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: 140
185
<< 137  138  139    141  142  143 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 26 2007 @ 08:26 PM
link   
there was a point made a while back that to me makes sense.most hoax's are fairly shortlived, it takes only a very short period of time for the efforts behind them to be revealed. I would say by now it has been much longer than a short period of time and i cant help but side with AA in that this is taking far too long to decipher as one or the other. just perhaps a stretch but similarly at some point the debate over roswell being fake had lingered for a long time and now look at what we know?




posted on Jul, 26 2007 @ 08:30 PM
link   
The problem that we've had from the start is that people without experience in graphics are going to be amazed by just about anything, whereas people with experience can see that it's not nearly as difficult as it looks, but simply don't have the time or the interest to prove it.

My experience with graphics and graphics software is all I need to be sure that this could be done using a 3D app and photoshop relatively easily. I'm not saying EVERY 3D artist on planet earth can do it, nor am I saying that it isn't at least a decent amount of work (with a lot of the work actually being on the compositing side alone).

All I'm saying is that you can find a million 3D artists on the web that have made stuff for no reason other than that they're hobbyists that are WAAAY more detailed than even the Big Basin drone. There are only two differences between those pieces of art and this one:

1) They're not presented as "real" to begin with.
2) They aren't severely degraded, blurred, noised up, and pasted onto an otherwise real photo.

Believe me, if they were, we'd see photos this real ALL OVER THE PLACE. This hoax isn't special because the artists are geniuses, it's special simply beacuse no one else has gone to the trouble to do it before (to this degree, at least). But that doesn't mean we can then turn around and say "See? Clearly no one else is capable of this!" Plenty of people are, they just don't have the motivation to do so.



posted on Jul, 26 2007 @ 08:39 PM
link   
my stance is if its soo easy lets see someone make something as complex and difficult appearing to prove this "its too easy" claim. i keep hearing this but i havent seen examples.



posted on Jul, 26 2007 @ 08:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Averysmallfoxx
my stance is if its soo easy lets see someone make something as complex and difficult appearing to prove this "its too easy" claim. i keep hearing this but i havent seen examples.


That's my whole point. I sympathize, since it's gotta be frustrating to hear people saying something that isn't (really) being backed up, but think about it-- would you really take out potentially days of your life to copy something for no real reason other than to make a point on the internet?

Admittedly, the pics from Wayne were lackluster (to be generous), but Saladfingers is getting VERY close and I think it's safe to say that with a little more free time, he could nail it.

But none of this is my point. My point is that real people just can't justify spending that kind of time on something like this. But the credentials on people like David Biently are no joke, and I think that considering how MANY CG experts have agreed with the hoax verdict so far, sooner or later the layman has to accept it, at least to some extent.

My point is simply that it's going to be very hard to convince a non-graphics person without a PERFECT replica, and a PERFECT replica is probably going to take just enough time to bar most "regular people" from actually taking the time to do it.

So even if you don't want to agree with me overall, can you at least acknowledge that this is a genuine dillema and that just because we can't take the time to do it, it doesn't mean it can't be done?

I think that's the first step towards bridging this divide.



posted on Jul, 26 2007 @ 08:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Averysmallfoxx
my stance is if its soo easy lets see someone make something as complex and difficult appearing to prove this "its too easy" claim. i keep hearing this but i havent seen examples.


Which is precisely why I developed The CARET Challenge (no takers yet). I fully expect, that if we find someone capable of un-blacking the blacked out areas of the report, that we'll have a good deal of important information to work with, rather than it being simple dead space. I also think that if we can find someone talented enough to clean up the "design" areas of the hi-res phot, that we'll see something right along the lines of the diagrams in the Primer. The question you have to ask yourself is- who would go to THAT much trouble- as to create some brilliant design and hide it within a photo that would require all kinds of technical manipulation to reveal? I recognize that people are capable of being *very* clever, but something tells me we crossed the human threshold for it a while back.



posted on Jul, 26 2007 @ 08:58 PM
link   
check out the website for this movie www.apple.com...
the movie is called "cloverfield" coming out 1-18-08 it might have a relationship with drones



posted on Jul, 26 2007 @ 09:02 PM
link   
see thats what i mean though, how do i really know it can be done if i havent seen anyone else do something that is on the same magnitude? how do we know that most experts are not weighing in with the assumption that it has to be a fake for the simple reason that in their minds its just a matter of technology and time but what if it isnt? and what if no one WILL prove that it is?
i respect all points of view on this and as i want very much for this to be a real event of unimaginable proportions, i cant say certainly that anyone is closer to closing the case than they are to blowing it wide open. but i would like to see claims backed up if they are made for the simple reason that if they cant be or wont be,then why say they can be?

[edit on 26-7-2007 by Averysmallfoxx]



posted on Jul, 26 2007 @ 09:02 PM
link   
alevar, great post.
If I could I would buy you a banana split with my ATS points.


Such is my position. I am NOT a cgi person, so at some point I have to take the word of the experts. I try to remain open as long as seems reasonable, because that is the only way that I know how to gather facts.

You really nailed the need for some of us to stop hoping that these pictures are the Holy Grail of UFOs. I too wish they were, trust me. But I refuse to allow wishing to overtake sound judgment.

I can always hope that something comes up that changes my mind, or that some other element of this story has merit. But for now at least, this is one more in a long line of hoaxes.



posted on Jul, 26 2007 @ 09:07 PM
link   
a fair response, but keep in mind alot of what the government hasnt been fully able to keep under wraps, they do infact seed dis-info about, because they want it looked at as hoaxes and bs. not to say its unhealthy to have a realistice view of this whole thing, just saying.



posted on Jul, 26 2007 @ 09:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by alevar

Admittedly, the pics from Wayne were lackluster (to be generous), but Saladfingers is getting VERY close and I think it's safe to say that with a little more free time, he could nail it.



I doubt that very much. This is like saying that if you studied Vermeer's paintings long enough, and practiced painting them, that you could reproduce them. I don't care what software Saladfingers uses, unless he's got the inner grace of whoever/whatever created the Primer diagrams, he's simply miming them. The CARET Challenge requires a brand new concept of equal beauty and execution, along with every other facet of the CARET package, the technical descriptions, the photos of new parts, a new font, in addition to CGI photos that equal (including the depth of newly revealed detail) the photos that we've seen (and which have been declared bogus).

For anyone to stand here and say that all of this is fake and that they (or someone) could do it....but they don't have the time (or whatever) simply doesn't wash. *Someone* created all of this stuff (bogus or not), someone took the time, you can't legitimately claim that all of this is phony and perfectly within the capacities of anyone with a bright mind and expect us to accept you at your word. Man, talk about a leap of faith! As I've asserted from the get-go, if this is a hoax, whoever is behind it is absolutely EXTRAORDINARY, likely with an IQ beyond measuring. This is NOT all perfectly do-able, folks, it's amazing stuff, and the deeper you dig, the more impressive it gets. That is NOT your normal hoax, no matter how you try to pussy-foot around it.



posted on Jul, 26 2007 @ 09:30 PM
link   
Okay fine, so howabout this:

When the CGI path goes cold (to the layman, that is), we can jump tracks to the other numerous reasons to believe this is a fake.

For instance, not a SINGLE person who provided any of the photos we've seen has come forward to be directly identified, interviewed, or anything. The most I've heard is that Raj came forward and spoke to the forum-that-shall-not-be-named people. But that's just more anonymous internet communication, which means it's no different than the original emails were. He could still be anyone, anywhere.

Yeah, some people have talked to LMH (and ONLY LMH, I might add), but Chad, Raj, Ty, Stephen, the Lake Tahoe people... none of them are among them. How long is this going to take? This started months ago and there still isn't one single person who's actually stepped forward to put their story through any real scrutiny at all. Doesn't it strike you as oddly convenient that no one with any photographic evidence has had to respond directly to anyone about anything?

So here's what we can say:

1) The photos could easily be CGI. Don't understand how? Fair enough. Luckily, pretty much every expert agrees (including MUFON). Still don't like it? That's your call, so read on:

2) The witnesses exist ONLY via email, which means there's not a single shred of proof that they aren't all controlled by a single group, or perhaps even individual. Not one person has talked by phone to anyone on or off the record, even according to LMH.

3) Isaac's stuff is nice, admittedly, but again, it's strangely convenient. Nothing he's told us about himself can be corroborated, because he's been so vague. The same goes for the content of the report itself. Again, it looks nice on the surface, but there's ZERO evidence of any real, verifiable value. And again, you don't need to be a CGI expert to understand how suspicious that is.

4) My personal favorite is the fact that this whole thing has played out exactly like a hoax/story would. It starts simple, then gets progressively more complicated, then has a big finish. That's it! The "drone" craft appears on film for the first time EVER, in HISTORY, in May or June of 2007 or whatever. And that just happens to be the same month in which like a billion other progressively more complex photos surface of the same thing. And it ALSO just so happens that within a month or two of all this the mastermind himself steps forward with the blueprints as well? I mean Jesus, even for a movie script that's pretty contrived.


5) Check out Saladfinger's work on proving the document is 99% likely to be the product of Adobe Illustrator as well. As I've said, this a lot easier to grasp, even for a layman, than the CGI argument. It's all right there, point for point, for anyone to see. We've been looking for a smoking gun and the more I think about it, the more I think this might be it.

Here's my point: if this were real, then the CGI argument would probably be there either way. There's no way a photo of ANYTHING unique is going to surface these days without someone saying "Photoshop". Fine, fair enough. But that doesn't even BEGIN to explain the other four major points I've listed here, and I'm not even covering every argument against this.

So think about it. One or two of these criticisms would be understandable. But I'm sorry, having at least FIVE (and in fact many more) arguments against of this caliber is just too much for me to believe.



posted on Jul, 26 2007 @ 09:32 PM
link   
Also check out what Hollywod Repoter said about this film.
www.hollywoodreporter.com...
It might be, their just to many link to being fake, and the idea that the goverment have an alien craft CRAZY S***.
Its going to be a movie, read my lips MOVIE.



posted on Jul, 26 2007 @ 09:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Arlington Acid
Look, MK, if this stuff isn't interesting to you and you think it's bogus, what are you doing here? No one's twisting your arm and compelling you to do *anything*. If you can't see the magic that seems obvious to me........then go enjoy a nice Summer's evening some way.

Seriously bro, if this isn't turning you on, find something that does.


Oh, it interest me how some jerk can throw a bunch of crap up on the internet and screw with the very essence of a site like ATS that’s dedicated to the truth when this is such an obvious abuse of resources from the Ufology community, maybe you should take a break and meditated on this blatant crap and wonder why it turns you on so much and maybe you’ll see how you play into the hands of a jerk who laughing as we speak



posted on Jul, 26 2007 @ 09:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Arlington Acid

For anyone to stand here and say that all of this is fake and that they (or someone) could do it....but they don't have the time (or whatever) simply doesn't wash. *Someone* created all of this stuff (bogus or not), someone took the time, you can't legitimately claim that all of this is phony and perfectly within the capacities of anyone with a bright mind and expect us to accept you at your word. Man, talk about a leap of faith!


It's not a leap of faith at all. First, many people have speculated that a single person could have done this given the proper motivation (desire for an ego boost, who knows). People have done huge things on the internet before without any real reason or payoff. People are weird.

But let's put that aside for now. You're saying that the work just looks too complicated for a single guy to be doing for no reason, especially since everyone else has (for the most part) fallen a little short in recreating it exactly. And furthermore, I agree that in many ways, re-creating it as actually a lot easier than creating it in the first place. So we're seeing eye-to-eye so far.

But who's to say this isn't the product of an entire team? Look at all the independently developed video games, and fan Star Wars movies, and other stuff online. Groups of anywhere from 2-50 people get together REGULARLY on the internet to create massive creative projects and then give them away for free.

You've got a writer/idea guy, who comes up with the concepts and does the main writing. Then you've got one or two CG guys, who turn his concepts and sketches into the photos we've all seen. Then we've got another guy who does vector graphics, page layout, and that sort of thing, who put together all of Isaac's material. Surely this is all starting to seem more believable. If you have a team of as little as four people, this could easily be done.

You might agree with this, but then say that the payoff isn't there beacuse ultimately they haven't taken credit for it. So why bother? Well, two reasons:

1) Just because they haven't taken credit now, doesn't mean they won't do so in the future. Who's to say this is even over yet? Maybe an even bigger thing is coming, or maybe in 3 months we'll see a book or something come out in which they finally expose themselves, explain everything, and finally get all the glory?

2) If they took credit for it, it wouldn't be a hoax!

Lastly, here's a great example of entire groups of people doing tons of difficult work for no credit: hacking groups! I was just reading an article today about the guys who broke into Paris Hitlon's sidekick. It was an entire team of people working online together, totally anonymously to the outside world, just for the fun of breaking into the T-Mobile systems. Obviously, if they ever took REAL credit, they'd be in jail, so they remain hidden. And yeah, they have "hacker aliases" and stuff, but that's hardly what I'd call "mainstream attention". At best, some of their hacker buddies can pat them on the back. And in this case, I'm sure the hoaxers have shown this to their friends and gotten plenty of kudos from them.

So there really is NO precedent being set here in the big picture. People have worked in groups to do big things and then not taken credit for it many, many times. This won't be the last, either.

The reason I'm posting so much is just because the more you really dig into this, the more you see that all the seemingly amazing aspects of this case really aren't THAT amazing once you put things in perspective. I'm just hoping I can share that perspective with others.

[edit on 26-7-2007 by alevar]



posted on Jul, 26 2007 @ 09:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by bokinsmowl
i noticed these markings while examining the iff you look at the high-res you will see them in other places too...implementation of the "self-actualizing code"? or the object used as inspiration for the primers.



[edit on 7/26/2007 by bokinsmowl]


Now that you've said what you've said, please go back and re-read my post. You are agreeing with exactly what I said. Before you jump to conclusions about the nature of someone's post, I suggest you read the entire post before replying to it.

[edit on 7/26/2007 by pjslug]



posted on Jul, 26 2007 @ 09:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Arlington Acid
Look, MK, if this stuff isn't interesting to you and you think it's bogus, what are you doing here? No one's twisting your arm and compelling you to do *anything*. If you can't see the magic that seems obvious to me........then go enjoy a nice Summer's evening some way.

Seriously bro, if this isn't turning you on, find something that does.


You never responded to my last comment to you about why you are so condescending to others. I strongly suggest you knock it off. Anyone and everyone are allowed to share their opinions here, whether they believe in this or not. Moonking is obviously intrigued by this as he has said before, or he wouldn't be here otherwise. Where do you get off telling someone that he must see the "magic" in order to post here? As far as I've seen, this thread existed long before you started posting here and consisted of many people not believing in the report or the drones. Just because you and I happen to believe in it doesn't mean that people who don't aren't allowed to post here because you don't want them to. Get off your high horse and start acting respectful, please. I appreciate all your contributions so far as they have been very valuable, but please do not act so condescending towards others if their beliefs differ from your own. Thank you.

[edit on 7/26/2007 by pjslug]



posted on Jul, 26 2007 @ 10:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by alevar
My point is simply that it's going to be very hard to convince a non-graphics person without a PERFECT replica, and a PERFECT replica is probably going to take just enough time to bar most "regular people" from actually taking the time to do it.


I am a REAL graphics person and I strongly disagree with your position. These so-called experts are declaring it a hoax. Now what if this were a real object flying through the air? They would obviously think it a hoax anyway because it is something outside the realm of normalcy, and they know the talent of hoaxers because they visit sites such as www.worth1000.com. As I mentioned in a previous post, if you do a stereoscopic analysis on these images, especially the transitional ones that show movement from picture to picture, you can clearly see that they are not CGI generated images. The only thing they could possibly be if not real craft are models being moved around by a string, because these are, IMO, 100% true-to-life objects whether they be alien craft or just models. I have been in the graphics industry for over 15 years and I find it so amazing that some of these supposed experts are writing this off as a hoax. If anything, it shows me that they are not experts at all, merely people that can't admit to the fact that technology might exist that is outside the conceivable realm of their perception. Again, I urge EVERYONE to do stereoscopic analysis of these images and view the results for yourself.



posted on Jul, 26 2007 @ 10:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Averysmallfoxx
a fair response, but keep in mind alot of what the government hasnt been fully able to keep under wraps, they do infact seed dis-info about, because they want it looked at as hoaxes and bs. not to say its unhealthy to have a realistice view of this whole thing, just saying.


...which is exactly what I believe the CARET report is. I think the drone pictures and witnesses are 100% real. I think some of them might have been threatened by the government which is why we have not heard from them since. I think the CARET report is an attempt at disinfo (with elements of truth and fiction) to discredit the drone testimonies.



posted on Jul, 26 2007 @ 10:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by alevar
2) The witnesses exist ONLY via email, which means there's not a single shred of proof that they aren't all controlled by a single group, or perhaps even individual. Not one person has talked by phone to anyone on or off the record, even according to LMH.


Where did you get that from? LMH did have phone interviews with the people as far as I know. Plenty of people so far have said that. Read the testimonies. They are clearly written as spoken dialogue between two parties, and do not sound if they are back-and-forth e-mails (from such responses such as "Yes, yes." Who would post simply "Yes, yes." in an e-mail? It just doesn't sound right). I could be completely wrong here, and will always apologize and admit if I am.


[edit on 7/26/2007 by pjslug]



posted on Jul, 26 2007 @ 10:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by pjslug

Originally posted by alevar
2) The witnesses exist ONLY via email, which means there's not a single shred of proof that they aren't all controlled by a single group, or perhaps even individual. Not one person has talked by phone to anyone on or off the record, even according to LMH.


What? Huh? Where did you get that from? LMH did have phone interviews with the people.


She didn't speak to any of the providers of photos by phone. She spoke to Shirley and the infrared camera guy by phone, who both claimed to see the drones. Then she spoke to another guy who saw a bright green thing that she claims is similar to the drones (whatever).

But these are the people that matter most in this case:

- Chad
- Raj
- Lake Tahoe people
- Stephen
- Ty

They provided the "main" photos for this case, and so far, none of them exist as verifiably separate people outside of emails, from what I've read. I could be wrong but I'm almost positive about this.




top topics



 
185
<< 137  138  139    141  142  143 >>

log in

join