[HOAX] Isaac CARET - Drones [HOAX]

I dont know if this ok to post here, but I'm very impressed with Saladfinger

From Saladfinger

I am now 99.9% convinced that the CARET primer was created and conceived using Adobe Illustrator.

What this says about the rest of the document.. well, I've got to conclude that it is all fake.

The hallmarks of Illustrator are all over the linguistic primer.

Now, I can't guarantee that the Chad/Raj photos are fake, but I have to sway that way due to the extensive alien font being shown and used in clarity on the CARET document. This leads me to believe that the same individual or group of people are involved.

The primer to me is what has given the whole game away.
It is a real pity.

I'll give you this link to a creation I made in Illustrator. It hasn't taken me very long to put this together. But at every turn, the way Illustrator works, lends and helps to form the look and style of the Linguistic Primer.

i11.tinypic.com...
[

[edit on 22-7-2007 by moonking]

Originally posted by moonking
I dont know if this ok to post here, but I'm very impressed with Saladfinger

So wait, this is yet another "Well I can create something sort of similar (but much inferior) in my super duper graphics program, so this must be fake" argument?

You don't provide a link to his original post, so I can't tell if theres more to what he says. But from what you quoted, he's basically not giving any evidence except for him trying to recreate it.

Originally posted by moonking

From Saladfinger

I am now 99.9% convinced that the CARET primer was created and conceived using Adobe Illustrator.

What this says about the rest of the document.. well, I've got to conclude that it is all fake.

The hallmarks of Illustrator are all over the linguistic primer.

Now, I can't guarantee that the Chad/Raj photos are fake, but I have to sway that way due to the extensive alien font being shown and used in clarity on the CARET document. This leads me to believe that the same individual or group of people are involved.

The primer to me is what has given the whole game away.
It is a real pity.

I'll give you this link to a creation I made in Illustrator. It hasn't taken me very long to put this together. But at every turn, the way Illustrator works, lends and helps to form the look and style of the Linguistic Primer.

i11.tinypic.com...
[

[edit on 22-7-2007 by moonking]

Just wow Saladfinger has put the nail in for sure. Amazing work, I'm very impressed.



[edit on 22-7-2007 by XPhiles]

Take a look at the history of Adobe Illustrator

and then what Issac said - "it took about a month for a team of six to copy that diagram into our drafting program!"

Maybe that was the drafting programme they used !

So, is that the nail in the coffin of that nail in the coffin ?


[edit on 22-7-2007 by chunder]

I will agree with amberite and say the level of detail is really amazingly intricate. I've never seen any cgi quite like it. I haven't seen anyone post a study of the drone of comparable detail.

Although this one is pretty good, its no big basin job:


Thanks to Kaptive Studios for that image.

That said, as an amateur cgi enthusiast, (pc gamer ) I still stand by the opinion of our media experts JRitzman and Davidbiedny.

Computer graphics are becoming truly astounding these days and anything is possible with the appropriate amount of time and effort-



Thats from the forthcoming game crysis, go here for more screenshots-
Crysis

I just fail to see what the relevance is of a screenshot from a computer game ?

Edited to add - Mind you it does show how incredibly intricate CGI can be !

[edit on 22-7-2007 by chunder]

Originally posted by ExquisitExamplE
I will agree with amberite and say the level of detail is really amazingly intricate. I've never seen any cgi quite like it. I haven't seen anyone post a study of the drone of comparable detail.

Although this one is pretty good, its no big basin job:

Yep, that one caught my eye as well and is one of the better attempts, thanks for bringing it back to my attention! Notice the lack of "superfluous detail" in that rendering as opposed to big basin high res pic. For example, the inside of the ring is mostly flat and featureless. The outside surfaces are similarly so. In fact, the whole object looks a little too "perfect" (which, ironically, is also the problem encountered VERY OFTEN in CGI and games that try to reproduce a real environment).

Everyone is screaming CGI, and yet, as I mentioned, one of the biggest problems of graphics designers is the ability to add the "grittiness" that real life possesses. The big basin high res photo has it in droves. That is not an easy feat.

[edit on 22-7-2007 by Amberite]

Originally posted by chunder
I just fail to see what the relevance is of a screenshot from a computer game ?

Edited to add - Mind you it does show how incredibly intricate CGI can be !

[edit on 22-7-2007 by chunder]

Intricate? Yes. Photo-realistic? No. He is showing the level of detail we can achieve today. However, it still looks CGI, while the drone does not (at least not to me). The big-basin picture looks both incredibly intricate, and at the same time photo realistic.

[edit on 22-7-2007 by Amberite]

Originally posted by chunder
Take a look at the history of Adobe Illustrator

and then what Issac said - "it took about a month for a team of six to copy that diagram into our drafting program!"

Maybe that was the drafting programme they used !

So, is that the nail in the coffin of that nail in the coffin ?


[edit on 22-7-2007 by chunder]

Reminds me of the story of how NASA spent millions of dollars to make a pen that would work in space and the Russians just used a pencil

"It took about a month for a team of six to copy that diagram into our drafting program!"
Bet the Russians would have just taken a picture of it
Anyway that image you link to ExquisitExamplE was made by Saladfinger
I’ll link the forum about were it started to pick up

sorry , it wont let me put a working link in
best I can do ,just click the :caret think tank, should be the first one

www.google.com...



[edit on 22-7-2007 by moonking]

Originally posted by chunder
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.
[edit on 21-7-2007 by chunder]

Good call, Chunder. After seeing all the dirt and hairs on the originals for the report pages, and the lack of any convincing reconstructions of the drone images, I too am of the opinion that the weight of evidence is on the side of these being real.

As far as the report page you mentioned, with the image that doesn't have an original, I do see many little cues that would suggest, to me, that no 3D renders are involved. Also the fact that there is no original, as there is for the images, fits. This image is Q3-85 (3rd quarter of 1985), over a year before the rest, so it is reasonable to assume that they were stored in different parts of a filing system.

First of all, as I said in an earlier post, the half-tone screen used is far more convincing for a coarse (120 lpi) half-tone screen, entirely consistent with the kind of printing capability you would expect from an in-house outfit. Also Photoshop's halftone screen filter is rubbish, sorry David Biedny, and isn't up to the job.

Secondly are the details I can see that suggest that these were real objects laid out on something like a hangar floor. I will list these, but would like to point out that I know that all these elements are within the scope of 3D modelling, but the level of complexity is increasing now exponentially, and I don't beleve enough time has passed for this to have been created since the first drone was sighted, even if quite a large team were involved. Here are the bits I would like to call attention to:

1. Item No. 15. This is a part that has been mentioned before, the broken spiky bit.

2. Item No. 16. Look at the wire ring arrangement inside the main ring of this part. Now look at the inside of the ring on the big basin drone, that everyone said looked like it had not been rendered properly .

3. The white stripe running across the floor underneath part 16 has a chunk of concrete/tile missing from it. You can see the aggregate from whi the floor is made.

4. Bottom left corner there is a square dark stain. The tiles are darkened slightly, worn lighter at the edges, and the grout line between them looks like it has absorbed more of the stain. That is a hyoooooooge amount of work for what is a throw away detail.

5. Paler scratch marks crossing the white paint line.

6. Top corner above part 13. Two parrallel dark lines whose cause isn't at all obvious. As these in themselves add nothing to the veracity of the overall image, why would they be included?

7. The fold running above 14b and through 13. A crease in the page that was obviously there before the photocopy.

@Moonking
Dont know if thats what you meant, but on the other "Evil" Forum (where i am certainly not registered :lol there were 2 people who recognized the diagram on the BB lowres before the hires was available. Someone there had blown it up and then applied a few filters, and while you couldnt recognize individual symbols, you could very well recognize it as a whole.

@Saladfingers "Hallmark of Illustrator"
This Linguistic Primer could be made with any vector drawing program, given you have the "font" and a little bit of Talent. Could be done in Corel or could be real.
All of us must never to forget this mantra: "Just because it could be faked with method xy, doesn't mean it is fake and made with method xy" Its just too easy a way out.

I really think it is time LMH dishes out the rest of the hires, Springer give the old lady a call

To me the Inventory Review photo has had the numbers added on to it in a different orientation to that in which the picture was first taken.

The picture has a couple of things with it that just don't look right. If you rotate it 90 degrees clockwise it has a better "feel" to it and IMO, if it is a real picture, it was originally taken in that view.


I am having difficulty resolving the shadows on the inside of the ring numbered 16 - I can't see where a single light source could be placed to produce them as they are - would welcome a second opinion.

Originally posted by ExquisitExamplE
Thats from the forthcoming game crysis, go here for more screenshots-
Crysis

You are comparing apples with oranges...

Listen, you can't compare a 100% CGI image (Crysis Game) with the drone images. Because the drone images are real photographs, with CGI drones added in. The only fake part about the drone images is the drone, everything else is real...


And to all those that think this little tiny drone is intricate, HAH!, you have a lot to learn. B.T.W. those were NOT my best examples of intricate, they were just easy access examples. .. Actually I can go on for years showing more examples...

Here is one of mine, its an exact replica of an F404 jet engine. Every nut, and bolt, and to scale. This is not just an external model, it internaly has every single piece of hardware found inside a jet engine modeled in the correct spot to specifications..



... what I'm trying to explain, and maybe the pictures aren't doing it for you, but intricacy is never a factor with 3D models. Especaly when the 3D modeling programs are so good these days.. most things that people think "oh wow that must have taken forever" are actually done with small "scripts" and "modifiers" that make the job way easyer with just mouse clicks. Making little details all around a circle can easly be done. Actaully you only have to make something once and you can clone it infinate times to make the most complex thing ever. It will look like it took hours to make but in reality with these functions included with popular 3D modeling programs, things are so simple to do.

If its realisim you want, that is all dependant on your final render. There are 1000's of different settings and values to setup and change to get the final render looking just right. There are so many different possiblities achievable with final renders and so many different settings and values you can change that it would be a hell of a time consuming process to get an image to look 100% simular to the drone images. So you will always see a slight difference with ALL cgi images, unless they are from the same creator that has a habit of using the same values and settings for all his final renders.. I made that text bold because its an important key to the drone images.. All of them have the exact same render style. ALL of them.


That said.... I bet you think this car looks real....
www.autospies.com...

Actaully you know what? I bet you won't think it looks real, simply because you will disagree with everything I say.



[edit on 22-7-2007 by 11 11]

[edit on 22-7-2007 by 11 11]

11 11,

CGI of jet engines just isn't going to do it for me, or for many others I suspect.

I accept that all of the drone pics and all of the pics in the CARET documents, with the exception of the Inventory Review at this stage, could have been created through some CGI process, and in at least one picture, to me, probably were.

The trick is to prove it, and, seeing as though you are being reasonably civil nowadays, I would welcome your thoughts on the Inventory Review pic, especially in respect of the shadows created by the internal part rings of ring 16.

Edited to add - personally I believe the Inventory Review photo to be the most important. I can't believe someone could create this from the drone pics - that shows real genius. Therefore it's either a fake picture or it shows real parts. I think it's interesting that it shows no examples of the "glyphs" - in fact it has symmetrically placed markings of a "company logo" type. If it's a real photo unless it shows something super secret the parts should be able to be identified - I haven't yet but maybe others can. It raises many questions - most of which I won't go into for fear of leading but if real why are those particular parts laid out on a "hangar" type floor as they are ?

[edit on 22-7-2007 by chunder]

Originally posted by 11 11Here is one of mine, its an exact replica of an F404 jet engine. Every nut, and bolt, and to scale. This is not just an external model, it internaly has every single piece of hardware found inside a jet engine modeled in the correct spot to specifications

Sorry to be a doubting Thomas, but extraordinary claims... and all that. In order for me to take your word on the CGI nature of the drones and CARET images, you'll have to give me some proof. Anyone can find highly complex 3D models on the net, but what I would like to see is this:

You must still have the wireframe model that these renders came from, if you created it, as I can't imagine anyone getting rid of it, its excellent. Do me a favour though and do a plain white render with the ATS logo on the side please. Shouldn't be any problem for someone of your talents.

If you can't/won't provide some back-up for your claims, then your opinion remains just that and carries no more weight than anyone else's.

If you will do as I have suggested then not only will I take your word on the same sort of level as David Biedny, but my hat will go off to you on a fantastic bit of work. In fact I may have a pretty lucrative job for you!

Originally posted by Karilla
You must still have the wireframe model that these renders came from, if you created it, as I can't imagine anyone getting rid of it, its excellent.

Saved files in general tend to hold everything in it in one file .
So the render as you see it, is the same as the model looks like in program X, without the pretty effects. (Including the wireframe model).

Though 11 11,
You say that it takes little time to create something others think might've taken hours.
Sure, but remember that the drone, is something ''unique'' (at least as far as I know).
Unless he put parts from this and that together, he'd have to think of his own design.

Maybe not that significant, but it still is an increase in time neccesary to complete the final object.

But you have a point.
Modeling something as little as a pawn for a chess set would only take what.. 5 seconds for the model and 10 seconds for finding the texture, rather than a few minutes?
*curves* *click click click click click* *revolve* *apply texture* *render*

Same for the bishop, a bishop might take.. 20 seconds lol, depending on the amount of detail you want to put in
*curves* *click click click click click**revolve* *sphere + cube* *boolean substract* *apply texture* *render*

[edit on 22/7/07 by -0mega-]

Originally posted by casketizer
@Moonking
Dont know if thats what you meant, but on the other "Evil" Forum (where i am certainly not registered :lol

there were 2 people who recognized the diagram on the BB lowres before the hires was available. Someone there had blown it up and then applied a few filters, and while you couldnt recognize individual symbols, you could very well recognize it as a whole.

That would be the one, and when someone said what a good find "fence" made,he said someone before him made the connection
My hat's off to them and prove's that it could be done !

11 11,

It's easy to say 3D modeling programs allow a level of ease today that is unparalleled to what was once possible. However, this is relative ease. These models, if created in CGI, would still take many hours to make. You can go on about how your jet engine wasn't so hard to make, however I am sure it took you quite a lot of time.

Add to that the time for thinking up several completely unique objects like these (much easier to model a jet engine which has real life source than something fresh out of your mind), the fact that there is not just one, but several drone designs, PLUS the CARET document models (which are equally intricate), plus doing the photocopying, scanning, making the pictures low resolution, adding grit and dirt and hairs and lint, designing and writing the documents, making the primer illustration, developing the language font, creating the back story and principles upon which the whole alien technology works, writing the Isaac letter, etc etc etc.

That is MASSIVE. You're looking at hours upon hours upon hours of work. I'm not trying to say hoaxers wouldn't go through it. I'm just saying, when you are so quick to say that one object or one element is not THAT hard to do (ie, a week of work), keep in mind it is one piece in a MUCH bigger puzzle that all had to be put together and made to work together.

Not to mention 11 11 Pics look CGI, look like video game. Bottom line, this CGI to no CGI argument will never be solved in my eyes and until the person comes forward and says its a hoax, we will just have to wait for more data

To be honest, I have a lot more respect for 11 now, and he's certainly being friendly, so welcome back!

I think some of the debate on ANYTHING you have to take on faith. While I don't think the drone's are CGI as such (models) I respect that the generator IS CGI because it looks like a 'default' render and the shadows are wrong to me personally. Given that my expertise and doctorates are for business and general computing not CGI I respect that 11, David, etc are tellng the truth and so I DON'T need to see an exact match for the drone to believe they are trying to the BEST of their ability to make a statement based on years of experience with something I have maybe a day's experience of at the most (never really got 3D rendering).

We shouldn't need to argue amongst ourselves for proof, or the old adage "well if its faked that way, there's no indication the 'real' object is fake", sure there isn't, but thats what we're trying to do here isn't it? Form a generally similar experience together using logic, reason and personal experitise, so we can satisfy our own curiosity and beliefs.

We need to uncover a bit more about the picture of the hangar because that doesn't seem to have been 'debunked' to the best of our ability yet, peope (including myself) still have questions as to its veracity, so lets all concentrate on THAT. If there are people who are still wondering CGI or not, then they'll think that until someone shows a screenshot of the drone's in the actual program, or until they see it themselves.

Most of these new 'not CGI' people haven't actually been here from the start of this thread so, if you take a couple of hours and just read through, perhaps you can formulate your own opinion, it's that simple.

We likely won't ever get anything new from Isaac now, he's been ripped apart by the people he expected to welcome him with open arms, and if we get new drone sightings, they won't help THE TOPIC OF THIS THREAD. Sure, while they can help us formulate an idea of hoax or not, they aren't helping to debunk Isaac since we aren't completely sure they are related in more than a cursory way.

Lets get to work on that hangar and find some dirt!