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: 88
185
<< 85  86  87    89  90  91 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 7 2007 @ 08:59 PM
link   

Even if the sun angle was perfectly horizontal, there would STILL be a shadow to the immediate left of the arm, but there isnt. The no shadow explination still hasn't been debunked. No matter what time of day, there should be a shadow under or to the left of the arm..

[edit on 7-7-2007 by 11 11]


Yes it has, we proved it from a CGI render of the drone with the angle of the sun, the pole, the shadows, etc., and from various other shots of aircraft that had that same angle. But you haven't proven anything, just speculation and possible theories.




posted on Jul, 7 2007 @ 09:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by pjslug
Once again, you must not know your software, because you can import directly from your camera into Adobe Album, and therefore it would add that to the EXIF data, but the data also still says the camera name right next to it.


I know the capabilities of the programs! That doesn't matter. Untill we get the image directly from the camera, this entire thing should be concidered a hoax. We have no real proof a drone exists yet, because we do not have a valid picture. The camera itself has the capability to upload directly to the computer, without going through Adobe Album. Untill we get images straight from the camera, these images must not be concidered 'real'.


Originally posted by pjslug
And why are you now starting to lie and say it was from Adobe when you know very well that the EXIF said Adobe Album?????? You can't manipulate a CGI drone in ADOBE ALBUM!! Telling half truths and lies doesn't help any of us.


Lie?? I say its from "Adobe" because the EXIF data says this:

JFIF_APP15 : Adobe

Nobody is lying here, so why the f are you accusing people?

ALSO, Adobe Album is only the LAST program the image was saved through. It was saved through other programs before that, Adobe Album changed the EXIF.



posted on Jul, 7 2007 @ 09:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by pjslug
Yes it has, we proved it from a CGI render of the drone with the angle of the sun, the pole, the shadows, etc., and from various other shots of aircraft that had that same angle. But you haven't proven anything, just speculation and possible theories.


The only thing I saw was a Mickey Mouse 3DS MAX not to scale render. No proof at all. Please, post your sources..please...back up your words. Explain. Please tell me why the hoaxer put his light source to low? Did he not have knowledge as to the exact position of the sun?

I did mathematical calculations used in photograph forensics laboratories..

[edit on 7-7-2007 by 11 11]



posted on Jul, 7 2007 @ 09:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by pjslug
Well my god, do you have any idea the work one person or a team would have to do to make all this look as perfect as it does? How many hoaxes went on this long that weren't debunked? \


Dozens have gone much longer than this one, "how long" it goes on means absolutely NOTHING.


Without the solid data one way or the other there is no end to it, that is part of the brilliance of the hoax in general.

I can't conclusively call this a hoax any more than you can conclusively call this real, but I assure you I believe it's a hoax. You believe it's real, I believe it's not, fair enough.



[edit on 7-7-2007 by Springer]



posted on Jul, 7 2007 @ 09:45 PM
link   
Originally posted by Springer

I believe it's a hoax.


Springer,
Thank you.

Good Lord Almighty,
Thank You.

Regards,
Lex



posted on Jul, 7 2007 @ 09:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lexion
Originally posted by Springer

I believe it's a hoax.


Springer,
Thank you.

Good Lord Almighty,
Thank You.

Regards,
Lex


This is NOT new information.


Springer...



posted on Jul, 7 2007 @ 09:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by pjslug
Yes it has, we proved it from a CGI render of the drone with the angle of the sun, the pole, the shadows, etc., and from various other shots of aircraft that had that same angle. But you haven't proven anything, just speculation and possible theories.


This was your "proof" right?

img456.imageshack.us...

Well according to your "Front" view, your Sun is about 58 feet above the ground, and 110 feet away from the drone. That is not to scale. On top of that, your angle is wrong. You have your Sun angle at 30 degrees above the horizon, at 110 feet away. When it should be at 16.2 degrees above the horizon at 93 million miles away.



posted on Jul, 7 2007 @ 10:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by 11 11
The only thing I saw was a Mickey Mouse 3DS MAX not to scale render. No proof at all. Please, post your sources..please...back up your words. Explain. Please tell me why the hoaxer put his light source to low? Did he not have knowledge as to the exact position of the sun?

I did mathematical calculations used in photograph forensics laboratories..

[edit on 7-7-2007 by 11 11]


This has been debated before. I am only going to reply to this because anyone new to the thread would read your heavily biased opinions and without seeing an alternative may believe there is actually something to what you are saying.

Why don't you start to post some proof, let's see those mathematical calculations then because all I have seen is two lines superimposed on a picture with the angle stated to show where the sun is.

Also, for something to be to scale it has to be a render, you are deliberately phrasing your posts to attempt to mislead.

Why don't you provide a link to the Mickey Mouse 3DS MAX, to me it was proof that the shadows were in the right place, it perhaps will be to others. There is then nothing to explain, the light source could actually have been the sun and you have not provided any detail to substantiate your assertion to the location of the sun, only reams of data about what angle the sun was in the sky at what particular time, which if anything added weight to the theory that it was around 20 degrees and pretty much horizontal to the plane of the drone's arm at the time the picture was supposedly taken.

In earlier posts you showed a clear ignorance of trigonometry, stating that even if the sun was only 5 degrees above the horizon it would create a shadow, which is clearly not true when referring to an object above ground level and was again misleading with no revelance.

You seem to throw cries of hoax willy nilly at any and each aspect of this whole thing, repeating the same opinions at random intervals and at the risk of being called polly myself, as I said earlier it's like being on a merry go round with a parrot.



posted on Jul, 7 2007 @ 10:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lexion
Originally posted by Springer

I believe it's a hoax.


Springer,
Thank you.

Good Lord Almighty,
Thank You.

Regards,
Lex


What does this mean ?
Are you saying that because Springer believes it's a hoax so do you ?
Why thank the Lord, were you afraid of this whole thing being true ?

When Springer does or say's something as a moderator that's because of his position. When he posts on here an opinion it should carry no more or no less weight than anyone elses.



posted on Jul, 7 2007 @ 10:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by chunder
Why don't you provide a link to the Mickey Mouse 3DS MAX, to me it was proof that the shadows were in the right place, it perhaps will be to others. There is then nothing to explain, the light source could actually have been the sun and you have not provided any detail to substantiate your assertion to the location of the sun, only reams of data about what angle the sun was in the sky at what particular time, which if anything added weight to the theory that it was around 20 degrees and pretty much horizontal to the plane of the drone's arm at the time the picture was supposedly taken.


Here, eat some more proof your mickey mouse 3DS MAX picture is wrong.

Heres the 3DSMAX render you believe in:
img456.imageshack.us...

...here is what is wrong with it...



According to: aa.usno.navy.mil... at the time the picture was taken, 5:42pm May 16th 2007. The Altitude and Azimuth of the sun was: 16.2 282.2

The render is wrong in both scale, and position.






[edit on 7-7-2007 by 11 11]



posted on Jul, 7 2007 @ 10:17 PM
link   
Lex, what gives?

A person refusing to believe in something that you consider imaginary thanking an imaginary deity?

Now I'm confused.


On a serious note: this thread is becoming repetitive. Until new info comes along, this is like listening to to old women argue over who's kid is better looking.

"Is so!"
"Ain't neither!"
"Is so!"
"Ain't neither!"


I keep coming back looking for something new to be added, and I keep being disappointed. I sure hope something breaks loose soon on this.

Edit to add: My points now stand at 12021, as of this post. Now I just wonder if this is an omen that this thread, as real or fake, can be read either way? And did the aliens/hoaxers plan it that way?


[edit on 7-7-2007 by NGC2736]



posted on Jul, 7 2007 @ 10:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by 11 11
Well according to your "Front" view, your Sun is about 58 feet above the ground, and 110 feet away from the drone. That is not to scale.


looool

Sometimes the truth is just so damn funny to hear when it's phrased right.



posted on Jul, 7 2007 @ 11:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by 11 11

Originally posted by chunder
Why don't you provide a link to the Mickey Mouse 3DS MAX, to me it was proof that the shadows were in the right place, it perhaps will be to others. There is then nothing to explain, the light source could actually have been the sun and you have not provided any detail to substantiate your assertion to the location of the sun, only reams of data about what angle the sun was in the sky at what particular time, which if anything added weight to the theory that it was around 20 degrees and pretty much horizontal to the plane of the drone's arm at the time the picture was supposedly taken.


Here, eat some more proof your mickey mouse 3DS MAX picture is wrong.

Heres the 3DSMAX render you believe in:
img456.imageshack.us...

...here is what is wrong with it...



According to: aa.usno.navy.mil... at the time the picture was taken, 5:42pm May 16th 2007. The Altitude and Azimuth of the sun was: 16.2 282.2

The render is wrong in both scale, and position.






[edit on 7-7-2007 by 11 11]


Firstly it's not "my" picture.

Secondly you contradict yourself above and seem to mix up altitude and azimuth.

I think you are trying to show the altitude of the sun at the time the picture was taken was 16.2. The "mickey mouse" image shows the sun at 28 degrees, higher in the sky than you are saying and the arm still wouldn't create a shadow at that altitude.

If the sun was even lower, as you appear to be saying, it definitely would not create a shadow as you would have us believe.

If you still want to try and argue that fact create an image as in the bottom left on the mickey mouse image, with the sun at 16 degrees altitude from the horizon. Try and then show that the sun would be above the plane of the arm and I would be interested to know what the height of the telegraph pole would then be. I realise I am asking you to do the work but then you are the one making the claim.

Thirdly, be careful what language you use, it's possible the same language will be used back.

Fourthly, I agree with others that none of this is new and I wish we didn't have to keep going over it and wasting time. The only reason I am responding is to try and put an alternative viewpoint for anyone new to the thread. I am not the one raising the same old thing.



posted on Jul, 8 2007 @ 12:05 AM
link   
Oops you found a typo, big whoop. I just accidentally swapped the numbers. Anyway, my argument still stands. No matter what altitude the sun is at, there would be a shadow on the left of the arm, because of the horizontal position of the sun. Not just the vertical..

[edit on 8-7-2007 by 11 11]



posted on Jul, 8 2007 @ 12:18 AM
link   
The fourth of July passed, i still fail to see any connection between scary Terrorists and UFO's....



posted on Jul, 8 2007 @ 12:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by 11 11

Even if the sun angle was perfectly horizontal, there would STILL be a shadow to the immediate left of the arm, but there isnt. The no shadow explination still hasn't been debunked. No matter what time of day, there should be a shadow under or to the left of the arm..

[edit on 7-7-2007 by 11 11]


Here you go.



posted on Jul, 8 2007 @ 12:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by 11 11
Oops you found a typo, big whoop. I just accidentally swapped the numbers. Anyway, my argument still stands. No matter what altitude the sun is at, there would be a shadow on the left of the arm, because of the horizontal position of the sun. Not just the vertical..

[edit on 8-7-2007 by 11 11]


I didn't make a big issue about the typo, how about thanks for pointing it out.

No your argument doesn't stand.

Even if the sun was in the right horizontal plane to make a shadow on the drone if it is not also in the correct vertical position (altitude) it would not create a shadow.

Will you admit that ?



posted on Jul, 8 2007 @ 01:22 AM
link   
noticing earlier that 1111 incorrectly stated the time incorrectly for rajman pic16 as 17:20 20.1 279.4, i went back and double checked my own work.

for some reason 3ds max and the navy don't agree.

max calculates altitude and azimuth for 17:40 as 273 and 27
navy calculates altitude and azimuth for 17:40 as 16 and 282

bumping max's time to up 18:40 puts into agreement with navy at 16 and 282.

why this is i'm not sure, maybe because max v8sp3 doesn't have the newest us daylight savings changes that were implemented recently.

in anycase, here is the adjusted scene. the diag. orange lines are the sun angle ;



yes, the arm does cast a shadow on the torus, although in this study they are exaggerated a for clarity.

i'm not sure yet why in my first study the shadowing was not as apparent, but looking closely at the old one there is some slight shadowing;



but the point of the matter is where is the expected shadow in the rajman-pic16 photo?

lost in the ambient white surface? diminished due to distance from the arm? atmospheric haze?

and now that i've had even more time with this image, i'm more ready to call this photo fake than i was 2 weeks ago. i'm beginning to think there are too many lighting inconsistencies here.

mickeymouse. hm. i'm not gonna touch that one...



posted on Jul, 8 2007 @ 01:43 AM
link   
Great work and please put me straight if my following comments are incorrect, I have no real knowledge in these areas.

I don't think you can show the suns rays as the orange lines because if that was the case the sun would be in more than one location.

The orange lines represent the sun's rays from different geographical locations.

You can only show the suns rays in respect of where the picture was taken, which is the blue line at the bottom, which appears to show that from the camera's perspective there would be no shadow cast by the arm ?

Please be gentle, I will re-iterate that I could well be talking from a place the sun don't shine.



posted on Jul, 8 2007 @ 01:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by spf33
yes, the arm does cast a shadow on the torus, although in this study they are exaggerated a for clarity.


Yes, so what I have been saying all along is actually correct? Wow, im so supprized. Not really. Thank you SPF33 for fixing your render and proving me correct. I appreciate it.






[edit on 8-7-2007 by 11 11]



new topics

top topics



 
185
<< 85  86  87    89  90  91 >>

log in

join