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: 48
185
<< 45  46  47    49  50  51 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 29 2007 @ 07:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by pjslug
I love these CGI people. If they saw a flying saucer 20 feet above their heads, they would still scream "Hoax! Hoax! It's a Hoax!"


This proves you have absolutly no clue what you are talking about. I believe in UFO's and have caught 1 or 2 on my camera. I am a firm believer in life outside of Earth.

But the ISAACCARET images are CGI! That means everything on the ISAACCARET website is a hoax. I have clearly pointed out 4+ explinations and PROOF of CGI, and you unexperianced blind people STILL dont acknowledge it..

Every proof of CGI I have put out, the only answer I have see from you people are wild guesses, and fictional explainations that "this is alien craft it could defy laws of light". You people are actually trying to tell me these renders are REAL. LOL!!!!!!!!

isaaccaret.fortunecity.com...

If you truely beleive the above image is of a real object, then God help you. You are going to believe every piece of crap that comes out from a 3D rendering software.




posted on Jun, 29 2007 @ 07:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by pjslug
Can yourself and wildone kindly remove yourself from this thread? Everything you have said over the entire course of this thread is childish, arrogant, and extremely annoying.

I've seen lots of evidence coming from those two, you can't censor people or evidence because they don't fit into your *belief* system. :shk:

What evidence have you produced besides a dissertation on your opinions (parts 1-16)? Stating your opinion is fine and dandy, but when others do it you complain and censor them? hmmmm.


Evidence in trying to prove something is real or fake means not being a *cheerleader* for one side or the other, keeping an unbiased as possible view on the topic. If you have stated some evidence, excuse me then, because I haven't seen any.

[edit on 6/29/2007 by greatlakes]



posted on Jun, 29 2007 @ 07:10 PM
link   


Someone please explain these shadows, and missing highlights on the object. Actually, the models are missing signs of REAL light. Please tell me where the light source is.... ??



posted on Jun, 29 2007 @ 07:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by greatlakes

Originally posted by pjslug
Can yourself and wildone kindly remove yourself from this thread? Everything you have said over the entire course of this thread is childish, arrogant, and extremely annoying.

I've seen lots of evidence coming from those two, you can't censor people or evidence because they don't fit into your *belief* system. :shk:

What evidence have you produced besides a dissertation on your opinions (parts 1-16)? Stating your opinion is fine and dandy, but when others do it you complain and censor them? hmmmm.


Evidence in trying to prove something is real or fake means not being a *cheerleader* for one side or the other, keeping an unbiased as possible view on the topic. If you have stated some evidence, excuse me then, because I haven't seen any.

[edit on 6/29/2007 by greatlakes]


I have never said for anyone not to discuss CGI. Of course that is part of this things, and will be discussed. What I am saying is reference to the comments like "This will all unfold and I will laugh myself silly at you idiots" or "Wake up people, it's a hoax" or "I am taking names of people that believe in this and will laugh at them when it's over".

And 11 11, obviously you haven't seen the high res pics that someone put on the previous page for all to download. I suggest you do so and reevaluate your CGI stance. I've worked in the graphics industry more than half my life and know very well how to spot CGI or real photos (digital or film), and if you can say after looking at them that they are CGI, well then my friend you don't have much knowledge of CGI. I never said the crafts were unequivocally real, I said they are real photos, whether the craft are props or not.



posted on Jun, 29 2007 @ 07:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by pjslug

Can yourself and wildone kindly remove yourself from this thread? Everything you have said over the entire course of this thread is childish, arrogant, and extremely annoying.


You know, the moderator "Springer", has awarded/applauded me 5 times in a row just for the information I have braught to this thread. Thats 500 free points each for a total of 2500 points.

So, kindly stfu.



posted on Jun, 29 2007 @ 07:15 PM
link   
Originally posted by frailty


This dimension and other dimensions are made of frequencies. Sometimes are brain can partially switch frequencies. This is when people who see stuff that is not of this dimension or hear stuff not of this dimension.


Really ? And how do you know this ?


Those on the other side are testing you, as we all will be tested one way or another at some point in our life.


And, why is this ? For our "dimensional" diploma ?


Just don't be so paranoid, that is when you run into problems. And yes every single person on this earth is being monitored.

Again, how do you know this ? EVERY SINGLE PERSON is being monitored ? Really....


This world all throughout history has been under constant monitoring.

Again, where did you get this information ?


I can't tell you everything. What fun would that be?

Fun ? No. Informative ? Well, I do follow tall tales such as GR and Isaac,
knowing in my heart they are full of horse-sh.....manure.


PM me if needed for help


Oh, I'll pass.

Folks, let's talk.

A thread like this has 2 options. Real, or hoax.
Occam's razor screams hoax.
The CGI experts scream hoax.
The believers reach for straws that aren't there.

Then we start getting people like frailty.

I'm sorry, but as a serious researcher into UFO's, can this particular,
and in many cases, long-running hoaxes be any way credible,
when people like this start posting ?

Isaac is a hoax. Period.
A good hoax, but a hoax.

When a hoax starts drawing the fringe out of the woodwork, IMO
it becomes even more obvious.

Please, debate the hoax, not it's credibility.

Regards,
Lex

[edit on 29-6-2007 by Lexion]



posted on Jun, 29 2007 @ 07:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by 11 11


Someone please explain these shadows, and missing highlights on the object. Actually, the models are missing signs of REAL light. Please tell me where the light source is.... ??


The light source is coming from the left side a little bit up and from the right side toward the middle. Each light would cast the shadows on the opposing side of the object which that photo is entirely consistent with.

And let's please stop this back and forth arguing. Noone here want's to get into a fight. Just please, as I mentioned a few posts back don't say you will laugh at people or make fun of them if it is found to be a hoax. We all have put our reputations on the line here towards our beliefs, and that should be commended on its own.

[edit on 29-6-2007 by pjslug]



posted on Jun, 29 2007 @ 07:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by pjslug

The light source is coming from the left side a little bit up and from the right side toward the middle. Each light would cast the shadows on the opposing side of the object which that photo is entirely consistent with.


pjslug, then where are the highlights???? If all those lights existed to make that shadow, how come we can not see the lights reflecting off of the object??

Please explain that, and stay away from the "its alien technology" explination.

Also, if the lights are were you say they are.. then why is there a masive shadow in front and back of the object?

[edit on 29-6-2007 by 11 11]



posted on Jun, 29 2007 @ 07:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by spf33

look at the high res image, and realize this was addressed weeks ago;

i14.tinypic.com...


[edit on 6/29/2007 by kinglizard]


Finally an image to work with. Don't see what it has to do with the Caret photos though.

I used the Adobe Raw editor in CS3 to change the exposure and since this was shot with a decent camera it brought out some detail. To bad you don't have the real original before it was altered in Photoshop 2. No idea what was done then?

1- it appears the cable is wedged to help hold it in place and the level of focus matches.

2- It appears the end of this arm is shoved inside the loop of the tensioner cable assembly.

1+2 holds the object in place.

I believe this is a mechanical commutator of some sort and it is upside down. Whatever item this thing dispenses falls through the whisk looking assembly and it centers it probably to a moving conveyor belt. As soon as someone from the industry that uses this stumbles across a photo it will be identified.

IMHO




posted on Jun, 29 2007 @ 07:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by pjslug

Can yourself and wildone kindly remove yourself from this thread? Everything you have said over the entire course of this thread is childish, arrogant, and extremely annoying.


Umm, excuse me, sir or madam, as the case may be. You have been here exactly one whole day, and already you are ordering people around. We've endured a lot of "instant armchair experts" this week. Might I suggest that you chill out a little bit, take a look around, read the other drone threads, and perhaps come to the realization that many of us have been discussing these drones for several weeks now. Much of the stuff discussed in this thread, for example, has already been discussed ad nauseum days ago. That can get a little frustrating. So do contribute, if you can, and please allow others to do so as well. Thanks.

[edit on 6/29/2007 by schuyler]



posted on Jun, 29 2007 @ 07:23 PM
link   
Blaine,

That doesn't corrolate because arm 1 is on the same level plane as arm 2 which puts them both above the power lines. What you are seeing is just an optical illusion.
Also, take a look at the other photos of it in the air where there are no powerlines or trees in its path.

[edit on 29-6-2007 by pjslug]



posted on Jun, 29 2007 @ 07:24 PM
link   

by 11 11
You know, the moderator "Springer", has awarded/applauded me 5 times in a row just for the information I have braught to this thread. Thats 500 free points each for a total of 2500 points.

So, kindly stfu.


With all due respect, bragging about getting 2500 points from Herr Springer, with an attitude like yours, for basically being his mouthpiece regarding the CGI argument ad nauseum, says almost as much about ATS moderator bias as it does about your own abrasive approach.

I'm a bit saddened by this revelation. Thanks for tooting your own horn so eloquently.

[edit on 6/29/2007 by Outrageo]



posted on Jun, 29 2007 @ 07:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Outrageo

With all due respect, bragging about getting 2500 points from Herr Springer, with an attitude like yours, for basically being his mouthpiece regarding the CGI argument ad nauseum, says almost as much about ATS moderator bias as it does about your own abrasive approach.

I'm a bit saddened by this revelation. Thanks for tooting your own horn so eloquently.

[edit on 6/29/2007 by Outrageo]


I wasn't bragging, I was proving a point to someone who has braught NOTHING to this thread..

[edit on 29-6-2007 by 11 11]



posted on Jun, 29 2007 @ 07:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by 11 11
You know, the moderator "Springer", has awarded/applauded me 5 times in a row just for the information I have braught to this thread. Thats 500 free points each for a total of 2500 points.

So, kindly stfu.


This is one of the most unbelievable posts I've seen on these boards ever since I started lurking. The information you have brought to this thread is just as contestable as the counter argument being formed for it. We're still heading nowhere and quite frankly I don't think we will as long as the debate is about CGI or NOT. Does it really matter?

The object can very well be a PROP if it's not CGI and that would still lead us to the same answer of it being fake/hoax/scam/sham. What we need to do is look at the other bits and pieces given by Isaac and try to figure out what we can until Isaac comes out again with new "information" about his so called object. Why? Because the argument we're on right now gives no conclusive evidence from either side.


Originally posted by 11 11
I wasn't bragging, I was proving a point to someone who has braught NOTHING to this thread..


How does the amount of points you get prove anything? Springer is using his best opinion, does that mean it's the correct one? No. I don't think he has ever claimed so - there's still a lot that hasn't been explained.

I disagree, I think every single post in this thread besides the last few have brought something to this thread. We're busy arguing about something ridiculous now. Lets get back on topic and lets try and keep it civil.

[edit on 29-6-2007 by Donoso]



posted on Jun, 29 2007 @ 07:32 PM
link   
Originally posted by pjslug

But unless you can substantiate some hard core evidence, can you kindly stop posting as you have been?


Sir,
You have absolutely no business asking someone to stop posting.

Why don't you post some "hardcore evidence" to prove this junk ?

And, while I'm on the topic of junk :

pjslug

There could be some sort of genetic link between the Japanese and an alien race. Strange objects with writing were found in caves in Japan. There was a History channel UFO special on this. While I don't remember all of it, I do recall that some of these objects were once on display at a museum somewhere in Japan, or somewhere on the continent of Asia. Coincidentally, they have been removed.


Talking of Dropa Stones ?

Talk about a long-dead subject. Zero evidence.
Why bring it up ?
If you are so well versed in the UFO-Alien subject, you would
know better than to bring this up.

I'm guessing that either you are involved, or have an interest
in this, that you aren't expressing.

Regards,
Lex



posted on Jun, 29 2007 @ 07:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by 11 11
I was proving a point to someone who has braught NOTHING to this thread..


it's better than arrogance, ignorance and misdirection.



posted on Jun, 29 2007 @ 07:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Donoso

We're still heading nowhere and quite frankly I don't think we will as long as the debate is about CGI or NOT. Does it really matter?

The object can very well be a PROP if it's not CGI and that would still lead us to the same answer of it being fake/hoax/scam/sham. What we need to do is look at the other bits and pieces given by Isaac and try to figure out what we can until Isaac comes out again with new "information" about his so called object. Why? Because the argument we're on right now gives no conclusive evidence from either side.



You all still don't get it.... This image here is the smoking gun for the isaaccaret web site.

isaaccaret.fortunecity.com...

This image about is 100% CGI. It just so happens that Isaac claims these are real photos, but they are not. Because this 3D render is trying to be passed as real on the website, and its not, this means everything on the IsaacCARET website is questionable...

Does that make sense?? Or should I show you all the evidence of this particular photo being CGI?

[edit on 29-6-2007 by 11 11]



posted on Jun, 29 2007 @ 07:36 PM
link   
hey doc,


Originally posted by DocMoreau
I am not trying to discourage you all from analyzing to your heart's content, but you may want to consider reading through the Chadsquito thread: www.abovetopsecret.com...


thanks for this! wasn't aware of that thread (the organization on this forum is totally horrible heheh)

still, i waded through all of it and all of the side threads and ... i'm still on the fence, no definite debunk or debunk of debunking so far


meh, i'm gonna combine some now instead of making 100 successive posts.


Originally posted by wildone106
I can't wait to see this one go down like ghost raven's thread, Im gonna come back and post all the name's of the people that swore on their eye ball's its real..I just cant wait..


i didn't see many (any) people swearing that it was 100% true, mostly people saying they don't see evidence for it being 100% false.


Originally posted by 11 11
Every proof of CGI I have put out, the only answer I have see from you people are wild guesses,


well the "disappearing" powerline post kinda broke it, as it was visible in plain sight on the hires image.


Originally posted by 11 11
You know, the moderator "Springer", has awarded/applauded me 5 times in a row just for the information I have braught to this thread. Thats 500 free points each for a total of 2500 points.
So, kindly stfu.


wtf? if the only reason you post, or the only reason why one should consider your points valid are virtual "award points" on an internet forum, then ... well, what can i say.



posted on Jun, 29 2007 @ 07:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lamâshtu

well the "disappearing" powerline post kinda broke it, as it was visible in plain sight on the hires image.


Yeah I admit, I am new with this Drone thing, and I wasn't aware there was even high resolution pictures..



Originally posted by Lamâshtu

wtf? if the only reason you post, or the only reason why one should consider your points valid are virtual "award points" on an internet forum, then ... well, what can i say.

WTF are you talking about... The only damn reason I even mentioned the points was because someone was asking me to leave this thread. To prove to him that other people would like me to stay on this thread, I used that example of being applauded for my efforts on this thread by moderators..

Thats all it meant.. man you people sure know how to jump to conlcusions.



posted on Jun, 29 2007 @ 07:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Blaine91555
1- it appears the cable is wedged to help hold it in place and the level of focus matches.


sorry for the one liner, but wedged, you mean as a real object? it would be huge, and tbh it doesn't look like interfering with the cable does it?



new topics

top topics



 
185
<< 45  46  47    49  50  51 >>

log in

join