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: 120
185
<< 117  118  119    121  122  123 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 21 2007 @ 05:02 PM
link   
Unless, of course, he knew where to look and what to look for. Once he had seen the symbols on the Chad drone he would be expecting to see them on the big-basin drone, surely? Never underestimate the observing powers of a fully paid up anorak. I think you might be stretching a point here, Moonking, it certainly isn't enough to assume he'd seen the higher res versions before anyone else.

Of course, if, as some people were thinking back in the early stages of this thread, if C2C were in on it then Isaac could have seen them. He did say that he would only release further info to them, didn't he? This, as well as the title of this thread itself, must have increased the traffic for the C2C website exponentially. Does anyone remember that on the day the fortune city site went live there were no other hits on google for "Isaac Caret". Do a search now to see just how widespread the interest in this story has become. There are Japanese, French and Korean pages that come up on the first couple of pages.

What we really need now is another release of info, or another drone sighting. Until then we are really urinating to windward.




posted on Jul, 21 2007 @ 05:03 PM
link   
I'll probably regret saying this later, but I'm sorry to say that after seeing that high-res image, I'm beginning to come off the fence and in favor of believing this might be a real object / picture.

If you just study that image for a while, look at the absolute intricacy of the whole thing. CGI is all well and good, but I have not seen anyone come even REMOTELY CLOSE to this level of intricacy. Everything just looks so authentic.



posted on Jul, 21 2007 @ 06:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Amberite
I'll probably regret saying this later, but I'm sorry to say that after seeing that high-res image, I'm beginning to come off the fence and in favor of believing this might be a real object / picture.

If you just study that image for a while, look at the absolute intricacy of the whole thing. CGI is all well and good, but I have not seen anyone come even REMOTELY CLOSE to this level of intricacy. Everything just looks so authentic.


Amberite, although your opinion is intresting, you absolutly avoid explaining exactly what you think looks "intricate and authentic". Usualy when people give their opinion, they provide some more information as to why they have that opinion. Coming to a forum and giving your opinion with no explaination really doesn't help anyone with this investigation. It only adds to the amount of posts someone has to skim through to get information...

That said, I would like to say that all of the drone images have a real photograph as the background. That would mean, the only thing in the images that could decide "real or not" is the drone. Well, how can something that you have never seen in your lifetime possibly look real? What are you comapring it too?

I have seen 3D models millions of times more intircate than ALL of the drones combined. Take a look at this anotomy model:

www.turbosquid.com...

Thats only an example of intricacy, not realism, but as you can see 3D modeles have only 1 limit to intricacy, and that is the performance of the computer trying to display it. The anotomy model above is consited of 745,000 polygons. The more polygons in your model you have means the more detail you have and the more resources your computer needs to use. The drone model would probably only take about 8,000 polygons minimum, meaning its not as "intricate" as you seem to think. You want really really really intricate?? Here you go:

www.turbosquid.com...

If you are looking for realism then thats not a problem either. I could show you several images and you wouldn't even be able to tell if they were real or not. Would you like me too?



posted on Jul, 21 2007 @ 07:23 PM
link   
Havent seen this mentioned here yet so figured id add it.

Isaac says he recognized the language on the craft, but never mentioned he recognized any of the componants of the craft?? Didnt he post pictures of the parts in his report? How could Isaac see the language in the BB crafts that was different from the Raj/Chad writing weeks before anyone else, but never mentions anything about recognizing the parts of the craft he smuggled photos of out of that PACL place? Seems like a pretty blatant faux pax!!



posted on Jul, 21 2007 @ 08:34 PM
link   
so what ever happened to the terrorist and 4th of july...hoax angle? I remember Springer warning everyone, but i'm assuming that lead no where and was disinformation if anything for possibly a real goverment agency...



posted on Jul, 21 2007 @ 09:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by 11 11
Thats only an example of intricacy, not realism, but as you can see 3D modeles have only 1 limit to intricacy, and that is the performance of the computer trying to display it. The anotomy model above is consited of 745,000 polygons. The more polygons in your model you have means the more detail you have and the more resources your computer needs to use. The drone model would probably only take about 8,000 polygons minimum, meaning its not as "intricate" as you seem to think. You want really really really intricate?? Here you go:

www.turbosquid.com...

If you are looking for realism then thats not a problem either. I could show you several images and you wouldn't even be able to tell if they were real or not. Would you like me too?


Just an honest question here, please don't take it as anything but a question:
If those are some of the best examples of intricacy or realism you can find(since you haven't posted any CGI images that look real IMO), how would anyone honestly be able to trust your judgement when it comes to CGI? Every CGI image you have shown up until now looks 1000% different/worse than the quality of the drones. With the drones, they look 100% real if they are CGI or 100% real if they are, well, real. None of the images you have shown look real in the slightest IMO. I can tell they are CGI by a half-second glance at them. I would still like to see you provide some CGI that rivals the drones, as you claim it is so easy to make I am not sure why you haven't made one for us.
Unfortunately we don't have a handbook or guide to alien spacecraft, so one does not really know the various aesthetic properties an alien craft might have.

[edit on 7/21/2007 by pjslug]



posted on Jul, 21 2007 @ 09:07 PM
link   
OK, I've been gone for a little while due to a family medical emergency, which is resolved, thankfully. I am feeling for the pulse of those who have been on this from the early days, as I have.

So. I'll start on where I stand. Hoax photos. Well done, and with a few later copycats maybe, but well done for the most part. I for one think that the drone images are 99% "put to bed" at this point.

No new revelations on the Isaac documents, but some idea that he is "in bed" with the "witnesses" in some way. No real advance on the backstory of Isaac and Palo Alto, though it has a "sound" of someone in some part of the business there at one time.

No real connection to any viral marketing for anything known at this time, but still not ruled out in it's entirety.

No indication of complicity by C2C and LMH et al. But no recognition of the fact that there is strong evidence for this being a hoax.

No smoking gun evidence for a connection on the "writing", though from other threads I get an idea that it may be close to some found in a new game.

Nothing really telling as far as the "payoff" angle for the work the hoaxer put into this, other than stroking the ego.

Does that about cover where most people stand on this?

I'm sorry to try and summarize when my brain is not working as well as I would like, but I want to get back to speed on this and find where we all stand. (The brain becomes foggy after hours and hours of spent with family at ICU-I hate hospitals.)

Once in a while it's nice to know just where everyone that I respect for all the hard work on this stands. So correct me if I have missed the anything of great importance in all of this.

Side note: 11 11, glad to see you back, you're input is valuable to us all.

Edit to add: I know that there are some folks that are still not convinced of the photos being CGI, and I respect that. We all have to go with what we see and learn, and I want to in no way make it sound as if those who hold out on the "reality" of the photos are wrong for their opinion.

[edit on 21-7-2007 by NGC2736]



posted on Jul, 21 2007 @ 10:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheShadow
Havent seen this mentioned here yet so figured id add it.

Isaac says he recognized the language on the craft, but never mentioned he recognized any of the componants of the craft?? Didnt he post pictures of the parts in his report? How could Isaac see the language in the BB crafts that was different from the Raj/Chad writing weeks before anyone else, but never mentions anything about recognizing the parts of the craft he smuggled photos of out of that PACL place? Seems like a pretty blatant faux pax!!


BRILLIANT! I completely MISSED that point. GOOD show Shadow!
There is no sense to be found in the FACT he recognized a few smudges as the diagram but totally FAILED to recognize his own bloody "parts" in the image! Yet another nail in Isaac's coffin IMHO.

Regarding the 4th of July business, that was NOT directly connected to this at all, it was relative to the GR hoax. Beyond the fact that one definite hoax and one very likely hoax (GhostRaven and Isaac respectively) started on the very same day there was no connection to the CARET business at all. I owuld hesitate to call it disinfo, I would call it people doing their jobs. When your job is to stop attacks before they happen and your assignment is cellular, radio and internet chatter you have to take everything SERIOUSLY and you spend 99.99% of your time chasing down false leads. Heaven forbid you ever decide to NOT chase down the one in a million that were real eh?

Springer...

[edit on 7-21-2007 by Springer]



posted on Jul, 21 2007 @ 10:15 PM
link   
But Isaac DID mention the "parts"

Just thought I'd mention that for accuracy.


Explanation of the Recent "Strange Craft" Sightings (emphasis added)

I should first be clear that I'm not directly familiar with any of the crafts seen in the photos in their entirety. I've never seen them in a hangar or worked on them myself or seen aliens zipping around in them. However, I have worked with and seen many of the parts visible in these crafts, some of which can be seen in the Q3-85 Inventory Review scan found at the top of this page. More importantly though, I'm very familiar with the “language” on their undersides seen clearly in photos by Chad and Rajman, and in another form in the Big Basin photos.



posted on Jul, 21 2007 @ 10:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by eaglewingz
But Isaac DID mention the "parts"

Just thought I'd mention that for accuracy.


Explanation of the Recent "Strange Craft" Sightings (emphasis added)

I should first be clear that I'm not directly familiar with any of the crafts seen in the photos in their entirety. I've never seen them in a hangar or worked on them myself or seen aliens zipping around in them. However, I have worked with and seen many of the parts visible in these crafts, some of which can be seen in the Q3-85 Inventory Review scan found at the top of this page. More importantly though, I'm very familiar with the “language” on their undersides seen clearly in photos by Chad and Rajman, and in another form in the Big Basin photos.








Thank You eaglewingz...

Well there you have it, I stand corrected. I would have thought he would have been little more specific and illustrative but maybe that's just not his style.


Springer...

[edit on 7-21-2007 by Springer]



posted on Jul, 21 2007 @ 10:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by NGC2736
So. I'll start on where I stand. Hoax photos. Well done, and with a few later copycats maybe, but well done for the most part. I for one think that the drone images are 99% "put to bed" at this point.

Does that about cover where most people stand on this?
[edit on 21-7-2007 by NGC2736]


Seeing as though you ask it isn't where I stand on this.

As far as I am concerned we have one drone picture shown to have problems with shadows which strongly indicates it to be a fake, which puts in doubt the other drone pics submitted by that person.

IMO one of the hang up's here, and this will no doubt apply in the future to many other pics, is that the they allegedly show something never seen before.

This then tends to add weight to the argument that because you can create these pics through CGI they probably are.

I'm not "holding out on the reality" of these pics, just holding on to the reality that at this stage it has not been conclusively shown they are fake.



posted on Jul, 21 2007 @ 10:51 PM
link   
I wonder if we will break 200 pages in this thread before the mystery is solved, or before Isaac gives us some more information (which he never guaranteed he would, just a possibility). Something is definitely going on above our heads in that great celestial expanse. Even crop circles are popping up more and more that aren't being claimed by anyone. The most recent one with all the photo evidence is quite spectacular.

Chunder,
In response to your post, I also think it's a little odd that there are so many CGI believers yet no one has been able to prove it to be CGI. I would think with all the experts on this forum and otherwise, if it were CGI it would have been definitively proved as such by now. CGI has many repeating textures and patterns that are obvious to see when viewed. CGI also has even color distribution and intensity over the RGB channels. These drone photos have none of those characteristics.

P.S. Springer, what's the most pages ever in a single thread and what was the topic on, just out of curiosity?

[edit on 7/21/2007 by pjslug]



posted on Jul, 21 2007 @ 10:58 PM
link   
Just to clear my conscious LOL!
I did some checking
and there was a user on another forum that did recognize the diagrams on the big basin drone before the Hi-res came out
He even illustrated it with crops of the drone panels and the diagram in a collage



posted on Jul, 21 2007 @ 11:03 PM
link   
chunder, I'm glad you spoke up. In case you missed the paragraph I added in edit- I feel all opinions are valid, just we each have to reach one at some point. I would love to be wrong, and for some evidence to come too light that would substantiate the pictures.

I'm just trying, with my last post, to get an up to date feel for where all of us, who have followed this story from the start, stand on the matter. There is, in my mind, no right or wrong answer just yet. There's just what we think, and I expressed my own opinion.

Hell, I can change my mind, with some evidence, faster than a hooker can change clothes.



posted on Jul, 21 2007 @ 11:11 PM
link   
NGC, happy to read your opinion but you did ask where people stood and you did summarise the drone pics to be 99% fake in most people's opinion, hence my response.

To get a summary of where people stand I guess there could be some kind of voting button with a tally at the top of the thread showing the current thinking. Anyone who has posted on the thread entitled to a single vote they can change at any time. You could have a counter for each picture, the trouble is anyone new to the thread would just take a look at the figures and if they said 99% hoax would not then look any further, which would be a shame, because if there is 1% truth in any of this it could still be valuable.



Taking the CGI argument the other way can the Inventory Review photo be shown to have any inconsistencies or artifacts ?

If that photo is of real solid parts then that is either the inspiration for the first hoax drone pics, some other bits that should be able to be recognised or could be what it's supposed to be.

In terms of who is in this with anyone else then, as has been pointed out a long time ago, Chad and Isaac must be linked. The diagram on the BB pics must also mean that Ty is linked.

[edit on 21-7-2007 by chunder]



posted on Jul, 21 2007 @ 11:20 PM
link   
chunder, I see your points. And if we accept the opinion of the experts, then some of the photos are doctored. But what I return to on that point is, are they faked pics made to look real, or real pics made to look faked?

And I can see both sides of that question.

Yeah, I'm still up in the air on what is really going down here. That's why I was seeking a"stance" from the rest of you.

I guess we're to the point of needing more information on all of this, and that's really not in our hands.



posted on Jul, 21 2007 @ 11:33 PM
link   
"And if we accept the opinion of the experts, then some of the photos are doctored."

That does appear to be the case but when you see what even the top experts in the field have said they just state an opinion - it's obviously CGI. I would really like to see a top quality de-construction that removes the possibility they are real - a few people on this forum have come close and pretty much succeeded with one picture.
The trouble is if you have a particular interest in a specific field it is easy to see everything from that perspective i.e. CGI tinted glasses.

"But what I return to on that point is, are they faked pics made to look real, or real pics made to look faked?"

That's an interesting angle although I can't see motive for the second part.



posted on Jul, 21 2007 @ 11:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by chunder

"But what I return to on that point is, are they faked pics made to look real, or real pics made to look faked?"

That's an interesting angle although I can't see motive for the second part.


I know I've put the idea out before, but basically it's one of those blue sky speculations to motive in all of this. If a real picture was used, yet some parts of it needed to be kept secret, perhaps by a government agency, then "rendering" it would be needed to remove those parts that were not for public consumption.

Or, there is the idea that rendering real pics could leave the whole thing viewed as a hoax, plausible deniability, by an agency or group.

There is also the thought that if these were back engineered craft, then some tell tale signs would be needed to make sure that no one suspected they were in "our hands" prior to the release of the pics and maybe future disclosure of alien contact.

I'm not saying any of this is real, just ideas that could be looked at.



posted on Jul, 22 2007 @ 12:28 AM
link   
11 11,

You're right. I should explain myself a little further to show you what I mean when I say that the model looks too complex, in my eyes, to be a simple CGI model like everyone claims.

Here is a very rough sketch I made of the 4 most interesting points in the high-res image which can be found here:

www.divshare.com...

And here is the sketch:



The reason I am pointing attention to these 4 areas (please look at them in the HIGH RES picture) is because if someone were creating this model for the sole purpose of making a hoax, I believe they wouldn't spend as much time on the very, very, very minute details and intricacies that these areas show. For example, in the first section (from the left), why is the area that houses the language characters have such an intricate system of metal and "tubing" behind it? If I were making this image I would make this area far more simple. In the case of the rings I pointed out, they are similarly intricate on the inside of the rings, with no apparent purpose. And what is up with those thin rings of metal WITHIN the main rings? You can barely see these, and yet time would have been taken to make them in CGI, if it were CGI.

And finally, the real nail in the coffin for me is the fact that if this was a CGI image, the maker of it is HIGHLY skilled and took a LOT of time to make it. If so, and if you have such a highly detailed model already available to you, why not make a better "real picture" of it with higher resolution so that everyone can marvel at your work? Why provide such a crappy image? The image, although high res, is still very lousy. It makes no sense.

Oh, and in regards to your example images of other, very detailed CGI illustrations, I'm sorry, but they don't come even CLOSE to matching this object in complexity and realism.

[edit on 22-7-2007 by Amberite]



posted on Jul, 22 2007 @ 01:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by Springer
Well there you have it, I stand corrected. I would have thought he would have been little more specific and illustrative but maybe that's just not his style.


Springer...

[edit on 7-21-2007 by Springer]


In my opinion the fact that he didn't go into further detail only adds to his credibility. The images of drone parts were part of the CARET report, but his specific department and expertise focused on the "language." So he had seen this pieces before, but having no actual hands on experience with them, he didn't give them much attention in his letter. He focused much more on HIS topic of expertise - the language.

[edit on 22-7-2007 by Amberite]



new topics

top topics



 
185
<< 117  118  119    121  122  123 >>

log in

join