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: 109
185
<< 106  107  108    110  111  112 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 15 2007 @ 08:31 PM
link   
About 100 times by now
Saladfingers work if I remember right.




posted on Jul, 15 2007 @ 08:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by wildone106
Been working in computer game graphics & animation since 1994 from the early days of 3D Studio right up to Maya 7.1, before that had a traditional art background from college. Im not a master by any means, but having worked around all sorts of CGI art & animation for over 10 years I think it qualifys me to have some expert opinion of this stuff, dont you think? As does anyone who has worked in a computer graphic related field. I think alot of people here are frankly ignorant of whats possible and further have no idea of the current state in 3d techniques or whats possible





Originally posted by ashnomadonte



wildone106
And the objects depicted in the photo are very CGI, if you work with it you can just tell the feel of the rendering technique.


What is your CGI background that makes you qualified to make this claim?

not trying to be mean or any thing just wondering If you could post some computer school diploma or something that says your a CGI master or something.


[edit on 27-6-2007 by wildone106]


Ok....let's say we buy that. Then why does another earlier poster on this thread claim he had a hollywood friend who's an expert in CGI claim that the photos were not CGI then?
If this is CGI, then why are the other known CGI smaple I think you posted here, in no way look as realistic as the Issac pics? Just curious really..


J.



posted on Jul, 15 2007 @ 08:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by PsykoOps

still think they're real.


We will have to agree to disagree. I think the shadows reveal that Radiosity was used and the reflections lack of revealing even the slightest evidence of a background or light source is the smoking gun. Even in a light box with a surface facing most every direction your going to pick up at least a couple of reflections of the front light source not to mention the camera itself. Look at the incredible amount of reflected light in the shadow. I'd say the Radiosity Gain is set to high to try and give more contrast to a black object.

I guess this part of this topic is beat to death. Everyone has made up their minds. Anything other than exposing the hoaxer or a bunch of drones showing up everywhere will probably not change any minds.



posted on Jul, 15 2007 @ 08:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by jimbo999

Ok....let's say we buy that. Then why does another earlier poster on this thread claim he had a hollywood friend who's an expert in CGI claim that the photos were not CGI then?
If this is CGI, then why are the other known CGI smaple I think you posted here, in no way look as realistic as the Issac pics? Just curious really..


J.


You did not ask this of me but -

The examples are not of CG items added to a real photo.

The photo's fooled me at first. Until I found where the hoaxer made an small error in his clip aroung a bit of power line. Then I started realizing the small errors in lighting direction and the shadow softness.

I'd say this topic is at a stalemate without a smoking gun.



posted on Jul, 15 2007 @ 09:25 PM
link   
Jimbo...

Do yourself a FAVOR and read what one of the CREATORS of photoshop, an absolute GIANT in CGI/Digital Imaging has to say... FIRST, do a Google search on the name David Biedny and then do a boolean here on ATS for some GENUINE "Expert Opinion".



Springer...



posted on Jul, 15 2007 @ 09:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Blaine91555
The photo's fooled me at first. Until I found where the hoaxer made an small error in his clip aroung a bit of power line. Then I started realizing the small errors in lighting direction and the shadow softness.

I'd say this topic is at a stalemate without a smoking gun.


Are we all positive that Rajman is Isaac then? Quite a few pages of this thread have been devoted to proving the Rajman photos are faked, but I fail to see what light this throws on the Isaac/Caret images. Given the amount of time between the first "Chad" drone showing up, Rajman's hoax and the Isaac revelations, I'm leaning more towards there being more than one person hanging on to this bandwagon.

So, well over two thousand posts and all we've really ascertained is that the Rajman photos are CGI. What about Isaac?!?



posted on Jul, 15 2007 @ 09:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Karilla
So, well over two thousand posts and all we've really ascertained is that the Rajman photos are CGI. What about Isaac?!?


It may take 30,000 to get there but "get there" we will... The "experts" are all confident the "Isaac" images are CGI as well. Considering the years he claims the images were taken in (1980's) I tend to agree, that and the several other "issues" with the "Isaac" stuff tell me it's a hoax.

The weird part is WHY...

Govt. test/data mine/networking path map?
Some guy who thinks he's too smart and can fool the community?
A Viral Marketing scheme?
A composed disinformation campaign?
A solid attempt at painting those who believe in this as gullible beyond credibility?

The questions relative to a motive are nearly as endless as the possibilities of whether this is real or a hoax.


Springer...



posted on Jul, 15 2007 @ 10:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Springer
The "experts" are all confident the "Isaac" images are CGI as well.
Springer...


Hi Springer - no-one's claimed the Inventory Review photo CGI yet (or if they have I haven't seen it).

It doesn't leave much if the others are false other than that would have had to come first, good imagination to develop the whole hoax from that.
There could always be something in just that picture if the parts can't be identified.



posted on Jul, 15 2007 @ 10:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Springer
Jimbo...
Do yourself a FAVOR and read what one of the CREATORS of photoshop, an absolute GIANT in CGI/Digital Imaging has to say... FIRST, do a Google search on the name David Biedny and then do a boolean here on ATS for some GENUINE "Expert Opinion".

Springer...


Hi Springer - not picking on your posts honest !
I have tried to find any direct comments from David Biedny but all I can find are others commenting that he says it's fake. I would be interested in reading a direct quote or evaluation.
I have read through quite a bit and can't find it - are you able to point me in the right direction ?
Thanks



posted on Jul, 15 2007 @ 10:49 PM
link   
Some comments and I don't post much here these days..

If this has been covered then excuse me as I haven't read the hundreds of posts on the drones.

First, the writing and the piece of material presented aka Caret, looks like that shown on the Spielberg 'Taken" series. What does this refer to? A copy cat or the series was based on factual evidence.

Secondly, more information to add to my early posts on the drones, the consortium eg. the human and reptillian alliance spread disinfo in the thread refering to aliens wanting to clean up the world. The nordics are not friends of humanity's elites and have distanced themselves from them. When our elites go underground due to severe earth changes it will be to hide and evade harm to them and to cozy up with their slimy alien friends who will then enslave them totally if not destroy them soon after. Any actions by the nordics will not be for their benefit as the thread seemed to suggest.

The drones are controlled by the greys as the scouting party for the coming draco and especially the nephilim giants. The probes are designed for multi-purpose roles but their sighting in California and area is about checking seismic activity and also taking the electromagnetic energy that results from 'quartite friction' on a massive scale. The probes are not designed to be portals of any kind as the op in that thread suggested, totally erroneous although much is true in the thread re: upcoming events and the traitorous actions of human elites.

The increasing visiblity of probes, aliens and especially ufo's in general is due to three factors: the larger numbers, the changing frequencies in the earth sphere and lastly desire for conditioning humanity to the coming invasion.

Most hardcore debunkers of this activity are in fact acting for human elites in fear that the truth gets out before they can run and scurry away like rats and hide in their holes without the rest of us turning on them.

The aliens in either case don't care.

Till next time... keep the faith!

[edit on 15-7-2007 by denythestatusquo]



posted on Jul, 15 2007 @ 10:54 PM
link   
As I've said before, I'm a layman, and I make no claims to the cgi/not cgi arguments. I believe our experts. I have learned over my life that it is a good thing to trust those people that have worked in a field long enough to acquire the top levels of skill.

But my question that I posed earlier has never been touched on. Can a real photo, of a real object, be "worked up" in such a way that it would look like a really good fake?

Can elements of "cgi-ness" (put that in your dictionary
) be added to existing pictures?

I think most people can figure out what I'm aiming for here.



posted on Jul, 15 2007 @ 11:02 PM
link   
Oh yes, NGC2736, "proper" photos can be CGI'd up. I spent a short time (before quitting in disgust) at Flash in the Portobello Road. They are an image processing lab, film, digital, printing, the whole bundle, but my job was to remove imperfections in the work of pro-photographers. I removed cellulite from Naomi Campbell's arse, and significant portions of Helena Christensen's waist. Some photographers specifically wanted there to be ambiguity as to production methods, i.e. they wanted the 3D "look". It can be achieved in photoshop fairly easily, it's just time consuming (mind you I managed to make all the jobs I did there time consuming... hourly rate, y'see).

And this was in 2000-2001, and although I'm out of the loop now, I have no reason to believe that things have stood still. This is partly why I'm so suspicious at the instant claims of CG. It's possible to make CGi look real, and vice versa.



posted on Jul, 15 2007 @ 11:20 PM
link   
I was not going to make additional posts on this topic but this needs to be said if not said already.

What is possible has nothing to do with what has been done. Yes, read it again: what I can distort or corrupt or change has no bearing whatsoever on whether something can be true or not.

It will be false if you need it to be false and true if you have faith or belief.

Those that NEED reality to be what they need it to be will fight to ensure it stays within parameters that they can accept. That is their job, to understand reality to the extent that they can.

Others will approach with an open mind and it is their right also to imagine or even conceive.

Those that deceive for profit or personal gain either way are commiting great harm to their own spiritual development.



posted on Jul, 15 2007 @ 11:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Karilla
It's possible to make CGi look real, and vice versa.


So if a person or group had photos that were real, and they wanted to later have an "out" to explain them away if need be, then it would be possible to "render" them just enough to make them look like exceptional fakes.

Which is another way of looking for the why and who of this little mystery.



posted on Jul, 16 2007 @ 12:02 AM
link   
Some of the photos have in fact been edited slightly by request of the consortium due to identifying information on the probes that could link them to human elites. Otherwise the photos are real (except lame attempts by some on ATS and those English images which scream fake). This has already been suggested on the very first thread on this topic and for which I challenged 'experts' on this topic which are said to be friends of this website.

Images were edited not because they were fake but to protect certain human groups from being found out.



posted on Jul, 16 2007 @ 12:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by denythestatusquo
Some of the photos have in fact been edited slightly by request of the consortium due to identifying information on the probes that could link them to human elites. Otherwise the photos are real (except lame attempts by some on ATS and those English images which scream fake). This has already been suggested on the very first thread on this topic and for which I challenged 'experts' on this topic which are said to be friends of this website.

Images were edited not because they were fake but to protect certain human groups from being found out.


And out of sheer curiosity, how do you know all of this? How do you know so much about this alien agenda? Is it all speculation or do you work for some organization? Can you please provide your credentials?

I have always thought this drone thing was real, so I'm not implying that you are providing misinformation. I just want to know how you know what you claim. Please site your sources.

[edit on 7/16/2007 by pjslug]



posted on Jul, 16 2007 @ 12:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by denythestatusquo
Some of the photos have in fact been edited slightly by request of the consortium due to identifying information on the probes that could link them to human elites. Otherwise the photos are real (except lame attempts by some on ATS and those English images which scream fake). This has already been suggested on the very first thread on this topic and for which I challenged 'experts' on this topic which are said to be friends of this website.

Images were edited not because they were fake but to protect certain human groups from being found out.


I may regret asking this question, but then, I am the one who looks down every path. So just where are you getting your information?

And please tell me it is some source that mortal men can access without becoming vegetarian monks with a crystal third eye planted in our foreheads. I prefer books but will use web sites.

Thank you.



posted on Jul, 16 2007 @ 12:11 AM
link   
Springer, no disrespect but if you think the reason for this "hoax" is possibly to "paint those who believe this as gullible beyond credibility" coudln't that contribute to you being extra careful in what you say about it? You have the biggest conspiracy sight in the known universe (at least my known universe) and you and everyone that comes here would look foolish if you declared it real and it turned into a hoax.... Could you provide specific links to what convinced you that it is a hoax. Your opinion is respected, mostly due to your cool avatar I suspect.

denythestatusquo: Why would anyone want to prepare us for the coming invasion? Especially the Aliens. If I were to be in charge of an invasion I'd want the element of surprise so that I could utterly crush and vanquish my enemies.



posted on Jul, 16 2007 @ 01:23 AM
link   
I remember the tale of of the blind mice, each scouring different parts of the elephant, one returning from the leg saying this is tree, another a rope,
etc. the last of seven went all around, up and down, from tail to trunk, and came u[ with Elephant. We, have to be like the last mouse, or like the cold case cop, and go over all the evidence, and we might get lucky. Now we do have some names, besides LMH and others that make a profit by maintaining mysteries. Springer came up with that excellent email from Edwards. I have been searching for connections between palo alto and georgia tech. I believe edwards was telling the truth..but not the whole truth that leads me to believe that it may be either viral marketing for a book, or a study of blog behaviour in marketing. Yes we as users are extremely important and with newspaper and tv, no longer the preminent sources, companies are pulling their hairs out how to gauge our behaviour wants and needs.if we go to the following link which has some great marketing and development stategies. looky here whos names pop a veritable whos who marketing and advertisement that include Edwards

Listening In: Practices Surrounding iTunes Music Sharing
Amy Voida, Rebecca E. Grinter, Georgia Institute of Technology, USA;
Nicolas Ducheneaut, Palo Alto Research Center, USA;
W. Keith Edwards, Georgia Institute of Technology, USA;
Mark W. Newman, Palo Alto Research Center, USA.


blog.futurelab.net...


These people, are just a handful involved, thus the gut feeling some of us haved that there is more than one person involved interested not only behaviour, but how best to get a product to us..nothing wrong with that..Honestly, we are the future of business modelling now.

The first search described edwards work in sharing studies with kodak users. now its bloggers because a lot of companies like Dell use that to improve a product and come up with what their users want..example is when alienware was snatched up by dell.

I don't think they will let this Isaac thing gets any farther thus the sudden silence

To all my fellow mice..keep scouring other parts of this beast besides the photos. by the way search the links that are on the columns on this link I posted, it really makes for good reading and a better appreciation of whats going on all over, including here.

Good Luck

SyS
^i^



posted on Jul, 16 2007 @ 01:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by jimbo999

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.


When I first heard this, back in this thread, I applied a chalk and charcoal filter effect to the scans (in Photoshop and ms photo editor) and got this result


I thought it might be an artifact from Isaac’s scanner, but it doesn’t show up on the photo’s he scanned, only the documents



new topics

top topics



 
185
<< 106  107  108    110  111  112 >>

log in

join