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: 108
185
<< 105  106  107    109  110  111 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 15 2007 @ 06:24 PM
link   
Few more hits with googles discussion forum search. One on a baldurs gate forum

He has a Losi XXX-T with new tires
So he's into RC's, maybe modelling too?

Darn, it's Todd E. Schwartz again, at least according to google groups.

Newsgroups: microsoft.public.money
From: "Todd E. Schwartz"
Date: Sun, 24 Mar 2002 20:24:46 -0800
Local: Mon, Mar 25 2002 7:24 am
Subject: Off Line Bill Pay???


[edit on 15/7/2007 by PsykoOps]




posted on Jul, 15 2007 @ 06:34 PM
link   
This is pretty interesting and highly relevant:


Professional Computer Engineers Comment
About "Isaac" and CARET Document


www.earthfiles.com...

J.



posted on Jul, 15 2007 @ 06:40 PM
link   
Well, if nothing else we know that if you use contact from the website it goes to this same lawyer. So he's not just a middle man for registering, maybe even the webmaster. Or of course he might be the hoaxer all along... who knows



posted on Jul, 15 2007 @ 06:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by SaucyRossy

Originally posted by promomag
1: This is real

or

2: This IS THE person that created the drone and initially submitted all the original photos under the various names to various sites on the Internet.


Can you explain why you think either of those things because of that picture?

Also to the other guy here is the thread connecting Halo3 to the drones.
www.abovetopsecret.com...


Well, that the Halo viral marketing theory debunked for me at least. Showing a few pics of The Antikathera Computer, Stonehenge, and a well-know pic of one of the 'Drones' does not constitute a Microsoft financed marketing campaign.... MS didn't bulid Stonehenge or The Antikathera Computer either...

J.



posted on Jul, 15 2007 @ 06:52 PM
link   
I'm still going with the h2owind guy, if you google that you get plenty of korean pages btw. If he uses that as a username and email addy it might lead somewhere...



posted on Jul, 15 2007 @ 06:56 PM
link   
Hey anyone who knows korean could you check out h2owind.exblog.jp.... I'm starting to think this is different person just using the same handle. At least from the outlook of the page the last thing you think is "lawyer from palo alto"

[Edit] And now there's one estonian forum with that member name, so unless it's a girly guy who windsurfes and speaks korean and estonian it's at least 2 different persons


[edit on 15/7/2007 by PsykoOps]



posted on Jul, 15 2007 @ 06:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by -Jaguar-
This is supposdely a Halo 3 viral marketing site. Scroll to the bottom. Look familure?

Also I notice this Fortunecity site still has not gone down. The free fortunecity sites are limited to 3GB of bandwidth. If the site doesn't go down, someone paid for hosting, which would be extremely easy to trace.


Nope. I didn't find anything....where exactly? I found the link to the stupid computer animation of a robot in a passage....nothing else..

J.



posted on Jul, 15 2007 @ 06:58 PM
link   
The pictures shown on the main here
isaaccaret.fortunecity.com...
tell me right away that it is computer generated images.

I generate computer images for a living and going only on those five images i'd say its fake.
But ill read the story and click his images, see if that can erase my sceptism.

Like someone said before, think about what you can do these day's with 3d animation software.
"http://features-temp.cgsociety.org/gallerycrits/248497/248497_1176885914_large.jpg"

[edit on 15-7-2007 by jaamaan]



posted on Jul, 15 2007 @ 07:19 PM
link   
I hate to say this for the millionth time, that just screams CGI. I've yet to see even one cgi picture that would come even close to the drone images. Maybe it's because they dont include photographic filters and anomalies that would make them look more genuine. They dont have to since they're not trying to pass them as real photgraphs I guess...



posted on Jul, 15 2007 @ 07:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by ejsaunders
'Nother thing that's bothering me: It states in the report, he's had this for about 20 years, and the report itself suggests releasing the technology in increments over a period of years, so why don't we have any of the technology in commercial (not military, its a commercial concern project) use now?

I've also SEEN that font somewhere. I searched my 800 or so weird fonts (I use them to make decals myself for modelling projects) but the nearest I could find was Alphabet of the Magi and some esoteric one with no name that had square renderings very similar to some of the rounded characters in the alien font.


How do you know we haven't seen some of this tech filtered down in commercial applications in the last 20 years or so? Technology have evolved at an incredible pace since 1986...

J.



posted on Jul, 15 2007 @ 07:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by jaamaan

I generate computer images for a living and going only on those five images i'd say its fake.
But ill read the story and click his images, see if that can erase my sceptism.


Take a look at the "Report Photo" links on the right. They are such obvious fakes its incredible they have been considered credible. Springer had another Pro on ATS who was willing to give his name. I recognize him because we frequent the same boards nearly every day. He of course confirmed the fakes all around.

The photo's of the drones in the air appear to be CG added to real photo's and then printed and scanned in an attempt to hide the addition of the rendered models. The nice touch of hair and lint from the dirty scanner glass has confused some people. I have not read past about 12 pages ago so forgive if someone has said the same.

One of the last things I read was something about the dirt spots on the scanner glass. The person was trying to figure out how you get dirt on CG. It was either on the original photo before the fake drone was added or more likely on the scanner glass since it is clear the owner does not keep their equipment clean.

I'd say the only thing left is to find out who the culprits are. I think Issacs crap is separate from the others.

No one here will believe you are a Pro unless you reveal who you are. Don't do it! You will end up hounded all the time. I was surprised when the other person did?



posted on Jul, 15 2007 @ 07:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by ThaDewd
Has the fact been brought up that in picture 4, the piece on the right has no shadow and looks like its floating? Yea this is fake...

[edit on 27-6-2007 by ThaDewd]


Well, the Issac document states that this is a pic of the anti-grav device in use....did you read the document? It's all in there..... I'm fence sitting this one too. Fascinating though..

J.



posted on Jul, 15 2007 @ 07:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by crudos

Originally posted by blowfishdl
Notice how these two circled objects are positioned in a way only possible by suspending them by strings? These pics were rendered using 3-d modeling programs.


I don't see them as "floating", rather the two sections are blown-up to show details. It's common practice in manufacturers catalogs. The two sections were clipped out with photoshop and layered on the picture of the main device. No smoking gun as far as I'm concerned.


Actually, if you read the doc carefully, it states that figure 4.4 is an actual photo of the anti-grav in action...


J.



posted on Jul, 15 2007 @ 07:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by PsykoOps
I hate to say this for the millionth time, that just screams CGI. I've yet to see even one cgi picture that would come even close to the drone images.


I think that is because the photo's are real. The drones are the fake part that is added later. It appears they were printed again after the CG item was added and then scanned in an attempt at hiding the inclusion of the CG item.

There is only one program I'm aware of that will come close on an outdoor environment. It's called Vue6 Infinite and will come close to real looking sky. That is why real photo's of a sky are often used. Inserting CG objects is really easy to do and hard to detect. A undectable pure CG outdoor environment is not yet possible. Inserting a convincing object into a photo is.

The "report photo's" (4.1 to 4.4 I think?) are pure CG if you have not looked. the links are on the right side of the original Isacc (spelling? sorry) page on Fortune City.



posted on Jul, 15 2007 @ 07:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Quazga
How is this CGI?

isaaccaret.fortunecity.com...


It looks 'plastic-like' - but not CGI to my eyes...


J.



posted on Jul, 15 2007 @ 07:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by an0maly33
i've taken a pretty close look at the photos. even if they aren't what they purport to be, i do believe they are physical objects and not photoshopped. the reflections are just too accurate and detailed to be cg imo. i'm not declaring that i'm right but it sure is a damn good cg job if it is. especially in 4.2 you can see the reflection of the "generator" that's sitting off camera to the left. you can alos see reflections of the markings on the insides of both objects.

in 4.1 you can see in the reflection that there is an "edge" to the white space the object is sitting on. so if this was rendered then the artist would have put this against a white plane instead of making the surrounding space completely white. if you think in terms of this being a large object then it can't possibly be real - i think that's the perception that some people have. but if you think of this in terms of an object sitting on a table then the images look pretty authentic.

[edit for more comments]

[edit on 27-6-2007 by an0maly33]



Good observation. Interesting.....

J.



posted on Jul, 15 2007 @ 08:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheExaminer
has anyone noticed the giant faint blue T shape in the background of all the document scans? reminds me a little of the Torchwood T used in the British TV series.

I'm looking at each document closely to see if I can find another artifacts of interest.

What does everyone else make of the T shape?



Hmmm....good find - I hadn't noticed that. What IS 'Torchwood' exactly? Any ideas by anyone on this faint blue T?

J.



posted on Jul, 15 2007 @ 08:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by flyingobjects
To respond to the picture showing peices of the main sections of the drone. First off, what is the dimensions of the pieces? It seems that after assy it should be what, 8 ft in dia? Assuming that they are sitting on a hanger floor, where's the jigs to aid in taking them appart? Where's the tool boxes? Where's the test equipment? All assy / disassembly areas are tapped off to denote eye protection required. Also, setting these "artifacs" on bare concrete floor would be an extreem no-no. Even if not on a hanger floor, but on another surface where's the ESD (electrical static distarge) controll?

Lockheed guy - chime up on this. How many aircraft would be treated like this on a DOD program?

Regards,

Boeing IDS Guy


Maybe they are simply early, scaled-down prototypes of the later full-sized drone? Who knows?

J.



posted on Jul, 15 2007 @ 08:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Blaine91555

The "report photo's" (4.1 to 4.4 I think?) are pure CG if you have not looked. the links are on the right side of the original Isacc (spelling? sorry) page on Fortune City.


Yeah I've got them in high res version and I'm not convinced about the cgi. There have been arguments over this matter but I still think they're real.



posted on Jul, 15 2007 @ 08:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by xSMOKING_GUNx
Have you guys seen this video?

Video Link


Yeah - it's a CGI animation based on the photos...

J.



new topics

top topics



 
185
<< 105  106  107    109  110  111 >>

log in

join