a special "case study".

"I recommend an epidemiologist be brought in, to see if this is infectious, airborne or what. Its quite puzzling" said Dr. Sidd.

When pressed for more comments, Ms. Tomi had no further comments other than "I'm going home now and take a good shower, and make believe this never happened"

More later on this developing story!


Foot Note
It takes tens of thousands of dollars, actually hundreds, in the church of scientology to reach a very elite, creme de la creme, stage. There the Secrets of Xenu will be revealed to you. The very essence of the cosmos man and his soul and rebirth. Scientologists are forbidden to look upon this knowledge unless they have been prepared and forked over to the everpresent auditors guiding you.
Because of Global climate warming, the economy. and such, I have brought it here for free as a case in point to accompany Dr.Dils readings.

If you are not prepared..DO NOT READ
www.solitarytrees.net...















[edit on 1-8-2008 by Sys_Config]

reply to post by Sys_Config


Funny stuff there sys I had to give you a star..
Ahh was that L Ron the Science Fiction writer..
Seen a interesting episode of Futurama the other night....This guy from the 80s took over the delivery company and Fry was his right-hand man...This guy was teaching Fry to be more CEOish and was going over notes of how to speak in Execu-speak.......Blank was actually blank..
www.urbandictionary.com...



@DrDil..I would have given you a lot more starsfor that great Arc Couch-Analise..But could only give you one...



[edit on 31-7-2008 by CFandM]

Hi CF that was interesting! the big picture.Oh man I forgot, Just starred you back.. I can prob order that futurama set and old home stuff. Somebody from Matts crew was on Art bell the other night. Cant remember who though. Have you read that Scientology stuff..OMG. I didn't know there was a major war going on to expose them. Its interesting all Hubbard and the Urantia guy Douglas all popped out fron the early 5os saucer era. Interesting cultural phenomena.


[edit on 31-7-2008 by Sys_Config]

Originally posted by DrDil
May I also be so bold as to suggest that for further reading you check out Richard Dawkins’ take on it, i.e. “Viruses of the Mind” or “Mind-parasites” as it offers an insight into your inherent proclivities.

Ahh, you had to mention that swear word Dawkins didn't you? More than a lethal virus. Worse than any affliction (WOW), discussions of Dawkins has led to such misery....
Corrupter and patron saint of all socially challenged, aspergers prone, mostly male minds here in the UK.. Funny how his "selfish gene" theory never seems to help any of them "reproduce"..
I myself wonder if his third wife would exist without the royalities..

[edit on 1-8-2008 by tomiuk]

reply to post by Sys_Config


There is a... fascinating sketch of young Elron in "Sex and Rockets" by John Carter. The book is mainly about Jack Parsons, but all sorts of other nutballs appear. Very interesting book. The introduction by Robert Anton Wilson is one of the best parts, too. Anyway, Elron practiced his con artistry while becoming one of Parsons' close friends, for a while anyway.

People believe the craziest crap!