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: 116
185
<< 113  114  115    117  118  119 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 18 2007 @ 08:14 PM
link   

It wouldn’t be international, but it would be national.
I believe it’s just two different group’s of just a few people ,the Big Basin I believe it a copy cat ,now to which group Isaac belongs two, I could go either way on that
But for me to assume this is real, it’s even a greater highly organized situation involving many more times the people


Oops! I meant "national." Sorry for that typo. One could have those phone records traced to find out where the calls were originating from. We could ask LMH if those phone numbers appeared on her phone or if they showed up as anonymous, OR if she called them then she would definitely have the phone numbers. She is obviously very convinced that this is real, as am I, but she actually spoke with those people who seem to be upset that people here think it is CGI. There are many different shots in different areas of the sky in different cities with different drone shapes. If a hoax
the most elaborate one any of us has ever seen, which to me is extremely doubtful.




posted on Jul, 18 2007 @ 08:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by pjslug
If a hoax
the most elaborate one any of us has ever seen, which to me is extremely doubtful.


Wait a minute, this is not even close to the "most elaborate hoax" I have ever seen mate.
Not even in the same ball park.

Springer...



posted on Jul, 18 2007 @ 08:24 PM
link   
What would you consider the most elaborate hoax you've ever seen then Springer?

EDIT: I'm sure you've seen your share, remember this bozo?


Poorly done hoax.

[edit on 7/18/2007 by ExquisitExamplE]



posted on Jul, 18 2007 @ 08:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by pjslug
We could ask LMH if those phone numbers appeared on her phone or if they showed up as anonymous, OR if she called them then she would definitely have the phone numbers. She is obviously very convinced that this is real,

Yes she is,
To your knowledge has she released full size scans of the Ty images? be nice if she did. I don’t think the Alabama (or was it Tennessee ) witness is part of this “plot” I’m not sure what to make of that one ,haven’t really look at it too much but it doesn't seem to fit with my theory of what happening in califona
at the very least this whole thing has got my attention



posted on Jul, 18 2007 @ 08:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by ExquisitExamplE
What would you consider the most elaborate hoax you've ever seen then Springer?


I'm not Springer, but I'd pick Billy Meier.



posted on Jul, 18 2007 @ 10:31 PM
link   
I was asked to add my posting to this thread due to drone film content.

I watched this video from Madrin explaining that videos on the internet of real looking crafts are fake. Apparently they are reasuring people that they are made on computers.

I wonder if there concern growing or hype.




posted on Jul, 18 2007 @ 10:36 PM
link   
Thanks "R" for transferring this over here. (Please disregard my edit on your post where I was going to attempt to do it-by the time I had posted the edit, you had done the deed.
)

I do not have a good translation of the audio, as my Spanish is the "by guess and by golly" method used in Texas.

One thing to note is at 33 seconds left, there is a "drone" I have not seen before. Has anyone seen this job?



posted on Jul, 18 2007 @ 10:55 PM
link   
NG, that is the "paris ufo", A cgi video that can be seen here.



posted on Jul, 18 2007 @ 11:07 PM
link   
EE, thanks for that info. I guess then that this was never considered to be part of the CARET/drone thing. I had not been aware of this video.

If this was a copycat, as I assume it was due to the resemblance to the other drones, it is not nearly as "good" as we are used to.



posted on Jul, 19 2007 @ 03:29 AM
link   
I pretty much figured it out. This is how it happened.

1: Guy makes a simple 3D UFO model for a hobbie, on his software. Using the "isaac caret primer images" as decals on some of his 3D models.

2: To make his final render of the 3D model look more real, he goes outside and takes a few pictures of the sky with his cheap camera to use as a background for the UFO.

3: Because his cheap camera has a standard old auto focus mechanisim, his camera gets lost when it tried to focus on empty sky because it has nothing to focus on. So it focus's automaticaly on near by trees and mountains, and ruins the depth of field of the picture.

4: The guy uses a RAW image plugin for photoshop, and edits the 3D UFO into the RAW image straight from the camera, using transparent layering. He then saves the images in the RAW format, and uploads the edited images back into his camera as a RAW file format. He then uses Adobe Album to convert the RAW file format into a JPG file format which makes the EXIF looks semi clean, but isnt because its not straight from the camera.


5: The guy notices the depth of field errors on the images because he has a perfectly clear and flawless 3D model layered on a picture taken from a real camera with many flaws and imperfections like dirt on the lense. So, he uses "layering" to make the UFO look like it is behind objects, so they can appear to be farther away.

6: When he gets the final render looking ok 10 minutes later, just for fun he will submit the images to the UFO vommunity, and see what they think, and how long it will last. Also to see how gullible the UFO community can be when excitment overpowers logic.

7: He gets a big reaction from people, and at the same time he has been adding more and more detial to his 3D model to make it look more real. Once he gets the UFO to look better, he submits it again, but under a different name.

8: To his supprize, he gets an even bigger reaction from the second set of pics. Now he is getting excited about this, and starts to play along with the "believers" to keep them going just as long as he could.

9: Rinse and repeat steps 2 through 8 a few times, to make people think the UFO is "advancing" , and to make people think it is world wide, or country wide from numerous amounts of aynonymous witnesses.

10: Using his default renders of other UFO 3D models he has made, and the "primer" decals he used on other 3D models, he makes ISAACCARET. With a little backstory and some imagination, he gets even more attention.


Thats it. Nothing special.



posted on Jul, 19 2007 @ 04:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by 11 11
I pretty much figured it out. This is how it happened.

1-10

Thats it. Nothing special.


Nicely said, i think just laid it out right there.

Who do you work for....

381..... 458..... 621.....



posted on Jul, 19 2007 @ 04:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by ExquisitExamplE
What would you consider the most elaborate hoax you've ever seen then Springer?

EDIT: I'm sure you've seen your share, remember this bozo?


Poorly done hoax.

[edit on 7/18/2007 by ExquisitExamplE]


ah yes, this 'bozo" was my introduction to ATS, at your hands ofcourse dear friend, but nonetheless a bozo, by all accounts, including my own



posted on Jul, 19 2007 @ 04:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by ejsaunders

Originally posted by Averysmallfoxx
...you leave no opportunity for the possibility of it being far above your comprehension, and to be honest, assuming it was real you wouldnt seem the type from your comment there, to be able to comprehend it anyways.


Careful, this is a very large thread, which makes mods much less lenient in the ways of the poking people with the ban stick; that sounds like a personal attack (insulting the man's intelligence).

Also, most of your comments have been already discussed earlier in the thread, there are reasons for and against everything so far. And, as far as finding CARET is concerned, there's a few people here looking for somewhere it might have been - Isaac said it wasn't inherently disgused, so I see no reason not to search for it. Plenty of 'black project' contractors have public buildings in the area - not every project needs an A-51 mystique.


Let me take this in steps

1. outright denial of any possibility that it couldnt exist based on the principles alone is at the least close minded, i dont believe a close minded attitude is conducive to the topics we as a body debate and discuss. the idea behind ats is simple: deny ignorance.

am i implying the man that i quoted and responded to is ignorant? no. I dont know him in any capacity deemed fit for such conclusions. but im going to say it like ive always said it, this is a forum and the objective is to be open minded about all possibilities. these are topics with which there is an inherent need to be open minded simply due to the substance at hand. its not in any way factual to a point of deffinity so while he may hold the opinion personally that it must be a hoax, without any merit to support his claim, it really shouldnt be added to our discussion. think what you want but back you conclusions with fact if you want others to appreciate your viewpoint.
in addition, judging the technology of this claim by vague discriptions of its behavior while activated is the very sort of thing we would like to see less of at such a place as this.this is afterall alien engineered (originally so) technology and it would make sense that a race beyond our abilities could generate technology that is also beyond our abilities,hence beyond our fathoming if you will.

as a sidenote i want to make sure i make my viewpoint abundantly clear. I do not in anyway suggest the drones or mr. isaac are real or legit. but i maintain that until deffinite proof is presented, it cannot be proven a hoax or proven to be real. so yes the discussion is in lingo till then. thats how these types of discussions usually go. often deffinity is unattainable or out of reach atleast for the time being. the emphasis is on keeping an open mind.

2. i understand the logic behind what your saying and what others are trying to do, and if they come up with anything i think they were right (obviously) to take such initiative. i maintain though that if these types of operations are so securely maintained, then the disposal of the "paper trail" of their existence would likely be also. especially regarding such immensely sensitive technology.
no one is implying that such extravagant labels would or even should be put on such black projects as this one resembles that parallel it to a-51 status. i mean the idea that we know it so well implies a degree of failure in and of itself.

bottom line is that its very unlikely the military would get sloppy about stuff of such immeasurable importance.



posted on Jul, 19 2007 @ 04:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by 11 11
I pretty much figured it out. This is how it happened.

1: Guy makes a simple 3D UFO model for a hobbie, on his software. Using the "isaac caret primer images" as decals on some of his 3D models.


How did he get access to the CARET primer images, which nobody else had seen until Isaac released them? Please explain your time-line.



3: Because his cheap camera has a standard old auto focus mechanisim, his camera gets lost when it tried to focus on empty sky because it has nothing to focus on. So it focus's automaticaly on near by trees and mountains, and ruins the depth of field of the picture.


A standard old autofocus systm only uses the centre of the image as the AF area, and a pretty small area of the centre, to boot. With my camera you can set it wherever you like, but this could in no way be accidental. Also, how can a mountain be near enough to ruin any depth of field? The shots are all on bright sunny days, when the aperture would be stopped all the way down (f.16 or f.22 depending on his lens) as is obvious by the fact that both the trees and mountains are sharp. The depth of field would be huge and negates the rest of your point.



4: The guy uses a RAW image plugin for photoshop, and edits the 3D UFO into the RAW image straight from the camera, using transparent layering. He then saves the images in the RAW format, and uploads the edited images back into his camera as a RAW file format. He then uses Adobe Album to convert the RAW file format into a JPG file format which makes the EXIF looks semi clean, but isnt because its not straight from the camera.


Hmmm, why on earth would he need to re-upload the RAW file back to a camera? Why would someone go to those lengths rather than use an EXIF editor?



5: The guy notices the depth of field errors on the images because he has a perfectly clear and flawless 3D model layered on a picture taken from a real camera with many flaws and imperfections like dirt on the lense. So, he uses "layering" to make the UFO look like it is behind objects, so they can appear to be farther away.


Photoshop has been using layers since version 4.0 I seem to remember (replacing 3.1 on which you could only work on the flat image). If these were hoaxed, then the hoaxer took the initial shots knowing full well where he would place them in order to give false perspective ("layering" is simply working on any image with more than one layer, mr. expert).



10: Using his default renders of other UFO 3D models he has made, and the "primer" decals he used on other 3D models, he makes ISAACCARET. With a little backstory and some imagination, he gets even more attention.


So, by your logic, the language primer had to have existed already. Where did it come from if not from CARET, then? If a hypothesis is to be more than speculation, and to call itself a theory, it must explain all the known facts.



Thats it. Nothing special.


Pheww, thanks for that! I suppose we can all go home now.

[edit on 19-7-2007 by Karilla]



posted on Jul, 19 2007 @ 06:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by Averysmallfoxx
1. outright denial of any possibility that it couldnt exist based on the principles alone is at the least close minded, i dont believe a close minded attitude is conducive to the topics we as a body debate and discuss. the idea behind ats is simple: deny ignorance.


Excellent, well why are you the one who appears to be close minded then? In your posts you are basically saying things cannot be so because there is no reason for them being that way (like the no paper trail possibility you are expounding). The military is and always has been reliant on humans, and as far as I know, they're not infallable, so there is a huge room for error in anything it does. I'm just trying to lay out all the possibilities, like everyone else here. I've read this thing from page 1, you seemed to start at page one, read it, post your theories and then assume you'd found the answer to the universe. Most of what you said had already been discussed a little further on in the thread that's all I'm saying and I would assume, that anyone who has some time to get into such a large thread, should read at least half of it to get what's already been discussed.

am i implying the man that i quoted and responded to is ignorant? no. I dont know him in any capacity deemed fit for such conclusions.

So, uhh, why DID you make it then? Two completely different people came to the same view that you were insulting the man's intelligence.

in addition, judging the technology of this claim by vague discriptions of its behavior while activated is the very sort of thing we would like to see less of at such a place as this.this is afterall alien engineered (originally so) technology and it would make sense that a race beyond our abilities could generate technology that is also beyond our abilities,hence beyond our fathoming if you will.

WHERE did I say I believed in it? I did believe at first, but now I think this is a hoax. You seem to be assuming what I think on this subject, most of my posts have been to try and find out whether this is a hoax, I have not once rested in trying to find something that will reduce this to an amusing tale. I AM however open to the situation - if it does become clear by someone else's hard work its real, I will definitely be one of the first to apologise to those involved and say I was wrong. I'm a big boy, I can take having a wrong opinion.

as a sidenote i want to make sure i make my viewpoint abundantly clear. I do not in anyway suggest the drones or mr. isaac are real or legit. but i maintain that until deffinite proof is presented, it cannot be proven a hoax or proven to be real. so yes the discussion is in lingo till then. thats how these types of discussions usually go. often deffinity is unattainable or out of reach atleast for the time being. the emphasis is on keeping an open mind.

2. i understand the logic behind what your saying and what others are trying to do, and if they come up with anything i think they were right (obviously) to take such initiative. i maintain though that if these types of operations are so securely maintained, then the disposal of the "paper trail" of their existence would likely be also. especially regarding such immensely sensitive technology.

Such immensely sensitive information that was seemingly easily smuggled out and was in fact, if we take Isaac at face value, being worked upon by non-military personnel. A second ago you were saying 'keep an open mind' and now you're saying, reading between the lines, Isaac couldn't have these papers BECAUSE of the security.

What is it you think I'm trying to do exactly? I'm trying to prove Isaac is WRONG and a HOAX.



posted on Jul, 19 2007 @ 07:33 AM
link   
Another upcoming movie with crazy symbology. At the moment the film has a number of titles

1-18-08 (USA) (promotional title)
Clover (USA) (fake working title)
Cloverfield (USA) (fake working title)
Slusho (USA) (fake working title)


Nobody seems to know what the actual movie is all about but there is a trailer:


www.apple.com...

There is also a cryptic website where you can unlock more content of the film and if you point the mouse to the top right hand corner star you will see some symbols along the top of the screen that don't really look like our symbols but interesting all the same.

www.ethanhaaswasright.com...

If this has been posted before many many apologies in advance.

Kind regards

October



posted on Jul, 19 2007 @ 09:57 AM
link   
that film looks a cracker, aye the symbols are different but can't help imagining how much a drone would fit in that film. Looking forward to it



posted on Jul, 19 2007 @ 10:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by 11 11
I pretty much figured it out. This is how it happened.

Here’s my theory

The cell phones pics, Chad and Raj, are the same person, they all start their story with the fact that they were with their significant other

*Cell phone “My husband and I were in Lake Tahoe over the weekend”

*Chad “Last month (April 2007), my wife and I were on a walk”

*Raj “This week I was visiting my fiancé’s parents in Capitola (we were actually there to tell them about our engagement”

There demeanor all seems similar, as “a matter of fact” like asking “does anyone know what this thing is?

Their “drones” look very similar although more parts being added, but overall texture seem more like a smooth composite material and the color seem the same and clearly they had “alien” writing on them ,except the cell phone pic because they were just to dark to tell, they may have had some or not

Now enter the big basin “drone”, not as Hi-tech looking, but more menacing-looking, like a machine out to kill, like something from Terminator and to me has a more of a grainy texture ,more metal looking than the smoother composite looking Chad “drone” and the colors different ,only in slight, but different
And no noticeable writing although LMH did have a highlight of what appeared to be some sort of writing ,but didn’t look to be the same ,also the one long protruding arm, which to me looks like a glider wing from an ASW 17 glider but fragmented, looks a lot different on the big basin “drone”



Also the “statue of liberty” part was way different on the big basin than on the raj ,this could be because it's the short “wings" which would mean that the liberty head band isn’t on it at all,looked more like a slicing dicing killing tool ,either way it's out of place compared to the fisrt group
Stephen and ty demeanor came across being more excited, Stephen being alone and ty with some friends, none of the “me and my “wife, husband, fiancé”

*Stephen “I look up and there is this _huge_ who-knows-what-the-xxx”
“I don't even need to tell you that so far this is a pretty crazy situation”

*Ty “I don't have to tell you that this thing is intense to behold!!!”
“We all stopped short and practically went over the damm handlebars!”
“Here was the most amazing thing I had ever seen”

Then there’s Isaac
Which group does he belong to?
On “They appear in a very simple form on Chad’s craft, but appear in the more complex diagram form on the underside of the Big Basin craft as well. Both are unmistakable, even at the small size of the Big Basin photos. An example of a diagram in the style of the Big Basin craft is included with this in a series of scanned pages from the [mistitled] "Linguistic Analysis Primer".

Hard for me to make out the writing on the big basin pic’s, could this indicate he would know more about it than the rest of us?
But that is a weak argument at best
But on the other hand, he does have the language that is clearly visible with Chad and the gang’s drones; also he has a scan with some part’s and one of the part’s “the statue of liberty head band” is a match for the Raj drone

So, in summery, I think this is the work of two groups of just a few people (maybe even just two individual‘s) .The Chad gang being first and the Big basin being a copy cat
If I had to take a guess which one Isaac belongs too, I would guess the first group
The fact that another group jump in was and is, just icing on the cake for Isaac
I don’t think it would take much to flood LMH at earth files with lot’s of witnesses claiming to see similar sightings, some could be just the type who want attion and some could be coming from the hoaxers, the one report of a military guy on a exercise monitoring the moment of the exercise I believe to be Isaac himself




[edit on 19-7-2007 by moonking]

[edit on 19-7-2007 by moonking]

[edit on 19-7-2007 by moonking]

[edit on 19-7-2007 by moonking]



posted on Jul, 19 2007 @ 12:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Karilla
How did he get access to the CARET primer images, which nobody else had seen until Isaac released them? Please explain your time-line.


Isaac = chad = the hoaxer = the creater of the Primer. He had the primer images long before Isaaccaret website was made. The primer was made probably long before even the first drone was submitted to public.


Originally posted by Karilla
A standard old autofocus systm only uses the centre of the image as the AF area, and a pretty small area of the centre, to boot. With my camera you can set it wherever you like, but this could in no way be accidental.


Standard autofocus in this day and age is exactly the focus your camera has. Research Dimage x camera and you will see the it uses spot focus, and automaticaly finds objects that get the best focus, and focus in on them. If he took a picture of the sky with this type of camera, it would get lost and unfocused, unless there is a tree or mountain in the shot, then it would focus on the mountains and trees, while the sky is still the center of the image. Just look at these pictures....

On this one, look how the plant closest to the camera is really blurry, and the green trees behind it are slightly blurry, yet the mountain in the back is in focus... this is because he took a picture of nothing. The camera should have auto focused on the center of the image first (where the drone is), but instead it focused to the left more on the mountain. This is a sign the the drone wasn't actually there when he took the picture.



Side note- dont forget to notice the artificial white halo around the drone above.



Originally posted by Karilla
Hmmm, why on earth would he need to re-upload the RAW file back to a camera? Why would someone go to those lengths rather than use an EXIF editor?


"Those lengths"?? Its a simple click and drag motion to put the RAW images back onto the camera's memory. Actaully, it would be 10 times more difficult to edit the EXIF then it would to upload the images back to the camera. He would put the RAW images back to the camera, so he could either tell the camera to convert the image to a JPG, or he can use Adobe Album to convert them to JPG from the camera, keeping some but not all EXIF.



Originally posted by Karilla
If these were hoaxed, then the hoaxer took the initial shots knowing full well where he would place them in order to give false perspective


Yes, "RajMan1977" took a picture of the telephone pole knowing ahead of time he would place the 3D render of the object behind the wires to fake depth perception.


Originally posted by Karilla
("layering" is simply working on any image with more than one layer, mr. expert).


I don't know if it is humanly possible to make more sense than I have been, but when I say "layering" i'm not talking about layering abilities within Photoshop using transparency, I am talking about generaly layering objects over eachother to make them appear behind each other, giving them a "rank" in distance. This is one of many "monocular cues" known as "occlusion". Mr. Expert.

en.wikipedia.org...


Originally posted by Karilla
So, by your logic, the language primer had to have existed already.


Yes correct.


Originally posted by Karilla
Where did it come from if not from CARET, then?


Photoshop. Or some random image creator tool that can create a bunch of circles and lines... It was noted by someone that they see signs of the primer on the big basin drone. Since the primer is only "black and white" it makes it 100% easyer to create the "cutout map" or "opacity map" or "alpha map" to make them easyer to layer onto the 3D model using transparency. These are called "decals". The haoxer created these decals to be placed on one of many of his 3D model UFO's.

B.T.W. Photoshop isn't the only advanced image editor in the world, it could have been any program. Maybe even PSPX.



posted on Jul, 19 2007 @ 12:28 PM
link   
Great analysis moonking, lots pertinent details related to the story. I haven't actually listened to the testimony of the drone witnesses, could you perhaps provide a link?

Very nice lineup you did with the drone wings, the first thing that jumps out at me is that in the ty pic the middle section appears to be longer than the end section whereas with the chad and raj pics the end section is the longest piece.

I trust the opinions of our cgi/media experts, DavidBiedny and JRitzman.
Biedny and JRitz weigh in.

I think you are right about there being two separate teams, Ty being the copycat. Isaac is the interesting part. That technical paper requires a fairly high level of engineering systems knowledge. As one engineer pointed out it uses high level terms and concepts fluidly and appropriately.

This indicates to me that these hoaxers must have a high level of education, I don't think they are just amateur cgi enthusiasts. Hmmm, Intriguing.

Thanks again moonking, you get a star!

EDIT: Thanks for your input too 11, very thorough and cordial.

[edit on 7/19/2007 by ExquisitExamplE]




top topics



 
185
<< 113  114  115    117  118  119 >>

log in

join