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: 124
185
<< 121  122  123    125  126  127 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 23 2007 @ 03:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Averysmallfoxx
right but if the photos released turn out to be cgi'd then it stands to reason that theyre connected and therefore if one element is hoaxed the other is too, those parts are perfect, they match completely and without any deviation of detail. too perfectly one might say.its just MHO.


Actually, although it's obvious they are the same DESIGN, they are not the same PIECE. In the black and white inventory picture, the piece's "teeth" are jagged and broken on the left side. Also, it has an extra appendage sticking out on the right side.

In addition, there is absolutely no conclusive evidence that any picture is real, or hoax.




posted on Jul, 23 2007 @ 03:22 PM
link   
foxx - I feel that I took my own words out of context in my somewhat heated reply. I'm trying to get to the bottom of it, for my own personal gratification if you will. I want, I suppose to be able to give myself enough information to determine its truthfulness. I want to close the case, either by proof its a hoax, or by finding something that I cannot deny or disprove. It's one of the annoyances of human nature, that we feel because of our knowledge and our brains we are above fear and doubt.

I believe in the existance of aliens, so I try and determine what the stories posted on the board add up to - truth, lies or a mixture. So far, this has proven a very interesting case, and I was definitely on the 'real' bandwagon when it first rolled into town, but I'm now of the 'hoax' crowd, but I will listen to reasoned debate and hope we can discuss this together as I'm sure this won't be the last post in the thread.

In some respects, I just want it to be over because its taken so long for us to reach no unanimous decision, we only have personal hunches at the moment and I don't like hoisting my opinion on others, I prefer to let them find out for themselves. I was just mad I suppose that you were posting what I felt were somewhat inane comments that had already been discussed, so please accept my apologies if I seemed a little short. I've seen better hoaxes fall at the first hirdle, yet this keeps fighting on. I just want to know either way what this is, hoax or real.



posted on Jul, 23 2007 @ 03:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Amberite

Originally posted by Averysmallfoxx
right but if the photos released turn out to be cgi'd then it stands to reason that theyre connected and therefore if one element is hoaxed the other is too, those parts are perfect, they match completely and without any deviation of detail. too perfectly one might say.its just MHO.


Actually, although it's obvious they are the same DESIGN, they are not the same PIECE. In the black and white inventory picture, the piece's "teeth" are jagged and broken on the left side. Also, it has an extra appendage sticking out on the right side.

In addition, there is absolutely no conclusive evidence that any picture is real, or hoax.


the fact that they are almost identical says far more than the fact that theirs one particular and minor detail difference. you could argue it either way its true, but look at the vids that have been made to try to simulate the vids posted lately. theres a guy on here thats been openly trying to create a cgi'd vid if not a couple i think, that resemble the ones people are all a buzz about, if you havent seen them you should, ill look for them and post them when i find em.
while his story makes sense and i agree it doesnt hands down mean anything either way yet, im inclined at least at this point to believe its more likely a hoax of some kind just based on all the evidence people have posted. I think if he released more it would have helped his case alot.
there was a gentleman who mentioned the point that the documents isaac stole should have had some form of classified document seal or code even if it was a civillian run black project, it still was a military project that would have had a classified status and either a number code, a label, or both on every page. that makes sense to me. what do you think? it sounds like that would be likely? heres a better question i guess, why wouldnt the military do that with these docs if they were stolen from the research facility?



posted on Jul, 23 2007 @ 03:51 PM
link   
hey man its COMPLETELY understandable. its just the substance we choose to discuss, its part of the territory for the passionate of our lot. i feel pretty much the same as you do, id like this to come to an end already.
i was completely on the "its real" bandwagon at first. completely. but these points that people, you included, have made just seem to strike a tone with me that i feel becomes less and less supportive of it being real. i feel like we need more information to solve this ongoing issue and i doubt well get it. i wish it was true to be honest. that would change the way our concept of technology looks to us infinitely.



posted on Jul, 23 2007 @ 03:55 PM
link   
I'm not sure what you are trying to say in terms of the videos. All the videos that are around are known to be fake and simply an attempt to show how the drones MIGHT move and operate. Someone named Saladfingers created all of them. So I don't know what you mean when you ask me to take a look at them to deduce hoax or not...

As for the case of "numbers" or a code appearing on the documents, this is one of the silliest explanations of hoax I have seen in this thread. Noone (and I mean noone) in this thread (and probably in these forums) has any experience with classified internal documentation for a black ops civilian / military / government project. In addition, noone has any experience with this sort of document from the 1980s. We have no idea what the format of these documents should, and should not have.

As for "evidence" people have posted to prove hoax, none of it is conclusive and a lot of it is conjecture, assumptions, and guesses. Of course, the same could be said for attempts to prove it real.



posted on Jul, 23 2007 @ 03:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by AverysmallfoxxI think if he released more it would have helped his case alot.
there was a gentleman who mentioned the point that the documents isaac stole should have had some form of classified document seal or code even if it was a civillian run black project, it still was a military project that would have had a classified status and either a number code, a label, or both on every page. that makes sense to me. what do you think? it sounds like that would be likely? heres a better question i guess, why wouldnt the military do that with these docs if they were stolen from the research facility?


Without knowing the security procedures involved for in-house literature prepared for civilians who have signed an NDA, all any of us can do is speculate, except maybe Tom Bedlam, but I would have thought that any document could be swiped before the stamps went on. In fact it would make no sense at all to reveal the number codes, etc.. They would just get Isaac in evem more trouble.



posted on Jul, 23 2007 @ 04:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Amberite
I'm not sure what you are trying to say in terms of the videos. All the videos that are around are known to be fake and simply an attempt to show how the drones MIGHT move and operate. Someone named Saladfingers created all of them. So I don't know what you mean when you ask me to take a look at them to deduce hoax or not...

As for the case of "numbers" or a code appearing on the documents, this is one of the silliest explanations of hoax I have seen in this thread. Noone (and I mean noone) in this thread (and probably in these forums) has any experience with classified internal documentation for a black ops civilian / military / government project. In addition, noone has any experience with this sort of document from the 1980s. We have no idea what the format of these documents should, and should not have.

As for "evidence" people have posted to prove hoax, none of it is conclusive and a lot of it is conjecture, assumptions, and guesses. Of course, the same could be said for attempts to prove it real.


i meant that the vids saladfingers provided, are to show how close cgi comes when openly admitted as cgi to the photos, theres alot of debate on the characteristics of cgi in pics but generally the out of focus stuff, the lighting on the artifacts, the shadow irregularities, they seem to be the little fowl ups that one makes in for example a rough draft of a paper, there are always little things that reveal plagerism. but you are right, its still either/or and its maddening.

[edit on 23-7-2007 by Averysmallfoxx]



posted on Jul, 23 2007 @ 04:06 PM
link   
I've posted before that I did civilian work for the MoD and a big IT firm back in my younger days and none of the printouts were stamped UNTIL they went anywhere outside the building. Most of the information was on secure terminals with no printer or disk drive (so we could update/edit the information). It's conjecture that they are stamped before then because most people only see the documents released by the defense agencies AFTER the fact; by FOIA or whatever. All the documents I ever saw were never stamped until they were sent anywhere or filed and all were closely guarded after the stamping, enough that no-one could remove them from the building otherwise we'd ALL be searched.

So, it doesn't give much either way as proof, its not conclusive that they would be stamped, or that they wouldn't but they look exceptionally new for old documents IMO.



posted on Jul, 23 2007 @ 04:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by Karilla
Without knowing the security procedures involved for in-house literature prepared for civilians who have signed an NDA, all any of us can do is speculate, except maybe Tom Bedlam, but I would have thought that any document could be swiped before the stamps went on. In fact it would make no sense at all to reveal the number codes, etc.. They would just get Isaac in evem more trouble.


i agree but if he did have such labels and blackened them out, it might seem he didnt want numbers traced back, furthering his credibility.all speculative.



posted on Jul, 23 2007 @ 04:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by ejsaunders
I've posted before that I did civilian work for the MoD and a big IT firm back in my younger days and none of the printouts were stamped UNTIL they went anywhere outside the building. Most of the information was on secure terminals with no printer or disk drive (so we could update/edit the information). It's conjecture that they are stamped before then because most people only see the documents released by the defense agencies AFTER the fact; by FOIA or whatever. All the documents I ever saw were never stamped until they were sent anywhere or filed and all were closely guarded after the stamping, enough that no-one could remove them from the building otherwise we'd ALL be searched.

So, it doesn't give much either way as proof, its not conclusive that they would be stamped, or that they wouldn't but they look exceptionally new for old documents IMO.


good point, and then theres the fact that none of them seemed crinkled or damaged from smuggling, although even that could probably be circumvented by the detail that he usually took 10+ pages so that he wouldnt have them crinkling as he walked.



posted on Jul, 23 2007 @ 04:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Averysmallfoxx
i meant that the vids saladfingers provided, are to show how close cgi comes when openly admitted as cgi to the photos, theres alot of debate on the characteristics of cgi in pics but generally the out of focus stuff, the lighting on the artifacts, the shadow irregularities, they seem to be the little fowl ups that one makes in for example a rough draft of a paper, there are always little things that reveal plagerism. but you are right, its still either/or and its maddening.


Saladfinger's videos and drone recreations in CGI were nowhere near the level of detail of the Isaac, chad, etc objects. Go back a few pages and look at the high res big-basin photo. In fact, noone to date has been able to make any recreation with the same level of quality and detail.

What's funny is that people admit the absolute genius of these designs, and admit that if hoax, the CGI abilities are absolutely top notch. But then, they come out and say the photos show shadow "irregularities" (which as far I've seen are only assumptions as to how shadows "should be") while any dimwit with a 3D program can produce accurate shadows. So in other words a professional CGI artist who has spent probably over 100 man hours making this hoax is making beginner mistakes because he got lazy?

Huh?



posted on Jul, 23 2007 @ 04:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Amberite
Saladfinger's videos and drone recreations in CGI were nowhere near the level of detail of the Isaac, chad, etc objects. Go back a few pages and look at the high res big-basin photo. In fact, noone to date has been able to make any recreation with the same level of quality and detail.

What's funny is that people admit the absolute genius of these designs, and admit that if hoax, the CGI abilities are absolutely top notch. But then, they come out and say the photos show shadow "irregularities" (which as far I've seen are only assumptions as to how shadows "should be") while any dimwit with a 3D program can produce accurate shadows. So in other words a professional CGI artist who has spent probably over 100 man hours making this hoax is making beginner mistakes because he got lazy?

Huh?

no i ment the lighting in reference to the artifact photos in isaacs site. the picture of the personal anti gravitational generator, the original has some irregularities not the drone photos.



posted on Jul, 23 2007 @ 04:34 PM
link   

Isaac's website
...although I must be clear: at this time I do not have any future plans for additional information. Time will tell how long I will maintain this policy, but do not expect anything soon. I'd really like to let this information “settle” for a while and see how it goes. If I find out I'm getting an IRS audit tomorrow, then maybe this wasn't too smart. Until then, I'm going to take it slow.


I'm betting the website is now a dead end.

1. If Isaac is making this up then he won't be able to post only more cryptic documents without further explanation or nothing is accomplished by releasing them. He wouldn't be doing anything to benefit the cause of helping the UFO community. If he needs to think up more details then they will be under inspection to the Nth degree and it opens the possibility that his game will be discovered. The more info the greater chance for a traceable flaw to show.

2. If this is all real then with current affairs and the Patriot Act, etc, it would seem he is revealing information the the government considers sensitive then it is most likely the end of his information releasing actions. Some how I can't envision this technology as not being secret at this time. If this information is no longer considered secret then I would think someone else might speak up to back his claims. Since Isaac seems a bit concerned about his release there may not be another voice from PACL unless they too are watching so see if he is allowed to continue.

An IRS audit seems a little light for the action to be taken. If it were real I would think that members of the team would have been threatened with much worse consequences than an audit. If it is real he's not going to be talking any more.

I believe the only break might be someone on the fringe of the hoax, if it is, to come forward and spill the beans in order to place their self in the limelight.



posted on Jul, 23 2007 @ 05:15 PM
link   
I am a first time poster. I first thought it was real and now lean toward Hoax. I think I know a good suspect. See Earthfiles.com and read about the PHD that commented on Isaac's "insightful" writing. Then google and research his name. He teaches Game Programming, is experienced with CAD, Is an avid model maker (planes and spacecraft) who uses MS Project to document his Model making, Heads up a UAV Lab, teaches computer programming, has some DOD experience on the B2...Interested in UFOs. He is a professor, the list goes on. All the background I would expect the hoaxer to have. I could be wrong so we shouldn't blitz the guy or enter into a witch hunt, but....that post about how could a briliiant CGI guy who created the drone get the lighting wrong?...It's a real physical model. 11 11 talked about this and mentioned decals. It's a real physical model made by someone and then in a slightly amateurish way photographed and integrated into a photo using photoshop. I could be wrong and possibly I am off track with the PHD who vouched for Isaac, but given that particular PHDs background with model making, the DOD and UAV's as well as computer graphics I find it suprising he just commented on the veracity of Isaacs language discussion and called it "credible" and "insightful" rather than bringing his other highly applicable experience to the problem. If it was Isaac it would make sense not to get into the rest and maybe he is a little frustrated that people get pre-occupied with the photos rather than his creative writing skills. ...the magic operating language?

Also I keep thinking that "damaged part" in the inventory is a result of pulling the plastic model apart and accidentally damaging the tiny teeth with maybe pliers? Or maybe that little extra bit on the right side of the part with the teeth that shows up in the black and white inventory photo, but isn't in the drone photo is actually those little plastic things that connect the model pieces?

Again, I am a newbe and could be off base, but just food for thought.

Could the Hoaxer have emailed in to Earthfiles to vouch for the credibility of his own hoax?



posted on Jul, 23 2007 @ 05:20 PM
link   
maybereal,

Waaaay back in this thread, around page 20 or 30, a professional modeler who had extensive knowledge of what would be required to make these kinds of models basically said it was almost impossible. He said the amount of work, the cost of the materials, and the overall time to create one (let alone several different designs) would be so prohibitive as to be basically impossible.

[edit on 23-7-2007 by Amberite]



posted on Jul, 23 2007 @ 05:29 PM
link   
Amberite

I think any modeler could wip up a Chad drone in short amount of time. I could if I wanted too, but I don't think I want to go there lol... I'll stick to cgi. As far as price it would be cheap, balsa wood, wire, clear coat, decals. I guess the professional modeler who posted, charges by the minute lol



posted on Jul, 23 2007 @ 05:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by maybereal11
11 11 talked about this and mentioned decals.


Actually, no that was me, 11 thinks its all CGI with real photos, I and several others think/tought it was a model.

Saying that, I have several doctorates (business and computing), I have an interest in model making and UFOS, it could realistically be a HUGE number of people just based on those characteristics.

I for one wouldn't attempt to contact someone who's researching the thing if I was the hoaxer, but maybe the guy thinks he won't get caught, but do you have any specific proof, other than conjecture that your insight is correct?

If it is then perhaps he could be caught out, but I for one would hate to accuse someone and then have to serve myself humble pie and grovel flavoured ice-cream because, without proof, that is a little libellous and if the dude isn't the hoaxer, hell I wouldn't want to be you if he found out.



posted on Jul, 23 2007 @ 05:49 PM
link   
Just a quick little note. One of the nicer things you can sometimes do with multiple images (and we have some here) is construct 3-D stereo pairs, using foreground and background objects as guides. I've been fiddling with some image pairs in an effort to try to squeeze a little more information out of them, and so far I've come across some interesting things. I haven't done much with them yet, just play around with them, but one of the things I've already found is that the object itself is not only very nicely rendered in actual 3-D, but very often the placement of the object sequentially from photo to photo is such that you get a good, dimensional view of it as if it was moving through real space, not as if it was an image just plastered onto various backgrounds haphazardly. Like I said... interesting.

I'll put some of these stereo pairs up when I get a chance.



posted on Jul, 23 2007 @ 05:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by ejsaunders
I've seen better hoaxes fall at the first hirdle, yet this keeps fighting on.


That's assuming that this is a hoax. Most hoaxes are determined to be so in the first few days. Wouldn't the fact that this hasn't been determined to be a hoax after this much time lend more credibility to the fact that it may not be? I can't imagine the reason is because we are all stupid and are unable to find the solution to the "hoax." I imagine it's because it isn't a hoax and we just don't have the witnesses or Isaac posting on this site to confirm its validity.



posted on Jul, 23 2007 @ 06:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Averysmallfoxx
but look at the vids that have been made to try to simulate the vids posted lately. theres a guy on here thats been openly trying to create a cgi'd vid if not a couple i think, that resemble the ones people are all a buzz about, if you havent seen them you should, ill look for them and post them when i find em.


I'm not sure you have your facts straight. All the videos posted have been CGI recreations. They were meant to try to understand how the drones might move. No one ever claimed that any real video was taken of the drones.



new topics

top topics



 
185
<< 121  122  123    125  126  127 >>

log in

join