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.
Originally posted by 11 11
Should I continue to shred this hoax apart?
He,he, I just find it curious that the pics where treated so badly when making the documents, that this guy has them, and that he somehow managed to store them in a vacuum since 1986
Originally posted by 11 11
GJ Farnswoth! So what conclusion do you come to with that info?
[edit on 30-6-2007 by 11 11]
Originally posted by pjslug
Originally posted by mvario
Originally posted by 11 11
Originally posted by greatlakes
And how is the height of the drone determined?
Is it best guess, or is it known with an uncertainty factor or what?
We know its higher than the telephone pole.......
...it still doesn't matter, the Sun is STILL higher than the drone, meaning the arm should cast a shadow right on the body.
Is there a reason everyone is assuming that the object in question is level? A slight degree of pitch would alter where the shadows fall on itself, and without horizon visible in the picture I don't see how that can be determined.
Also, even assuming that exif information hasn't been tampered with is there any reason that the time setting is accurate?
That's a very good point as well. However, assuming that this craft works on anti-gravity like it is claimed to by Isaac, why would it need to be pitched in any direction? It's not like there would be any downforce motion of air to propel it like a helicopter. And it wouldn't need to be pitched at any angle to move on XYZ axes.
Originally posted by pjslug
All you're doing is looking for some bitter way to hold on to this, when you have been proven wrong by so many of us.
Originally posted by pjslug
And tell me, please, that you are kidding. I know you're smarter than that, at least I think you are. You say the photo has been through a program. Yes it has, and it says ADOBE ALBUM.... that's not an image editing program, it's a photo album viewer!!
Originally posted by pjslug
How many things need to be shown to you? We have shown that it is a real photo. We never said it was real flying craft. No matter what you are told, you will never concede that you are wrong, so what is the point in responding to you at all?
Originally posted by pjslug
If I was shown evidence that I was wrong about anything, I would say "okay... good job. You did it." You have failed in every attempt to do so, and for good reason... it's a real photo that you can't prove fake. Now be a man and concede that you were wrong.
Originally posted by pjslug
You say "Both are very detailed pieces of art, easily done by the same artist." They are not even remotely close. I am a professional graphic artist as well, and I can easily see that. I see no similarities between any of the manual pages AT ALL.
I was looking on your webpage and I cannot believe you would make statements as bold as these: " I, being an artist know for a fact, that all, 100% of every single detailed crop-circle formation is in reality a piece of man-made art. A non-artist may or may not believe or understand this and I wouldn't expect them to. Look at the various pieces of art and judge for yourself, but like myself, all professional artists will know the truth behind these pieces of art."
And I like how you say that it's the drone hoax before you know that for a fact.
No reason to think it would, but if we accept the second Big Basin series of pictures then they do indicate some tilting of the object relative to the horizon across the series.
Originally posted by pjslug
The Chad and Rajman photos are in high res and we have been able to astutely examine them and prove that the Rajman photos as real as any digital photo can be.
Are you frikken kidding me? You need to read this topic again. I have shred this hoax to bits and pieces. You are jsut angry because you are the hoaxer, and I figured it out....
Originally posted by 11 11
Originally posted by pjslug
The Chad and Rajman photos are in high res and we have been able to astutely examine them and prove that the Rajman photos as real as any digital photo can be.
Please explain why you think they are real?
Originally posted by pjslug
Are you frikken kidding me? You need to read this topic again. I have shred this hoax to bits and pieces. You are jsut angry because you are the hoaxer, and I figured it out....
I would love to take credit for being that good of an artist, but sadly it just isn't so. I have already posted my physical whereabouts in an earlier post so if I'm the hoaxer, that would be pretty stupid to do now wouldn't it? People keep saying that I am trying hard to prove it real. Well aren't the majority trying to prove it fake? So how is that a fair bias? I should have known that on a conspiracy site if I started posting ideas about why I thought it was real I would be jumped on for it. What the hell is the point of a conspiracy site if you can't prove things to be legitimate just as you can prove them to be fake? I don't understand some of you.
Originally posted by pjslug
This has gone so far in circles, and you keep changing your reasons for why it must be fake because you see the truth in what I and others like spf have said.
Originally posted by 11 11
Changing reasons??? More like finding multiple reasons. I made one error that has been proven wrong on this thread, and that was the low-res image I tried to debunk without even knowing there was high-res avalible. I admit that... but the rest?? Lighting and Highlighting errors? Shading errors? Bad EXIF data? You have not proven any of that wrong...
Originally posted by pjslug
No reason to think it would, but if we accept the second Big Basin series of pictures then they do indicate some tilting of the object relative to the horizon across the series.
That's a good point. I have been focussing on the photos being discussed at the moment so I will have to go back and review them.
Okay, I looked at them. From what I see it's just the camera angle. But I only have 2 low-res ones and don't know if more of them exist. From low res photos, I would not say one way or the other if they are real or not. The Chad and Rajman photos are in high res and we have been able to astutely examine them and prove that the Rajman photos as real as any digital photo can be.
[edit on 30-6-2007 by pjslug]
Originally posted by greatlakes
Perhaps a summary of your findings 1111's, presented in a user friendly way, I don't think all have seen the errors all in one place.
Originally posted by greatlakes
Also isnt spf33's analysis in conflict with yours (the shadow/time day stuff), maybe discuss that as well...It wasn't all that clear to me what spf33 was getting at in his post (no explanation) just his image of the analysis...
thanks and great effort.
Originally posted by greatlakes
I don't know pjslug, just by judging from your posts, it seems to me that you are very biased. I'm just making an observation here that this is what it seems to me. This bias leads to excitable posts, and *cheerleading* or *championing* the legitimacy of the Isaac claim. This also seems to "drive" the thread and leads other posters to behave similarly.
It also seems that your seeming attempts to steer this thread have kinda failed, people here are just too smart or maybe stubborn, but in any case, think for themselves and in most cases try to show the truth through the use of evidence and clues in the puzzle.
Maybe its just me, or maybe others see this as well, but felt it needed to be said. With that said there are others here of course that behave similarly, but it looks like you are the leader in my view.
I don't know if I would be able to in good conscience, to take much of what you say as evidence, unless of course something changes in your postings. *just sayin'*
[edit on 6/30/2007 by greatlakes]
Originally posted by 11 11
I was going to do that in my own topic, but it was closed early, and I was asked to continue in here.. I will have to ask Springer if it is ok to organize and format my evidence into a single topic to make it more clear.