Board Logo
« Drone Discussion #10 »

Welcome Guest. Please Login or Register.
Dec 14th, 2017, 6:41pm


Visit the UFO Casebook Web Site

*Totally FREE 24/7 Access *Your Nickname and Avatar *Private Messages

*Join today and be a part of one of the largest UFO sites on the Net.


« Previous Topic | Next Topic »
Pages: 1 ... 60 61 62 63 64  ...  100 Notify Send Topic Print
 sticky  Author  Topic: Drone Discussion #10  (Read 70528 times)
TheShadow
Senior Member
ImageImageImageImage


member is offline

Avatar




PM

Gender: Male
Posts: 299
xx Re: Drone Discussion #10
« Reply #915 on: Nov 8th, 2009, 9:28pm »

Wow What a spectacular .....




















....waste of an hour of my life!!!!
User IP Logged

Gort
New Member
Image


member is offline

Avatar




PM


Posts: 0
xx Re: Drone Discussion #10
« Reply #916 on: Nov 8th, 2009, 11:14pm »

I could only listen for about 5 mins.

What was the conclusion?
User IP Logged

hjdelight
Gold Member
ImageImageImageImageImage


member is offline

Avatar




PM

Gender: Male
Posts: 1653
xx Re: Drone Discussion #10
« Reply #917 on: Nov 8th, 2009, 11:22pm »

This has gone on for so long......I don't care anymore...real or hoax....who cares?
User IP Logged

Arrogance is a fragile springboard from which to jump to conclusions says I.
SiddReader
Guest
xx Re: Drone Discussion #10
« Reply #918 on: Nov 9th, 2009, 02:32am »

on Nov 8th, 2009, 11:14pm, Gort wrote:
I could only listen for about 5 mins.

What was the conclusion?


We will never know, because we were not able to meet the PIs at the bar. cry
User IP Logged

SiddReader
Guest
xx Re: Drone Discussion #10
« Reply #919 on: Nov 9th, 2009, 03:50am »

on Nov 8th, 2009, 6:49pm, Katterfelto wrote:
Forgot, there's a person of interest who lived in the complex by the pole. Reminded me of Robert. shocked


Father and son, mhm. Where did I see that before?
User IP Logged

Jeddyhi
Senior Member
ImageImageImageImage


member is offline

Avatar




PM

Gender: Male
Posts: 589
xx Re: Drone Discussion #10
« Reply #920 on: Nov 9th, 2009, 1:28pm »

After another listen to make sure I didn't miss anything, I must say that the presentation was well done at least from a PR point of view. Funny, insightful, informative...well done.

However, it is painfully obvious that the presentation was delivered with a pro 'real' bias. Details such as the false photo witness testimoney and the unlikely scenario of a drone floating over Campbell in the middle of the afternoon in a highly populated area and only being noticed by the photographer, the fact that all the reports came via internet only, no corroborating police reports, etc....that was all left out. Perhaps it was because of time restriction. Also no mention of all the CGI professional condemnations of the photos.

All in all, it sounded like a drone promo. A brief summary report including all evidence, pro and con, should have been presented before focusing on the pro stance.

« Last Edit: Nov 9th, 2009, 3:13pm by Jeddyhi » User IP Logged

"Nothing will ever claim ownership of the original Drone information, so copyright is not a question. Use it."- Masker33
Gort
New Member
Image


member is offline

Avatar




PM


Posts: 0
xx Re: Drone Discussion #10
« Reply #921 on: Nov 9th, 2009, 3:23pm »

After 5 mins thats what I thought, maybe I have a psychic ability to perceive "Bos primigenius" excrement.

I should be a professional consultant.
User IP Logged

blackwater
Full Member
ImageImageImage


member is offline

Avatar




PM


Posts: 104
xx Re: Drone Discussion #10
« Reply #922 on: Nov 9th, 2009, 4:53pm »

on Nov 8th, 2009, 11:14pm, Gort wrote:
I could only listen for about 5 mins.

What was the conclusion?


It's too detailed to be a hoax.

Quote:
My question is "What is it?"
and I'll tell ya right now, we don't know.
Is it real? a government project? or a hoax?
It's something, there's something out there.
This is not some 18 year old kid on a computer having fun with people. It's too detailed.


They're still pushing the $50,000 estimate to finance the hoax... what a joke.

neveleeleven's post summed everything up perfectly. Linda getting interrupted by the loud video yelling HOAX was hilarious. grin

User IP Logged

let 'em call ya anything but late for a meal time.
murnut
Senior Member
ImageImageImageImage


member is offline

Avatar




Homepage PM

Gender: Male
Posts: 615
xx Re: Drone Discussion #10
« Reply #923 on: Nov 9th, 2009, 4:55pm »

User Image
User IP Logged

You want a revolution?
You've got to make a difference on your own
You want a revolution?
Stand up, stand out and make it known
Katterfelto
Guest
xx Re: Drone Discussion #10
« Reply #924 on: Nov 9th, 2009, 5:39pm »

on Nov 9th, 2009, 4:53pm, blackwater wrote:
It's too detailed to be a hoax.



They're still pushing the $50,000 estimate to finance the hoax... what a joke.

neveleeleven's post summed everything up perfectly. Linda getting interrupted by the loud video yelling HOAX was hilarious. grin


Basic premise is the images ARE NOT CGI! End of story. grin
Consulting some phychic (Dotty Boone??) hopefully confirmed that. laugh
Even if they never find the people behind it all, it will be remembered as real by a few and the invesigation would have proved it by not finding who did it. rolleyes
Time for Masker to enter stage left now.
User IP Logged

Klatunictobarata
Guest
xx Re: Drone Discussion #10
« Reply #925 on: Nov 10th, 2009, 02:35am »

on Nov 9th, 2009, 5:39pm, Katterfelto wrote:
Basic premise is the images ARE NOT CGI! End of story. grin
Consulting some phychic (Dotty Boone??) hopefully confirmed that. laugh
Even if they never find the people behind it all, it will be remembered as real by a few and the invesigation would have proved it by not finding who did it. rolleyes
Time for Masker to enter stage left now.



Hold the presses!

Everything gets to be recycled over and over and over again:

7 November 2009

"Scientific analysis suggests Billy Meier UFO photos may be genuine!"



http://www.allnewsweb.com/page9399895.php


If you fake it, they will come...


User IP Logged

Katterfelto
Guest
xx Re: Drone Discussion #10
« Reply #926 on: Nov 10th, 2009, 07:17am »

on Nov 10th, 2009, 02:35am, Klatunictobarata wrote:
Hold the presses!

Everything gets to be recycled over and over and over again:

7 November 2009

"Scientific analysis suggests Billy Meier UFO photos may be genuine!"


http://www.allnewsweb.com/page9399895.php

If you fake it, they will come...


Especially if you charge. grin They are X-Raying prints?

"This is empirical evidence that is beyond the scope of denial"

"If you look closely there seems to be two heads on the leading edge, in the up coming photographs of the second Billy Meier photograph taken in 1984 you see the same crocodile image. APEP examined the eye of the large Head and believe it is used for imaging objects, it maybe a camera of sorts."


Science gone amonk? You can't can make this up! rolleyes
« Last Edit: Nov 10th, 2009, 10:31am by Katterfelto » User IP Logged

Double Nought Spy
Gold Member
ImageImageImageImageImage


member is offline

Avatar




PM


Posts: 1429
xx Re: Drone Discussion #10
« Reply #927 on: Nov 10th, 2009, 11:07am »

This stuff is great!

"Every UFO imaged by APEP over the last 5 years has had pictographs on the exterior, it is the opinion of APEP's creators after studying hundreds of UFO's that the first clue that a UFO photograph was faked is the omission of pictographs."


Eureka! What a handy way to sort out the fakes! I don't recall seeing any pictographs on any of the drones. That settles it then. laugh
User IP Logged


All sane people detest noise. --Mark Twain

tommi01
Gold Member
ImageImageImageImageImage


member is offline

Avatar




PM


Posts: 3955
xx Re: Drone Discussion #10
« Reply #928 on: Nov 11th, 2009, 05:55am »

http://www.ufomystic.com/2009/11/10/2009-crash-retrieval-conference/

Ohboyohboyohboy grin .. I wish I was a fly on the wall.....
User IP Logged

Marvin
Gold Member
ImageImageImageImageImage


member is offline

Avatar

Mmm, yes, very curious, very interesting....


PM

Gender: Male
Posts: 1119
xx Re: Drone Discussion #10
« Reply #929 on: Nov 11th, 2009, 08:08am »

on Nov 10th, 2009, 02:35am, Klatunictobarata wrote:
Hold the presses!

Everything gets to be recycled over and over and over again:

7 November 2009

"Scientific analysis suggests Billy Meier UFO photos may be genuine!"



http://www.allnewsweb.com/page9399895.php


If you fake it, they will come...





Thanks for the link Klatunictobarata. I lMAO… here are some reasons why:


User Image

"Scientific analysis suggests Billy Meier UFO photos may be genuine"


“An original copy of the Billy Meier Photograph taken March 26, 1981 is seen below. The photography has not been retouched or manipulated in any detectable way and the conclusion of the scientific team is that it is authentic in every aspect. The craft measures approximately 48 feet in diameter and is 25 feet tall, it's composition is unknown and it is in no way is suspended by any device detectable. There is no pixel manipulation or overlay created by any artificial means, the craft is not supported by any means known.”
http://www.allnewsweb.com/page9399895.php


1. “Scientific analysis suggests Billy Meier UFO photos may be genuine.” What is the relationship of “suggests” to “it is a proven fact” (besides none)? This title indeed sets the tone for the article.

2. An “original copy.” Is that like saying a genuine reproduction? Any reliable analysis of this kind must be conducted on the original photo… consequently, any “scientific evidence” gleamed in this “study” is suspect… since artifacts may be introduced by digital copying (such as jpeg artifacts) and further contamination by editing, but were assumed to be apart of the original photo. Therefore, I can not fathom their conclusion that “it is authentic in every aspect,” other than being an authentic facsimile that created detectable distortions to the picture.

3. “The craft measures approximately 48 feet in diameter and is 25 feet tall” is based on what assumptions? The focus (as in what is in focus of the camera or what made a clear, non-fuzzy image) suggests the automobile and the “craft” are at different distances (the craft being very near the camera and out of focus... and the automobile being much farther away and in focus).

4. “…it is in no way is suspended by any device detectable.” Go back and look at the photo that was referenced (the photo above)… you cannot see the top of the craft… it was cut off (not in the frame). Look mom, no wires!






Here is what they failed to investigate or show:


User Image

The above is another of Billy Meier's "Wedding Cake Craft" photos.

Notice: one of the pegs has fallen off the model craft (on to the middle section on the left side)… and the craft has now shrunk in size. If the craft is 25 feet tall, it should be hiding a large portion of the house … and it should appear to be almost as tall at the house (due to perspective…having a very large object between the camera and the house will make the object appear to be larger than it really is). Also notice how the 48 foot wide craft fits into this relatively small area (between the camera and the house) with lots of room to spare.

For more info: click on me.



I can go on and on… but this was not a scientific investigation (nor an investigation for the truth).

Thanks again Klatunictobarata!


User IP Logged

Oh Goody! My Illudiom Pu-36 Explosive Space Modulator!

User Image

"You naughty earth specimens!"
Pages: 1 ... 60 61 62 63 64  ...  100 Notify Send Topic Print
« Previous Topic | Next Topic »

Become a member of the UFO Casebook Forum today and join our more than 19,000 members.

Visit the UFO Casebook Web Site

Donate $6.99 for 50,000 Ad-Free Pageviews!

| |

This forum powered for FREE by Conforums ©
Sign up for your own Free Message Board today!
Terms of Service | Privacy Policy | Conforums Support | Parental Controls