[HOAX] Isaac CARET - Drones [HOAX]

Originally posted by osaitax

PS: I found the commercial on Youtube, I guess the signs are Korean letters?

That`s Japanese Katakana script and I think it says 'stush' or 'steushi'. That has no meaning in Japanese.

en.wikipedia.org...

[edit on 14-8-2007 by bridas]

I'm new here so take it easy. Personally I believe what Isaac has said. But I believe the other drones are fake. No proof either way but it what I feel. Interesting place ATS.



[edit on 15-8-2007 by

[edit on 15-8-2007 by endoe]

Welcome to ATS, endoe. I have been through the 'new poster' honeymoon period so all I can say is, good luck, and I hope you have thick skin!

There are some very, very brilliant contributors here, especially those with computer graphic arts and writing experience. And some are also kind and forgiving while others . . . well, you will have to be the judge.

So, I will hopefully be the first to respond to you. I just want to get to the bottom of things with plausible if not concrete answers, and then draw a conclusion based upon my own intelligence and the material investigated and argued here. And I don't get off by insulting or belittling others but rest assured I am fully able to rebuff personal attacks.

That said, I wonder what your thinking is when you say you believe Isaac is truthful while rejecting the idea that the drones are real? Could you be a bit more specific? The drone photos (almost all of them) were released BEFORE Isaac responded to them publicly with his CARET/PRIMER data. So, if they are fake photos, how could they contain the exact alien language, symbols and physical shapes that only have been seen after Isaac's revelation? And if the photos are fake, and they contain the same CARET/PRIMER data, doesn't that fact alone make BOTH information sets fake?

I thought, that I saw something else before, but didn't like to answer at all, since it was sheep-food of yesterday.

Myself a newbee I welcome you. Please feel free to make the drones be a part of our life!

Did you already know: I am a part of my own life?

I swear!



Sid

Ive no reason or proff to believe or not in the drones. Just a gut feel. What I did find interesting was when typing palo alto laboratory into google. I came across this site www.parc.xerox.com... Where on the front page the guy has won an award for finite-state transducers for linguistic applications. If you look futher into the site on the about page you find they count the DoD as customers. I found it interesting, when you look through them some things I found similar to what Isaac wrote (in very loose theory). For some reason the Isaac thing, story and all rings true to me. Anyway about the site- It is a conspiracy site-Lol.

[edit on 16-8-2007 by endoe]

It is not astounding to find parallels between PACL and PARC, since Isaac said, PARC was the model for what they tried to do. And true or not - PARC obviously IS the role model, even the names look like siblings.

This lingistic analysis sounds interesting, but in this case it is about computers understanding human language. We need one that understands Alien language.



Sid

Seem like this thread is dying off . . . I guess everyone is playing wait and see or that the drone and anti-grav engine are really parts of a 'pipeline pig' as identified by Razimus 2 pages ago. That, plus I found a possible source for the CARET/PACL logo construction, the drone fingers, and the language/symbols, all leads me to agree with the majority: fake, faux, hoax, or just plain creative artwork and literature. If it is really an attempt to measure our civilian response, however, that remains to be seen . . .

By the way, I just received in the mail this month's issue (Aug.) of UFO Magazine and there is a long and painful-to-read treatise by Colin Bennet on the Isaac/Chad/Caret affair. All I can say that if you can successfully follow this quasi-literary masterpiece in context without slitting your wrists, you will have demonstrated infinite patience and will be a better man than I. I think his conclusion was the same as mine: a hoax, but a hoax with new age ramifications. Enjoy!

PS. Elliot, if you read this, since you are a U.K. resident, what exactly is the reputation of Mr. Colin Bennet over there? And I thought Alfred Lehmberg was a difficult read . . . t

Originally posted by 11 11Also, 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".

Have any of you considered the possibility that the light source in 3D studio max is point source, whereas the sun is not. The light intensity across the disc of the sun is, as near as is perceptible, uniform and any portion of the sun's disc that illuminates the structure below the arm will eliminate the shadow in question.

Unfortunately for 11 11's simulation, the arm in question is pointing in the sun's direction. If the angle of tilt of the drone is even slightly different to the simulation then it is possible that the arm is pointing to somewhere in the plane of the sun's disc, or even slightly above it. This would result in exactly the shadow configuration seen in the Rajman image.

The discreppancy between a point source and the solar disc, whilst not important in the majority of cases, is possibly critical. Can you take account of this in your simulation 11 11? If not, the simulation has far less relevance than you attribute to it.

[edit on 16-8-2007 by Karilla]

Originally posted by klatunictobarata

Seem like this thread is dying off . . .

Which (to me) gives more credibility
to this being dis-info.

Throw some bones to the pack.
When the bones are either gone
or ignored, success.

And, to the CGI crowd.

It's been debated to no end.

Literally.

Those that believe it's CGI.
Those that don't.

The dead horse is now carrion.

Why continue ?

Regards,
Lex

Lex, as usual, you give us sage advice. You are right, Bohim! I think I will look at the 'pipeline pig' one more time, and then fade off until this mess gets cleaned up. Adios...

Originally posted by Karilla
Have any of you considered the possibility that the light source in 3D studio max is point source, whereas the sun is not.

i think the sim you are referencing was created using the IES Daylight System inside 3ds max v8sp3.

From the Max Help file:

"Sunlight and Daylight systems use light in a system that follows the geographically correct angle and movement of the sun over the earth at a given location. You can choose location, date, time, and compass orientation. You can also animate the date and time. This system is suitable for shadow studies of proposed and existing structures. Latitude, Longitude, North Direction, and Orbital Scale can be animated as well.

Sunlight and Daylight have a similar user interface. The difference is that:

Sunlight uses a directional light.

Daylight combines sunlight and skylight. The sunlight component can be either an IES Sun light, or a standard light (a target direct light). The sky component can be either an IES Sky light or a Skylight.

The IES Sun and IES Sky lights are photometric lights. It is appropriate to use them if you are creating a rendering that uses radiosity with exposure control.

The Standard light and Skylight are not photometric. It is appropriate to use them if your scene uses standard lighting (Sunlight with its Directional light works for this, too), or if you are using light tracing...

"IES Sun is a physically-based light object that simulates sunlight. When used in conjunction with a daylight system, its values are set automatically based on geographic location, time, and date. (IES stands for Illuminating Engineering Society; see IES Standard File Format.) "

I ran across the problem intelligence agencies are having decrypting images with embedded data codes etc because of the sheer volume in net traffic. I also ran across a site with free small size decrypt programs that will read embedded data like copyrights, signatures, and when can't decrypt will detect it and name prg that did it.

This is different than the previous analysis i have seen done here looking for alterations and cgi signatures..

the site is outguess.org

I hope someone savy can do that...and put a stake in this beast..do this only if you are familar with installing and using new software..like I said its a tight package and proven since 2001..please spread to other threads
This should become part of our arsenal for all the BS coming down the line, as well as the legit.

Good Night and Good Luck
SyS

[edit on 17-8-2007 by Sys_Config]

I was just doing a little experiment outside. I was sittting on a few steps up, on the middle of the staircase outside my building. I believe the earth rotates on its axis towards the W by NW (correct me if I'm wrong, since I'm not sure). I'm sitting here, just relaxing and then a thought came to my mind. I rotate with the earth along with its spin because gravity and inertia keep me in place. The only way to slow down my intertia would be for someone push me, someone that was in a self-sustained gravity-less and intertia-less bubble. If that person slowed down my inertia, I would see the actual rotating of the earth from right here on the ground. I would get in the path of everything, trees, houses, buildings, they would all knock me over or crush me and at a rate of about 3,000m.p.h. (I think that is how fast the Earth rotates, please correct me if I'm wrong).

So, what if these drones do the same thing, if they avoid gravity and they avoid inertia? They would be watching our earth rotate at 3,000m.p.h. if they were on the ground, too. It would seem like no place would be too safe for them to travel, with objects flying over their heads and trying to crush them at such a velocity.

So these types of devices would have to exist to do what they claim to be able to do. And if they are doing those things, have they found someway to avoid such heavy rotation of our planet? Or, does gravity still restrict them and they are in fact being held to our planet while showing no problems counteracting innertia?

So, if we could build such objects, we could watch the world move around us from our perspective here on earth at 3,000 m.p.h. If you stayed away from the debris or floated just high enough to be above most tall buildings, you would look down and see a torrent of spinning. You would see the world rotate one full time in 45 minutes. It would be the fastest train ride you could ever take ---- a 3,000 m.p.h. train ride all across the world, all while being in your own little protective pod shielding you from innertia and possibility gravity (or at the very least gravity modification).

Any thoughts?

Originally posted by spf33i think the sim you are referencing was created using the IES Daylight System inside 3ds max v8sp3.

You're missing my point. I'm not disputing the angles, directionality or even the mix of ambient and directed light. I am talking about the SIZE of the light source. In any 3D modelling/rendering package there are two types of light source: point source (such as spot-lights, sunlight, etc.) and linear source (fluoro tubes mainly). The difference between the two being the fall-off calculations, point source fall-off is 0.25/1 and linear fall-off is 0.5/1. The problem is that in these packages the light path for a point source is calculated from a single point. The sun, in reality, is the same size as the full moon, as seen from Earth, which is why eclipses are so interesting because the disc of the moon covers the disc of the sun exactly. The sun outputs light from the whole disc. This is quite different from a point source, for our purposes in this simulation, although the difference is otherwise irrelevant to renders emulating sunlight.

Let me try another tack. Imagine you are standing in the shadow of a building at noon. Now you move until HALF the sun's disc is visible over the edge of the building. Are you still in shadow? No. If you took a light meter reading at that precise point you would see that you are still picking up light from the sun, just at half the intensity that you would read in full sunlight. The shadow on the ground beneath your feet would still have a nice sharp, clearly delineated line, as our eyes are not sensitive enough to pick up the band of lessened intensity seperating full sunlight from full shadow.

I don't know how much clearer I can make it. Suffice to say that until this is accounted for the simulation is not decisive in determining whether or not the image in question is computer generated.

reply to post by pjslug


Hi pj,

your earth moves a little too fast. Monty Python say:
"Just remember that you're standing on a planet that's evolving
revolving at nine-hundred miles an hour
and orbiting at nineteen miles a second, so it's reckoned,
a sun that is the source of all our power. "

Wikipedia says, it is about 1000 mph. I also don't understand, why the earth moves faster, while you are up there. If I would stay on the steps and wait for you, I would have the boring part, sitting there for 24 hours and you would enjoy a 45-minutes-ride?
Okay, I won't begrudge you to your part. After all you take the risk to hit the Mount Everest or something like that.

But the subject itself is indeed a good question. How come, that those drones fly kind of earthbound, usually in a slow, smooth way, if they are lifted by antigravity?

Something must hold them in their place. Isaac forgot to tell us about this!

Greetings!

Sid

Originally posted by Karilla

I am talking about the SIZE of the light source...The problem is that in these packages the light path for a point source is calculated from a single point...The sun outputs light from the whole disc. This is quite different from a point source, for our purposes in this simulation

the ies daylight system uses photometric lights, which in turn uses a 3d photometric web definition (isotropic distribution) derived from goniometric measurments; in other words, a three-dimensional representation of the light distribution.

photometric lights\data are based on real-world lighting characteristics allowing for creation of physically accurate lighting. One can simulate everything from a light bulb to the sun.

so while even a photometric light uses something like what you call a defined point; in laymans terms, i think it's safe to say the ies methods and data are more than sufficient to approximate the suns effects - where and at what angles the shadows should be in a given scene.

shadow density though, is a whole different beast.

Suffice to say that until this is accounted for the simulation is not decisive in determining whether or not the image in question is computer generated.

the simulation wasn't created to determine if the photos are cg or not.

it was created to see if the shadow angles in the rajman photograph correlated and showed consistency, even roughly, with the time of day the exif data shows.

earlier animation studies also show the drone arm even at many different angles still casts a shadow. the only time it doesn't it is obviously out of alignment with the photo.

the 3d simulation creates shadows which correspond with the utility pole generated shadows in the photo. why is it not safe to assume the ies daylight system is doing it's job correctly on the drone geometry as well?

I appreciate what you are saying, but you are still missing my point. Look here: www.studiopc.com...
The pdf linked to shows all the controls for the photometric lighting you are referring to, and there is no control for SIZE of the sun. All of those rays come from a single point, not a disc. You are still talking about a single point representing a sodding huge ball of gas.

I think the arm on the drone is pointing toward the plane of the disc of the sun, allowing a small portion of its light to shine beneath the arm, onto the superstructure.

Stick a skewer into the ground pointing directly at the sun and you will see a round shadow around the base of the skewer, now render the same thing in proper scale. Your photometric lights will result in there being NO shadow. Do you still not get the difference? Forgot the tosh about laymans terms, a point source is a point source and cannot replicate exactly the effect created by a massive light source at a massive distance.

Originally posted by Karilla

I think the arm on the drone is pointing toward the plane of the disc of the sun, allowing a small portion of its light to shine beneath the arm, onto the superstructure.

no, i get what you are saying.
what you are saying would also cause the utility pole bits in the photo which are casting shadows to not cast shadows.

in any case, it seems obvious to me that the drone arm is not parallel with the sun at all.

Stick a skewer into the ground pointing directly at the sun and you will see a round shadow around the base of the skewer, now render the same thing in proper scale.

again why? the drone arm doesn't appear to be parallel with the suns rays or pointing at the sun in the photo.

you would have to do this same test with the skewer held close to horizontal with the ground, to match the position of the arm in the photos, and at a time of day when the sun is at roughly the 20° angle corresponding to the exif data.


[edit on 17-8-2007 by spf33]

reply to post by spf33


The poles? What are you talking about. Do you not get that the drone is HIGHER than the cross members on the telegraph poles? Really? You don't know the scale of the drone, but it is definitely higher than the poles. The shot was taken an hour before sunset, which equates to four fingers width at arms length above the horizon. Even if the drone stays dead level in relation to the road, the higher it gets, in terms of altitude, the more acute the angle in relation to the sun.

Where did you get the idea that I was saying the skewer should be parrallel to the ground?! I said pointing directly at the sun. The point being that some part of the sun will shine on ALL sides of the skewer, even if it is at a very shallow angle, because the sun is BIG. This will NOT happen with a point source.

Are you being deliberately obtuse? Either way, I have made my point. If you insist on missing it, seemingly willfully, then that is your problem.

Originally posted by Karilla
Do you not get that the drone is HIGHER than the cross members on the telegraph poles? Really?

yes, i know;

Even if the drone stays dead level in relation to the road, the higher it gets, in terms of altitude, the more acute the angle in relation to the sun.

yes, but a noticable change in this case would have to be hundreds if not thousands of feet.

Are you being deliberately obtuse?

no, but i think we are having a difficult time understanding one another for some reason.

and back to the point light issue. the ies lights used in the daylight sim is not simply a photometric point light;

Example of isotropic distribution
A sphere centered around the origin is a representation of an isotropic distribution. All the points in the diagram are equidistant from the center and therefore light is emitted equally in all directions.

Where did you get the idea that I was saying the skewer should be parrallel to the ground?! I said pointing directly at the sun. The point being that some part of the sun will shine on ALL sides of the skewer, even if it is at a very shallow angle, because the sun is BIG. This will NOT happen with a point source.

yes, and i'm saying why point it at the sun at all? how does that show us anything about the drone arm in the photo that is not pointed at the sun? a skewer matching the angle of the drone arm at that same sun angle as the photo will cast as shadow. i don't get it.




[edit on 17-8-2007 by spf33]