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: 54
185
<< 51  52  53    55  56  57 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 30 2007 @ 01:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by 11 11
Should I continue to shred this hoax apart?


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.

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!!

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?

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.




posted on Jun, 30 2007 @ 01:55 AM
link   

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]
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



posted on Jun, 30 2007 @ 01:58 AM
link   

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.


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.



posted on Jun, 30 2007 @ 01:59 AM
link   
Razimus,
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.

[edit on 30-6-2007 by pjslug]



posted on Jun, 30 2007 @ 02:06 AM
link   

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.


You have NEVER proven me wrong, and I don't see why you think you have...


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!!


Are you sure its not an image editing program? Maybe you should read about Adobe Album before you talk about it? So far I have read that Adobe Album can "Instantly fix flaws or adjust color and lighting with new advanced controls." Maybe, the hoaxer loaded this image into another editing software, and then before submitting it to the world he opened it into Adobe to fix that data?


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?


HOW ABOUT YOU SHOW ME THE ORIGINAL IMAGE STRAIGHT FROM THE CAMERA LIKE YOU ARE NORMALY SUPPOSED TO DO WHEN YOU ARE TRYING TO PROVE SOMEONE WRONG.

I know the photo is real, but the drone is a fake 3D model that was rendered into the photo, and edited in Photoshop.



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.


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....



posted on Jun, 30 2007 @ 02:07 AM
link   
Does anyone know the exact day the photos were posted on the Coasttocoastam website? I'll try to find it but their site is bad about dating stuff.... all it says is "a month ago yada yada.." I think the YouTube video's date is the best evidence so far, it was posted on MAY24TH 2007.
I believe the photos were only sensationalized after they were posted on C2cam but correct me if I'm wrong, and they were posted around mid May? I don't know the exact date, but why is no-one paying much attention to the may 24th youtube video? It's obviously made by the same originator and grand scheme hoaxer of the entire hoax itself aka Chad aka Issac, again correct me if I'm wrong but I don't think so.



posted on Jun, 30 2007 @ 02:08 AM
link   

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.

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]



posted on Jun, 30 2007 @ 02:10 AM
link   

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]



posted on Jun, 30 2007 @ 02:10 AM
link   
Ok, so, give me an image with unedited EXIF data, straight from the camera.

Because the EXIF data does not match that of a real raw image from the same camera, the image should be classified as photoshoped/edited, untill a REAL RAW image with the original EXIF data appears.

The above is standard practice for images on the internet.



posted on Jun, 30 2007 @ 02:12 AM
link   

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?



posted on Jun, 30 2007 @ 02:16 AM
link   

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.



posted on Jun, 30 2007 @ 02:19 AM
link   

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?


I have so many times in the previous posts over the past 5 pages. Go back and read them again. Seriously, I'm done debating this with you and will not respond to any more of your posts. 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.

I'm going to go back to posting all my ideas (starting with PART 16) and leave this photo for you to dispute all you want, but I'm no longer going to be part of it. It's gotten so absurd, it's ridiculous.

Have a pleasant evening.

[edit on 30-6-2007 by pjslug]



posted on Jun, 30 2007 @ 02:22 AM
link   

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.


You can't fool me. I see right through you. Your only defence is that you "posted you physical whereabouts", so that means you are not the hoaxer?? I don't believe you, and I don't believe you told us your real whereabouts.

You have said twice you have been in the graphic industry for 15 years... whats the odds of that? You made your account just recently, and you are 100% certain this entire thing is not a hoax, and you stick by your word like it was your own child. Did you birth a hoax? If not, then why do you love it like a child and believe in it so much? Even with proof the image is not original (exif data), and many lighting and highlight errors, you still would die for this hoax....

I see right through you... you are the hoaxer. Deny it all you want, I don't care.



posted on Jun, 30 2007 @ 02:25 AM
link   

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.



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...

Why do you lie to yourself?



posted on Jun, 30 2007 @ 02:27 AM
link   
Seriously guys, take a look at this pic:



It's so out of place it's not even funny. It's like Jurassic park. The t-rex looked so real the first time I saw it, but now, meh.



posted on Jun, 30 2007 @ 02:29 AM
link   

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...

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.

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.



posted on Jun, 30 2007 @ 02:34 AM
link   

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]


Fair enough, I didn't do any analysis, it just appeared that there was some tilting across the series but I could well be mistaken.

I would put forth that since the Big Basin and Rajman pictures and the Isaac documents support each other that they sink or swim together.



posted on Jun, 30 2007 @ 02:40 AM
link   

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.



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.


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.


spf33 used the EXIF data date and time, to enter it into a program to calculate the Sun's position.

But I, used the actual image itself to determine the position of the Sun. I calculated the Sun to being 20 degrees above the horizon, at the time of the picture. Yet, the EXIF data says it was only 16.2 degrees above the horizon. A whole 20 minutes difference, pretty good dont you think?

spf33's data did nothing but confirm the fact the Sun was above the horizon. Thats it. I was trying to prove that also....because the sun is so massivly bigger than the Earth, even 5 or 6 degrees above the horizon would create a downward shadow.

[edit on 30-6-2007 by 11 11]



posted on Jun, 30 2007 @ 02:49 AM
link   

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]


and the other posts aren't biased - come on, are you for real.

You accepted 11 11's shadowing explanation, within minutes, as the be all and end all, and that was proven wrong.

We have still not been provided with anything proving beyond reasonable doubt that any single image is not what it's supposed to be - if we have give me the link and either I'll answer it or someone else will, hold on - we've just had 50 pages of that !

As for steering the thread then I commend pj for trying to steer it to a sane, rational debate rather than " I'm a CGI expert, I create reality on a screen, therefore I have the right to also create reality in any debate just because it is my opinion".

None of what pj has said should be "taken as evidence" anyway - it should be evaluated. If you are now saying you will ignore anything presented by pj then that's ignorance.

Seems then we will have two camps, each ignoring the other, but frankly only one camp that keeps an open mind and is willing to evaluate all the opinons and information presented.



posted on Jun, 30 2007 @ 02:51 AM
link   

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.

Of course its ok to do that, just with large images, use a smaller image in the post, with a clickable link next to it for the fullsize image. That way you can link as large image as you want to illustrate your point.

Or you can just keep it mainly text, with links to the supporting docs or images, links to your other posts etc...Likns to outside supporting websites...




top topics



 
185
<< 51  52  53    55  56  57 >>

log in

join