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: 167
185
<< 164  165  166    168  169  170 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 14 2007 @ 03:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by 11 11
That said:

Has anyone yet disproved that Isaac is linked to Big Basin and RajMan1977?

Or has anyone disproved how one of Rajman's images is missing a shadow?


No, but on the other hand no one has proved that they're linked and that there is a shadow missing.




posted on Aug, 14 2007 @ 03:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by PsykoOps
No, but on the other hand no one has proved that they're linked and that there is a shadow missing.


I guess you haven't read this entire thread then. As it has been shown, the Q3-85 Inventory Report Image links Isaac, to Big Basin, and RajMan1977.

See here:




Also, yet to be disproven, is the accurate lighting simulation done in 3D Studio Max that proves with out a doubt that no matter what angle the craft is flying, there should be a shadow visible in that tiny spot under the "arm".



Now, please, explain to us the flaws in the lighting simulation. Or disprove this calculation.



posted on Aug, 14 2007 @ 03:49 AM
link   
1) Yeah linked as in that they're of the same hardware, no link between the posters have been made.
2) How do you account for ambient light in this simulation. Why you use a hard light source when a setting sun is quite soft and diffused? Especially if there's things like trees on the way. What about the space where you cant see in the picture? What angle and altitude this craft is? Is there reflective surfaces under it? How can you prove there isn't when it's not visible?



posted on Aug, 14 2007 @ 04:05 AM
link   
KUDOS! Good for you two, 11 11 and agent violet! Over six weeks ago I did look at the Jessie Marcel Jr./Roswell evidence sites and found a couple of Roswell pictograms that were as Isaac presented them in his documentation. Very few, I might add. And the drawing of the crashed Roswell ship bear no resemblance to the ‘saladfingers'-shaped drones of CHAD, et al.

Also, I have long been been searching online for any pictures of the primer 'language' or the long upward-projecting drone 'fingers' since I had a nagging feeling in my mind that I have seen them before, somewhere, someplace. Then, Sunday night, I was watching the pilot or first episode of FARSCAPE on WGN and, towards the end of the episode, it was revealed to me. When Aeryn is forced to take over the manual controls of the ship MOYA, a circular control panel rotates to reveal the language that Isaac has depicted in the Linguistic primer. And, as if to reinforce the matter, at the end of the episode, when the camera pulls back to reveal MOYA's PILOT in a long shot, well, there are THREE sets of exact upside-down ‘salad fingers' we see in the drone photographs - all of them! Same shape, same curves.

Well, if I were by chance to create an alien language, lets say, what memory or template would I draw on? I would use enough plausible preexisting documentation already established and put forth by credible witnesses (Dr. Jessie Marcel Jr./Roswell), and then I would search my memory for a ship or drone or other mechanical-looking template to model on, such as a ‘pipeline pig' as discovered and posted on ATS by Razimus at SpaceTimeNews dot com. Also, if I were designing a flying drone, what template would I use? Anything come to memory, consciously or subconsciously? Can't be too close in shape to the Roswell ship or else someone will get suspicious, so I need to make it different . . . Lets see . . . any memories in my head of out of this world ships or their contents?

Anyway, just a thought and observation. If pjslug and chunder are done beating up each other, I am sure my posting here will divert their attention to me . . . just watch!



posted on Aug, 14 2007 @ 04:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by agent violet
in this image there is at least 2 symbols that can also be located in the Ling.Prim.Analysis.
the symbols that match,imo, are the first one and the fifth one from the right.
www.roswellufomuseum.com...

also in this image, under the section 'how did they get here', the bottom of the right most poster in that section, appears again imo to show some sort of characters/symbols maybe we can get it enhanced to see the complete img up close.
www.roswellufomuseum.com...


Good find agent violet ... that museum pic sure brought back some memories from when I visited that same museum a few years back when traveling through Roswell. They used to have an I-Beam replica made of aluminum that had all the symbols etched on it on the left peg-board, but I don't see it hanging up anymore in that photo.


Anyway I was re watching The War of the Worlds remake with Tom Cruise in it when I noticed some alien symbols that can be seen on one of the tripods from that movie. As far as I could see there is only one particular series of scenes where these symbols can be seen in the movie, so I went ahead and captured some screen shots to compare them with the 'Drone symbols'. I don't recall seeing these posted before but just in case they haven't been I will post 3 of the photos I captured. Sorry if these been shown already. I find it interesting that in PHOTO 1 the alien symbols (tho not an exact match) does have a very similar backward number 7 as one of the symbols. PHOTO 2 shows other symbols and PHOTO 3 shows some more but the 3rd photo symbols are kind of hard to make out but maybe someone could spot a similarity.


Sometimes I wonder if the Drone and CARET report symbols are a combination of symbols gathered from all sorts of sources like TV shows (Star Trek Klingon's etc..), sci-fi movies (War of the Worlds etc..) and alleged UFO documents (Roswell UFO crash pieces etc...) that the hoaxer(s) all compiled together to make a new set of 'writings' to use for their hoax. Is just a theory but if we could find all the Drone/Isaac symbols separately from other places then it could possibly prove that they were indeed pieced together from man made sources to make us all think that it is a new 'alien language'.

I'm not claiming hoax but the longer these Drones stop appearing and the longer Isaac goes with out disclosing all his information I do believe that eventually all this story did was place a wedge between the UFO community making a set of Drone/CARET believers and a set of Drone/CARET non-believers to continuously debate over forever and could just be the final destiny for this whole thing in the end.

IMO,
Bzzzzzzz



posted on Aug, 14 2007 @ 04:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by klatunictobarata
Well, if I were by chance to create an alien language, lets say, what memory or template would I draw on? I would use enough plausible preexisting documentation already established and put forth by credible witnesses (Dr. Jessie Marcel Jr./Roswell)


Waaay back on page 3 of this thread, I posted this.

When posting that, I didn't articulate the logical supposition Klatu did above. I reasoned that the similarity arose when taking into account that Marcel was working off memory--but as Klatu indicates, Isaac would know that people would eventually make the connection that his symbols were the cleaned up version Marcel was trying to depict. Good observation, and good research by Agent Violet as well.

[edit on 8/14/2007 by yuefo]



posted on Aug, 14 2007 @ 05:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by pjslug
Chunder,
I can't believe you actually dignified him with an answer. It was of a totally sarcastic nature, implying that we are morons for not having reached a conclusion yet and that we should spend oodles of money to do so, as maybe that would be more convincing to us idiots.

[edit on 8/14/2007 by pjslug]


Actually that's how I read it too, in fact, despite 1111's protestations to the contrary, that is how it reads.

Still, amongst the rhetoric, there are some valid points made that I thought deserved a response.

I shan't bother anymore because the same dignity is never afforded back, actually goes for a few new posters also. I know I have said no-one should think they deserve a response but it's a bit different when it is a direct question.



posted on Aug, 14 2007 @ 06:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by PsykoOps
1) Yeah linked as in that they're of the same hardware, no link between the posters have been made.
2) How do you account for ambient light in this simulation. Why you use a hard light source when a setting sun is quite soft and diffused? Especially if there's things like trees on the way. What about the space where you cant see in the picture? What angle and altitude this craft is? Is there reflective surfaces under it? How can you prove there isn't when it's not visible?


1. The only link being that if any one picture was faked they very likely all were and that all picture submitters had access to the documentation submitted by Isaac.

2. To all of those points - all the shadows in the picture should be the same. The shadows on the power pole were thrown from the same light source that should have made shadows on the drone. Which aren't there.


The hoax or no hoax is quite simple. If no-one can provide a plausible explanation for the missing shadow on the Rajman pic they should accept that all of the pictures submitted and Isaac's documentation is a hoax - at least in the terms of Isaac's claims.

How someone could create a hoax with all of these various components is painfully obvious. Yes they would do a bit of research and try and tie in a few other aspects of ufology, maybe the paranormal as well with the crop circle references. Yes they have shown artistic skills and some intelligence.

The question really should be who and why.



posted on Aug, 14 2007 @ 09:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by PsykoOps
1) Yeah linked as in that they're of the same hardware, no link between the posters have been made.


There are EXACT same hardware. It's absolutly funny that the drone I think is CGI has a piece of its model in Isaac's report. Earlyer in this thread I was explaining how each piece of the drone is seperate and that most complex 3D models are in segments, and not a whole. This inventory report just futher supports the claims..

You are right though "no link between the posters have been made". Only because the posters are anonymous, all of them.




Originally posted by PsykoOps
2) How do you account for ambient light in this simulation.


Simple, since we don't see any ambient lights in the original image, and we don't see an highlights from any other reflections on the drone, its safe to say we don't need ambient light to further prove this is CGI, because there is none in the original.




Originally posted by PsykoOps
Why you use a hard light source when a setting sun is quite soft and diffused?


We used a 3D simulation Sun light source. It was set to create a solid shadow, just like the shadow on the telephone pole of the RajMan1977 telephone picture. All calcutlations of light and angle are correct. Also the picture was taken at 5:40pm, sunset for that day was not untill 6:30 or 7:00pm. The sun wasn't THAT soft.


Originally posted by PsykoOps
Especially if there's things like trees on the way.


In the image we studied, there is no evidence of tree's anywhere to be found, so this is irrelivant and reminds me of straw man tactics.


Originally posted by PsykoOps
What about the space where you cant see in the picture?


Irrelivant straw man tacitcs are being detected. What is not in the picture is not of my concern, my concern is what is in the picture..


Originally posted by PsykoOps
What angle and altitude this craft is?


As you can see in the animation of the drone and shadow, there is many different angles, and in fact every single angle showed a shadow under the arm, which the "real thing" didn't have. Also, the altitude was between 30 and 60 feet. No matter what hight we move the craft, the shadow will STILL be in the same spot.


Originally posted by PsykoOps
Is there reflective surfaces under it? How can you prove there isn't when it's not visible?


Because if there WAS a reflective surface, we would see what we call a "HIGHLIGHT" shining on the drone itself, giving us a hint of another light source. Even then, I don't believe any other reflective surface could possible hide an entire shadow, leaving no trace of one at all, beacuse you would STILL see a shadow under the arm. If there was a reflective surface under it, we would probably notice, and calculate it.

But like I said, this is irrelivant, as there is no signs of ambient light in the original drone picture. You see, we are not going off of imagination like you are, we go off of whats in the image itself.



[edit on 14-8-2007 by 11 11]



posted on Aug, 14 2007 @ 10:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by chunder
The question really should be who and why.


Very much to the point, Chunder.

Being that ABT's analysis remains speculative, whereas clear hoaxes are disproved readily here as pjslug pointed out regarding the Haiti hoax, e.g., maybe there's more to this "disinfo" than meets the eye.

If we can correlate so well the sci-fi media (radio, film, TV, Web, etc.), and its mind-boggling sophistication (circle makers, ILM, Vue6!, drones, CARET, abduction and Roswell accounts, Burisch, Serpo, even Titor & Meier for that matter) we may perceive the orchestrated disclosure by the PTB to "prep" the public for the real thing, should it in fact transpire in human history.

What I'm suggesting is that the on-going sophistication and bafflement may point to professional-level hoax for the purpose of turning the zeitgeist toward an acclimation of Contact.

Sort of like a dress rehearsal, of sorts.



posted on Aug, 14 2007 @ 11:18 AM
link   
11 11, There is no shadow because the sun is setting directly behind the tail...
Look at the telephone pole, about halfway down and check the angle of the shadow on the cross pole. The sun is behind, not above, the drone. If I was photo literate I would paste a copy and point it out, but, I'm not.



posted on Aug, 14 2007 @ 11:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by newtothis
11 11, There is no shadow because the sun is setting directly behind the tail...
Look at the telephone pole, about halfway down and check the angle of the shadow on the cross pole. The sun is behind, not above, the drone. If I was photo literate I would paste a copy and point it out, but, I'm not.



Newtothis, earlyer in the thread I used a military style image analysis of the EXACT position of the Sun. We clarified with calculations that the Sun is about Altitude=16.5, Azimuth=270, on the day and time the picture was taken.

If you read the begining of the thread, you would know this.

The sun IS above the drone, as well as slightly behind it.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com...


Althought the links above show Altitude 20 Azimuth 270 at 5:20pm, those were based on image analysis with rounded numbers. The actual Altitude and Azimuth was figured by the EXIF data, date and time, which was only 20 minutes more at 5:40pm and 16.5 Altitude. That info was then used to create the lighting simulation.


[edit on 14-8-2007 by 11 11]

[edit on 14-8-2007 by 11 11]



posted on Aug, 14 2007 @ 01:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by 11 11
There are EXACT same hardware. It's absolutly funny that the drone I think is CGI has a piece of its model in Isaac's report. Earlyer in this thread I was explaining how each piece of the drone is seperate and that most complex 3D models are in segments, and not a whole. This inventory report just futher supports the claims..


How are they the exact same hardware? How you know how many of these drones there are to begin with? Why would they look at all different from each other? How you even come to this conclusion with such a low quality images amazes me.


Originally posted by 11 11
Simple, since we don't see any ambient lights in the original image, and we don't see an highlights from any other reflections on the drone, its safe to say we don't need ambient light to further prove this is CGI, because there is none in the original.


This is kind of a blatant lie, it was taken outdoors, there's ambient light everywhere. It seems you dont know what the term means.


Originally posted by 11 11
In the image we studied, there is no evidence of tree's anywhere to be found, so this is irrelivant and reminds me of straw man tactics.


How does this prove that there aren't? It's a possibility and a unknown factor in the pictures. You take an unknown variable of the pictures and fill it what supports your point of view, not very scientific to guess things like that. Trees was just an example btw, there could be a million things that diffuse the light from the sun.


Originally posted by 11 11
Irrelivant straw man tacitcs are being detected. What is not in the picture is not of my concern, my concern is what is in the picture..


There's light in the picture, where it comes from and how it behaves is pretty relevant in my opinion.


Originally posted by 11 11
Because if there WAS a reflective surface, we would see what we call a "HIGHLIGHT" shining on the drone itself, giving us a hint of another light source. Even then, I don't believe any other reflective surface could possible hide an entire shadow, leaving no trace of one at all, beacuse you would STILL see a shadow under the arm. If there was a reflective surface under it, we would probably notice, and calculate it.


Well there is at least one specific reflective surface under the drone and that is called the ground. Such reflective sources dont always cause "highlights" simply because of the level of reflection and the sheer size of the surface. On that ground there could be numerous other reflective surfaces considering that everything in our world reflects light.


Originally posted by 11 11
But like I said, this is irrelivant, as there is no signs of ambient light in the original drone picture. You see, we are not going off of imagination like you are, we go off of whats in the image itself.


Ambient light is the general background light all around us so of course there's ambient light in the picture. If you dont know that much then it only raises more questions about your analysis.



posted on Aug, 14 2007 @ 02:15 PM
link   
11 11 wrote "As you can see in the animation of the drone and shadow, there is many different angles, and in fact every single angle showed a shadow under the arm, which the "real thing" didn't have. Also, the altitude was between 30 and 60 feet. No matter what hight we move the craft, the shadow will STILL be in the same spot."

2 things:

1. If you look at the 1st set of Chad photos, there is one that shows the drone parallel to the ground. The tail has an upward angle of about 10-15 degrees, and...

2. The average telephone pole in CA is 37.5 feet, so the 30 foot altitude isn't possible. Was there a particular altitude that the craft could have been to not cast a shadow, and if the tail does angle like it looks, can you estimate an altitude that would leave the underside "unlit" and still not cast a shadow?

Seems like a lot, but it it is possible, especially with the 20 degree angle of the sun...

Thanks



posted on Aug, 14 2007 @ 02:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by PsykoOps
How are they the exact same hardware? How you know how many of these drones there are to begin with? Why would they look at all different from each other? How you even come to this conclusion with such a low quality images amazes me.


Low quality images?? I have a high resolution image of the PACL Q3-85 Inventory Review, and a high resolution image of the Big Basin drone. The pieces in the Inventory Review are EXACT COPYS down to the mini detials, of the Big Basin drone...

isaaccaret.fortunecity.com...

www.ufocasebook.com...

Also included in the Inventory Review is a piece of the RajMan1977 picture that I have a high resolution image of:

www.earthfiles.com...

If you can not see the the pieces in the Inventory Review are exact copys of the Big Basin and RajMan images, then I can no further discuss this topic with you as you are purpously ignoring detials.



Originally posted by PsykoOps
This is kind of a blatant lie, it was taken outdoors, there's ambient light everywhere. It seems you dont know what the term means.


Actually it seems YOU don't know what ambient light is. If you did, you would know ambient light is NOT powerfull enough to over power the Sun's shadows in broad daylight. Nice try though.



Originally posted by PsykoOps
How does this prove that there aren't? It's a possibility and a unknown factor in the pictures. You take an unknown variable of the pictures and fill it what supports your point of view, not very scientific to guess things like that. Trees was just an example btw, there could be a million things that diffuse the light from the sun.


No actually, there can not be a million things that can magicaly light up an area that should have a shadow, without being detected. If there was some sort of external light source causing the shadow to become lit up, I am 100% positive I would have detected that and included it into my final calculation. But the fact is there is no other lights in the scene besides the Sun.




Originally posted by PsykoOps

Well there is at least one specific reflective surface under the drone and that is called the ground. Such reflective sources dont always cause "highlights" simply because of the level of reflection and the sheer size of the surface. On that ground there could be numerous other reflective surfaces considering that everything in our world reflects light.


So you are telling me the entire ground is reflecting light only right exactly where there should be a thick shadow? Come on you have to at least try to use some logic here.. Anyone can take your position and think of wild crazy explainations, yet some reason they fail to actually study the original pictures.. Please if you believe so truely in what you are saying I DARE YOU TO POINT TO ME EXACTLY WERE THE LIGHT SOURCE IS SHINING AND WHY IT IS POWERFULL ENOUGH TO OVER POWER THE SUN'S SOLID SHADOWS.

Then please tell me why under the arm is still shaded. If there was "a refelctive surface" under the drone, why is the bottom of the drone dark??

Please use some logic before you post... get the RajMan1977 picture and study it.


Originally posted by PsykoOps

Ambient light is the general background light all around us so of course there's ambient light in the picture. If you dont know that much then it only raises more questions about your analysis.



I know what ambient light is, it is YOU that has no clue what you are saying. Ambient light is not powerfull enough to over power a solid shadow, without it being detected. If there was some type of light source magicaly shining only on the exact spot where the shadow is supposed to be, then we would be able to detect that in the RajMan image..

please use some logic and you will get to your answer a LOT faster.

[edit on 14-8-2007 by 11 11]



posted on Aug, 14 2007 @ 02:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by newtothis
2. The average telephone pole in CA is 37.5 feet, so the 30 foot altitude isn't possible. Was there a particular altitude that the craft could have been to not cast a shadow, and if the tail does angle like it looks, can you estimate an altitude that would leave the underside "unlit" and still not cast a shadow?


Like I said earlyer, we tried different altitudes, and different "tilts" and different angles. ALL of them should have the shadow under the arm, its REALITY. The Sun is several hundred times bigger than the Earth, it would take a great altitude (above the atmosphere) to get rid of the shadow.


Please, I beg you people to go outside more often and look at the shadows a Sun makes, and try to find a light that will over power it, in day light.. try it...

[edit on 14-8-2007 by 11 11]

[edit on 14-8-2007 by 11 11]



posted on Aug, 14 2007 @ 03:06 PM
link   
This will not help prove the CARET hypothesis,
but if I'm not mistaken, then I saw tonight on German TV the "Language Analysis Primer" letters in a www.asics.com... commercial.

In the scene the alien letters are written on a wall in the background
and a mob of runners jogs past them.

It would of course make sense that ASICS licences this CARET technology for their running shoes.

Imagine the light step and competitive advantage that anti-gravity jogging shoes can give you!

Immediately I began searching the ASICS websites for further clues, but without luck.

PS: I found the commercial on Youtube, I guess the signs are Korean letters? www.youtube.com...



[edit on 14-8-2007 by osaitax]

[edit on 14-8-2007 by osaitax]



posted on Aug, 14 2007 @ 04:11 PM
link   
i found a verry little discrepancy(sp?) in the LAP. now this very very minute, in fact it may not even mean anything, but nonetheless its present.

isaaccaret.fortunecity.com...

now on the left most junction(?) in the second ring of characters, you will find something wrong with the color of some characters, some of them are blue. so to pinpoint where they are: left most junction, not the outmost ring of characters, but the middle one, its not within the center junction itself.you will have to look very closely, there is approx. 4-6 characters with blue.

also, there is something really strange with the previously stated page itself (the link above). i will elaborate, so while finding the 'blue', i decided to copy and put into ms paint, then i made a line(Pointing to the blue) then i decided to put a red circle so it would stand out. so i made the red circle, then 'filled' it in with red. what i found was really and i mean really strange, i've never seen it with any other paper before. so once i saw what was able to be seen, i decided to outline the whole page and then 'fill' (using ms paint) the whole page being as that the perimeters of the page were now closed, so i did just that and this is what i found, it looks as if there is something embedded(?) it also looks like imo to be a circuitboard(?). i encourage you to do this so you can see what i am talking about. an easier way would be drawing a large circle (using ms paint) and then use the 'fill' button for the inside of the circle, this will produce the same circuit board like result as far as i know.
i dont know if this is a normal occurence, or an oddity.



posted on Aug, 14 2007 @ 04:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by agent violet
now on the left most junction(?) in the second ring of characters, you will find something wrong with the color of some characters, some of them are blue.


Yes if you look at every single PACL Q4-86 Report image that has the words blacked out, in the blacked out sections each one of them has a small blue mark on it. The blue mark actually extends virticaly across the entire images, if you line each one up..

I believe this to be a scanner issue.

As for the rest of your post, I will have to look into it further.



posted on Aug, 14 2007 @ 05:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by agent violet
then 'filled' it in with red


If you used the paintbucket fill tool, then you were simply filling contiguous same-color pixels, which gave the random "circuitboard" effect.

The page is not a pure-white color, therefore the fill tool doesn't fill all of the pixels -- only those whose RGB values fall within its color sampling threshold.



new topics

top topics



 
185
<< 164  165  166    168  169  170 >>

log in

join