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: 16
185
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 27 2007 @ 02:32 PM
link   
Just remember, every 1year of the public sector equals 45 years ahead the government is, im on the fence with this one, ive been doing some research and have come across crop circles that have replicated part of this design, also on one of the pages, the charaters on the device spell ben perfectly in japanese, i should know, my name is ben
) , but that could just be a coincidence.




posted on Jun, 27 2007 @ 02:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by ShiftTrio
Been looking for verified documents from companies that have a similar look and feel as well from the 80s. But the font history is a great idea. The issue is there are SO many sub sets of original fonts may be hard to nail down. But I will put my effort into it.



Sorry for the delay people, I only now finished reading the pages. The typeface is Palatino, as someone else already stated it.



The excerpt was taken from "PACL Q4-86 Report p8".



posted on Jun, 27 2007 @ 02:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by SkepticOverlordIt is highly improbably to have a mixture of fonts and italics on a page using typical office document preparation software and printers of 1986.


well, i had this on macword in '84 already. you're right on the printers though, no halftones, only dithering.

edit: but palatino already used iirc.

[edit on 27-6-2007 by Lamâshtu]



posted on Jun, 27 2007 @ 02:39 PM
link   
en.wikipedia.org...

I know its wik, but the font has a very long history



posted on Jun, 27 2007 @ 02:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by RandomThought
Here's an example of how good CGI is now days




Looks real don't it?


Yes it "looks" real. And a REAL fine job on that image. But once again, what gives this away as cgi is the color noise. If you have photoshop, open up the above link with ANY and or ALL of the drone pics.
Look at the shadow areas and compare channel noise.
Cameras have an issue (as well as scanners, printers and moitors) with dark areas. CGI does not.
In all of the dron images, the individual channels on all photos sets start to have issues in the shadows. it's because the sensitivity of the sensors in cameras can only visually read so much and the darker you get the "grainier" it gets. Not in the render above.

Like I said though, that is an AWESOME render but does NOT match ANY of the drone pics in the realm of real world RGB color handling and output.

In case someone DOES zoom in on each channel to see the noise, It is there. Just not in a natural sense. Not in the sense that the noise gets worse in the shadow areas becasue of the inability for a sensor to READ the shadow areas.

Not cgi though.. especially in the render above.. from light to dark the color noise pattern remains consistent which screams cgi.


b



posted on Jun, 27 2007 @ 02:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by wildone106
Poor? Show me better examples then..
And the objects depicted in the photo are very CGI, if you work with it you can just tell the feel of the rendering technique.


Originally posted by corda


What I would say though, is that the examples of 'photorealistic' CGI are poor comparisons at best. The pictures of the cars and vehicles are very, very easily spottable as CGI. Whilst there are certain elements of the CARET photos that point towards CGI (some of the shadows and texturing have some CGI characteristics) I don't think it's possible to say one way or another."


I'm not calling them "poor", I'm calling them "poor comparisons".

As I said, I think there is evidence that all these photos and pictures are CGI created. The problem is, those people that choose to 'prove' that they are CGI by linking to pictures that aren't photorealistic or close aren't providing particularly strong arguments.

I go by the basis that comparative evidence needs to be just that - comparative. Most of the time CGI debunkers are posting up pictures that are relatively good, but then following up with "I know this isn't 100%/I haven't finished texturing/this wasn't supposed to be realistic/I made this in 5 minutes etc.". Whilst I understand not everyone has time to create or find wonderful CGI, there isn't any point putting an argument forward, then presenting evidence that is self-admittedly sub par.

I for one am still very much open to all of this being CGI, so I'm not trying to convince people it isn't. All I'm saying is, as much as I know it can be done, I've yet to see anybody post an image as photorealistically convincing as some of the Chad stuff. You have to understand that few people (myself included) understand CGI that well, and if we're going to be convinced that it's relatively easy to create something that looks this good, strong and useful comparative 3D work is the only way to do it. Posting up half finished examples and reasons isn't going to work, from a purely judicial point of view.

Basically it's like a quantum physicist posting up a bit of their equation, the answer, and then saying "there's some stuff in the middle but I haven't got time to show you that". I can understand their meaning, but there is no way I'm good enough on the subject to fill in the blanks, and so therefore the answer and the evidence are uncorrelated and meaningless.



[edit on 27-6-2007 by corda]



posted on Jun, 27 2007 @ 02:46 PM
link   
I haven't had time to read much past the first and last page of this thread (15 pages in 22 hours, I missed getting in on this one from the first floor)

Read the link given by the OP, in fact continuing to re-read, really good stuff, not perfectly written, in my head that sort of adds a bit.

I've seen lots of posts saying genuine, lots saying hoax. Up to this point I have read none saying this is PART of the general hoax. The entire thing is very well done from start to this point - got us lot going! (Although admittedly this is what we are here for). Could the author of the link be in from the start? From the level of detail on that site I would not (necessarily) say he/she is a tag along.


By the time you get to the fourth, fifth and sixth words, the problem has spiraled out of control. Now imagine trying to add the billionth word to the list (imagine also that we're working with an infinite alphabet so you don't run out of letters) and you can imagine how difficult it is for even a computer to keep up. Needless to say, writing this kind of thing "by hand" is orders of magnitude beyond the capabilities of the brain.


Trying to wrap my head round this infinite alphabet , whats the verdict on that? Way to describe a vastly more complicated alphabet? Or literally an infinite alphabet? How would an infinite alphabet be possible, for an alphabet to work each symbol has to have meaning, you can’t go on adding symbols for ever - it would be nonsense.

Or is my mind too small?



posted on Jun, 27 2007 @ 02:48 PM
link   
I suspect that during the time period of the mid 80s, the computers in use would have been mainframe or mini range using postscript printing. I have not worked in the government sector so I have no idea of which platform they prefered.



posted on Jun, 27 2007 @ 02:48 PM
link   
I was just playing around with the documents in photoshop and discovered there's something which looks like a watermark in the paper.

Here, take a look. I uploaded two enhanced pictures to photobucket.






Anyone know what this could mean/stand for?



posted on Jun, 27 2007 @ 02:48 PM
link   
Ok this should put this to rest about the dates,

Orginal Macs had the font Palatino, as did the the Apple Laser Writer in 1985, one of only 10 fonts to use on the printer. Read the link. The Mac was fully capable of creating and printing this document in 1985

www.printerworks.net...

Edit, oh guess where the macs were invented at the time, any one,, Pala Alto Ca lol

[edit on 27-6-2007 by ShiftTrio]



posted on Jun, 27 2007 @ 02:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheExaminer

The government will watch us squabble and sit back and laugh just like GR just did.

They have been successful in their plan to place doubt about any and all evidence presented on this site.




I don't think the government folks are the only one who are laughing. But, I'm sure that the government probably monitors this site.

If this is a hoax, my hats off to those who created it. Being an ad man and a frequent photoshopper, I don't think it CGI. I can usally spot CGI a mile away, and this one, if CGI, is waaaay good. Probably the best I have ever seen. I think it's a photo. The blue shadow is from the light source. And, the grain is from it not being shot with a digital camera.

My favorite line from his website: "For me, there's just something very surreal about hearing all this speculation and so-called inside information about UFOs and the like, but being personally able to verify at least some of it as being true or false." I think that would be a blessing, because there is some real BS on that show.

I think people on this board may just be a little to skeptical. It is such an irony, because you would think that the people on this site would have an open mind. Just back and forth with no conclusion, as someone so eloquently put it. Like two sets of people one with faith and one with none. Reminds me of the Freemasons, and the the Law of One and the Sons of Belial. Personal discernment is one thing, but outright rebuttal of everything is another. I guess once bitten, very skeptical. It would be funny to think that some of these hoaxes on this board maybe "plants."

Anyway, my feeling is that this is just the beginning of what Issac may be able to pass along to us. Of course, he might just disappear. I guess will see. This could be elaborate hoax. If it is I hope the people responsible are well reimbursed with plenty of money or laughter or both. I know that following this whole thing for me has been really enjoyable for me. I have been reading almost all day. Just trying to keep an open mind, and a healthy dose of skeptism. Well, time to make some popcorn.



posted on Jun, 27 2007 @ 02:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by RandomThought
Here's an example of how good CGI is now days


I'm what would be known as an amateur and I could see that your pic was CGI right away.

Bad example to prove your point IMO.



posted on Jun, 27 2007 @ 02:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by ShiftTrio
Ok this should put this to rest about the dates,

Orginal Macs had the font Palatino, as did the the Apple Laser Writer in 1985, one of only 10 fonts to use on the printer. Read the link. The Mac was fully capable of creating and printing this document in 1985

www.printerworks.net...

Edit, oh guess where the macs were invented at the time, any one,, Pala Alto Ca lol

[edit on 27-6-2007 by ShiftTrio]


the font and the layouting, yes, but the grayscale? the apple LW's i had back then only dithered, no grayscale. or when were grayscale LW's introduced? i can't remember.

edit: btw, even if the printers back then weren't able to print especially the linguistic pages like shown, it definitely would have been possible to replicate with blueprinting/film copies i guess.

[edit on 27-6-2007 by Lamâshtu]



posted on Jun, 27 2007 @ 02:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Now_Then
Trying to wrap my head round this infinite alphabet , whats the verdict on that? Way to describe a vastly more complicated alphabet? Or literally an infinite alphabet? How would an infinite alphabet be possible, for an alphabet to work each symbol has to have meaning, you can’t go on adding symbols for ever - it would be nonsense.

Or is my mind too small?


He's not saying it is an infinite alphabet, he's just using examples that we can relate to.

I for one have noticed that our CGI experts are so very quick to scream hoax and it's nice to see one finally post that isn't so sure. My hats off to frailty.

I'm still on the fence though.

[edit on 27-6-2007 by jbondo]



posted on Jun, 27 2007 @ 03:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by RandomThought
Here's an example of how good CGI is now days


Looks real don't it?


No it doesn't
It looks unreal, because of the hair and skin. Maybe if the picture was made with a bigger distance it would be much better. I lost the link, but somewhere in the 'original' Drone thread. It has a link to a pixel painter, now that is allmost as real as you can handcraft.



posted on Jun, 27 2007 @ 03:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Now_Then
I haven't had time to read much past the first and last page of this thread (15 pages in 22 hours, I missed getting in on this one from the first floor)

Read the link given by the OP, in fact continuing to re-read, really good stuff, not perfectly written, in my head that sort of adds a bit.

I've seen lots of posts saying genuine, lots saying hoax. Up to this point I have read none saying this is PART of the general hoax. The entire thing is very well done from start to this point - got us lot going! (Although admittedly this is what we are here for). Could the author of the link be in from the start? From the level of detail on that site I would not (necessarily) say he/she is a tag along.


By the time you get to the fourth, fifth and sixth words, the problem has spiraled out of control. Now imagine trying to add the billionth word to the list (imagine also that we're working with an infinite alphabet so you don't run out of letters) and you can imagine how difficult it is for even a computer to keep up. Needless to say, writing this kind of thing "by hand" is orders of magnitude beyond the capabilities of the brain.


Trying to wrap my head round this infinite alphabet , whats the verdict on that? Way to describe a vastly more complicated alphabet? Or literally an infinite alphabet? How would an infinite alphabet be possible, for an alphabet to work each symbol has to have meaning, you can’t go on adding symbols for ever - it would be nonsense.

Or is my mind too small?


I thinks it is what they would call an "infinity drive." And yes, our mind is too small. Well, except we don't use our whole brain. Sometimes, I wonder what would happen if we did.

I do think the Chinese are really pushing it with their written language.

mountains.ece.umn.edu...



posted on Jun, 27 2007 @ 03:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by LoDGiKaL
I was just playing around with the documents in photoshop and discovered there's something which looks like a watermark in the paper.

Here, take a look. I uploaded two enhanced pictures to photobucket.






Anyone know what this could mean/stand for?



I noticed this as well and mentioned it earlier. If you look at the original images at an angle on your computer screen you can see the watermark more clearly without having to manipulate the image. looking at it directly you can hardly see it.

I wonder if there is more to the actual files than just pictures. Anyone know how to check for hidden data in a JPG file?



posted on Jun, 27 2007 @ 03:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by ExquisitExamplE

Originally posted by j_kalin
I vote hoax. Anyone who worked on this project for as long as Isaac claims would have a lot of technical knowledge, If he really wanted to disclose this technology, he would have relayed some technical data, ie equations, etc that explain the principles behind "antigravity." Instead, he rambles on for pages and pages about his motives, his employment history, etc, but never providing any useful information. It's just someone's idea of fiction. Nice pics of who-knows-what.


How can you know if they even had equations. He said himself that not only did they really have no idea where to begin with these "artifacts", The military brass wouldn't supply them with all the data they needed to make good progress.

And it seems to me that he did provide "equations" in the form of the linguistic primer. If these symbols were the medium with which they were working, would it not make sense to describe their application in the same context?


Human science works with mathematical equations. Period. "Isaac" says that the antigravity machines were reproduced by humans and used to levitate airplanes, etc and that they had to be moved with great difficulty. If they were studied and their properties were measured, then where is the data. Even an analysis of what element they are made of? A weight? How much power they use? Anything? No, he rambles on and on about nothing; reminds me of a BAD creative writing sample for a high school class.
H O A X!

PT Barnum was right, there is a sucker born every minute and 2 to take his money. CGI is getting very good; in the right cases, it is not apparent that something is CGI, such as a picture of a machine part. Logic never fails. Use your mind. This is a load of BS!



[edit on 27-6-2007 by j_kalin]



posted on Jun, 27 2007 @ 03:06 PM
link   
Just a thought here. Does anyone see the parallel to GR in that statement about seeing what was true and what wasn't?

I seem to recall GR saying almost the exact same thing.

Hmmmmmmmm?????????



posted on Jun, 27 2007 @ 03:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by LoDGiKaL
I was just playing around with the documents in photoshop and discovered there's something which looks like a watermark in the paper.

Here, take a look. I uploaded two enhanced pictures to photobucket.


If you use Split channel HSL the watermark is better visible. Nice find





[edit on 27/6/2007 by Cygnific]



new topics

top topics



 
185
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join