[HOAX] Isaac CARET - Drones [HOAX]

That seems fair enough. That didn't figure in any of the info I could find though.

I apologise for getting a mite... pi33y. My meds aren't doing much today. I should actually assume the fault is mine here, my brain is not what it was. I applaud your patience.

I am still puzzled by the lack of scale control on the lighting palettes I have seen (I obviously don't have Studio Max 5). It would be nice if 11 11 chimed in here, as the creator of the simulation. I'd just like to see some of the parameters explored. For instance, would IES sun be able to emulate the sunlight on another planet in the solar system? What changes would there be after increasing the scale and distance of the drone?

Originally posted by Karilla
It would be nice if 11 11 chimed in here, as the creator of the simulation. I'd just like to see some of the parameters explored. For instance, would IES sun be able to emulate the sunlight on another planet in the solar system? What changes would there be after increasing the scale and distance of the drone?

SPF33 made the simulation. I don't need a simulation because its already in my head, its called reality. SPF33's simulation though, it proved that the simulation in my head is 100% accurate.

B.T.W. SPF33, can I have your models in your simulation? I would actually like to play with my 3DSM and look at some things.

[edit on 17-8-2007 by 11 11]

reply to post by 11 11


Ah. I see. Ahaha. Ahahaha. Ahem.

What can I say. SPF33, I humbly beg your pardon. Why isn't there a sh*t eating grin smiley. I need one. Ok then, just get on with sorting out that pesky simulation, willya!

Seriously, how far off from the plane of the arm is the sun then, seeing as you used the EXIF to replicate it? Also, can you actually replicate the LACK of shadow under the arm with the excessive tilt? Perhaps by un-linking that group of objects, although it seems that you no longer have to group objects for them to cast shadows on adjacent groups.

Sorry, I guess this topic is NOT dead, but has risen like a zombie.

Two observations:

Anything is possible in the unreal world, and

CGI is not always pixel-perfect.

My contribution in questioning this mess: If the 96% of the UNIVERSE is made up of DARK MATTER and DARK ENERGY, and there are oodles of parallel dimensions and planes of existence, why do these ‘aliens' even have to bother with things we can see and touch? For our entertainment, eh?

Originally posted by Karilla
Seriously, how far off from the plane of the arm is the sun then, seeing as you used the EXIF to replicate it? Also, can you actually replicate the LACK of shadow under the arm with the excessive tilt? Perhaps by un-linking that group of objects, although it seems that you no longer have to group objects for them to cast shadows on adjacent groups.

The problem now Karilla, is that you are trying to modify the simulation to match your belief system. When in reality the simulation is a perfect match with the photograph. This is beyond logic for me, I can't possibly comprehend why on this green Earth would you wan't to change the simulation to fit your belief that this thing is real... I mean, come on, SERIOUSLY, when are people going to wake up and see this thing is just another hoax?

The pure fact that there are flaws in every drone picture, is a sign of hoax. Its that simple.

Originally posted by spf33
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, you are taking a sphere and having it radiate light in all directions. Will it radiate more from the area of the sun that has a higher temperature than other parts of the sun? How about when the sphere is represented at actual size and located off plane-axis at 93,000,000 miles away from the object you are trying to show? Of course not, so you can only guess. The sphere light ball will approximate where it should be and will approximate how much light it should give off but when dealing with approximates, it will be off by up to 10% - 20% in most cases. The biggest factor is that the radial sun source needed to be 93 million miles away from the object we are trying to illuminate. In a computer generated simulation, how are you going to impliment a star exactly like the sun, from 93 million miles away. That would be one hell of a big model to work with in CGI. Even if you did it in scale where miles equals inches, then you have to scale down the drone to the same scale size. And then you would have to evaluate the sun's properties and see if a scaled down star would still be just as hot or bright. If you can show me this exact type of simulation, then you can conclusively prove to me whatever your results yield.

[edit on 8/17/2007 by pjslug]

Originally posted by klatunictobarata
My contribution in questioning this mess: If the 96% of the UNIVERSE is made up of DARK MATTER and DARK ENERGY, and there are oodles of parallel dimensions and planes of existence, why do these ‘aliens' even have to bother with things we can see and touch? For our entertainment, eh?

If we couldn't see them, then we would never be talking about UFOs at all, not ever in the past or the present. Not seeing them would mean that they aren't part of our cultural experiences. If they existed outside our optical range (and for most of their travels they probably are), they would still be visiting us but we wouldn't see them. Luckily, they allow us to see them sometimes by using infrared for the visual spectrum (as you can see from NASA footage).

[edit on 8/17/2007 by pjslug]

Originally posted by Siddharta
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.

Thank you, Sid. Ok, it's 1000 mph then. I appreciate the correction. Even then, you get what I'm saying. Plug the number 1,000 in place of what I put and the story is still the same. And I think the Earth still takes 45 minutes to orbit it if you're in the space shuttle going 17,000 mph. Assuming a craft wouldn't be subject to inertia or gravity, it could go as fast within our atmosphere. Unfortunately it won't let me edit that post any more. Good looking out!

[edit on 8/17/2007 by pjslug]

PJ, are you saying that the alien powered drone is in its own absolute space/time/dimensional bubble? Does our concept of relativity and our conception of space/time still apply then? Sounds like you really have an interesting concept there.

Originally posted by 11 11The problem now Karilla, is that you are trying to modify the simulation to match your belief system. When in reality the simulation is a perfect match with the photograph. This is beyond logic for me, I can't possibly comprehend why on this green Earth would you wan't to change the simulation to fit your belief that this thing is real... I mean, come on, SERIOUSLY, when are people going to wake up and see this thing is just another hoax?

I'm not trying to modify anything to fit in with my beliefs. What I would like to see is an attempt to thoroughly investigate the possibilities. This is what happens with any computer simulation of real-world events. You change the parameters to see whether there are other factors at work. Seeing as you are already convinced that it is not real, you are happy with one simulation that shows what you want it to, when the size/distance ratio has been set arbitrarily. Why must you try to insult everybody's intelligence while maintaining that you yourself are a genius (I'm referring to the mental simulation comments). Smacks of insecurity to me.

PJ, You have posed a very interesting question. If the drones are inertia-less and operating independently of our gravity then it must have had a reason to stay in one location, no?

It is my opinion that some "aliens" do not naturally occupy the same dimension as us, and it takes much effort on their part to interact with us, which is why there is such a pronounced correlation between '___' experiences and abduction experiences.

reply to post by pjslug


Hi PJ,

you don't have to hide your face. All of us have been looking at the pictures, some tried to find out about the language, others requested Isaacs's words.
After all this you stumble in and show us all, that we missed one very logical thing.

It is not you, who has to blush, it is Isaac, who has to. You asked a very important question!!!

Greetings!

Sid

Originally posted by klatunictobarata
PJ, are you saying that the alien powered drone is in its own absolute space/time/dimensional bubble? Does our concept of relativity and our conception of space/time still apply then? Sounds like you really have an interesting concept there.

Well, I'm not implying directly that the drones would necessarily be showing themselves to us in their own "bubble" persay, but rather that if they had such a bubble that they could control it at will. If these drones can shift themselves in and out of our visual range or any perceptible dimension that we can examine with our five senses, they appear to be doing so in accordance with our understanding of quantum mechanics.

I think the two areas that must be looked at with regards to any sort of travel method that UFOs typically employ are gravity displacement/nullification and inertia cancellation/avoidance. This seems to be what the drones are doing. It was only when I was sitting outside watching the stars move that this revelation came to mind.

We know that the stars are not moving (not in a local sense anyway) but it is the earth that rotates. So, the very position I am located at right now, sitting in front of my computer -- the space I am presently occupying -- with the passage of even a second has shifted several miles in the opposite direction of the earth's rotation. Gravity is holding me to the Earth, yet I am moving at roughly 1,000 m.p.h. My momentum is constant yet I am unaware of it. My body doesn't seem to be affected by this perpetual momentum, just as a sea creature that resides at five miles down isn't affected by the pressure. If the Earth suddenly doubled its rotational speed, would the planet's gravity be enough to hold us in place? Would the gravity double as its speed doubled? Would the inertia crush us? These are all things we would need to consider before we could travel in a craft that could take us from our front yard to a star several light years away. All known methods of human travel, as we increase our speed, is subject to inertia. It appears the drones would behave no differently than we believe UFOs do.

Originally posted by klatunictobarata
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

He's not anything in particular IMO, and I asked a couple of long-time fortean/UFO/weirdness loving friends and they all either laughed or rolled their eyes, so I guess, he's not got that many votes, at least with the people I know.

I've never seen him quoted in any national media, at least to my knowledge. Hell, people know more about Billy Meiers than Bennet.

Thanks much for your replies, Elliott and PJ.

I had another question and would like to get your opinions.

The three mode antigrav engine, according to Isaac and CARET MANUAL, says that one of the functions or modes of the device was to HOLD THE SPACECRAFT TOGETHER WITHOUT RIVETS/WELDS/PHYSICAL BONDING. The engine was also depicted as having a separate mysterious device that could change the fields and turn them on and off as desired. Some of the censored or blacked out CARET text describes this controlling device (like a remote controller for at TV or such) which is what makes it a bit of a mystery why these descriptive words would even be redacted at all for being too sensitive.

Anyway, does it make sense to create a spacecraft (or drone or time machine for that matter) that could fall apart at any minute if the field generated by the engine could be switched off or otherwise canceled or jammed or blocked? I find that the concept itself is trendy in a sci-fi sort of way, but is it a sound principle to follow, engineering-wise? Any thoughts or comments, please.

[edit on 18-8-2007 by klatunictobarata]

Originally posted by Karilla
Why must you try to insult everybody's intelligence while maintaining that you yourself are a genius (I'm referring to the mental simulation comments). Smacks of insecurity to me.

Because the truth is, I DID do the mental simulation in my head. You see, I calculated the exact missing shadow in my head BEFORE I made these posts:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com...


....I simply looked at the existing shadows, and my calculation was done, and I knew the shadow was missing. Now for me this is a simple method, for others though, they actually have to create a physical model, or simulated model. And they did, his name was SPF33. The model he created matched my head calculation perfectly.

Now, I have the ability to do that, and YOU don't. So, that's why you feel insulted, because you can't do something that I can.

No matter which way you turn the drone, for this image to be real it has to have a shadow under the arm and it simply isn't there. So the image is NOT real, and this entire thing was fabrication.

So all of you talking about anti-gravity and inertia cancellation, well, your wasting your time because you guys are using existing theorys to build your imagination, when in reality your existing theorys are only half truths. Even then, you have skipped the "proving its real" step, just so you can be decieved by the Devil, its great.

Originally posted by klatunictobarata
Anyway, does it make sense to create a spacecraft (or drone or time machine for that matter) that could fall apart at any minute if the field generated by the engine could be switched off or otherwise canceled or jammed or blocked? I find that the concept itself is trendy in a sci-fi sort of way, but is it a sound principle to follow, engineering-wise? Any thoughts or comments, please.

No it doesn't make sense - it raises all sorts of chicken and egg type questions as to how it could possibly be constructed.

Mind you I am applying human thoughts so I guess anything's possible, maybe ET just has to think of a device and it appears.

Just hypotheticals of course, as until someone can show the shadow shouldn't be there it's all a hoax.

Originally posted by klatunictobarata
Anyway, does it make sense to create a spacecraft (or drone or time machine for that matter) that could fall apart at any minute if the field generated by the engine could be switched off or otherwise canceled or jammed or blocked? I find that the concept itself is trendy in a sci-fi sort of way, but is it a sound principle to follow, engineering-wise? Any thoughts or comments, please.

It makes sense to me. If you were to assume that their technology could fall apart due to a power outage or a transistor failure, then no, it wouldn't make sense. But we can't assume that their technology functions in any way like ours does. I would imagine that their technology is not fallible like something we would build.

Originally posted by 11 11
So all of you talking about anti-gravity and inertia cancellation, well, your wasting your time because you guys are using existing theorys to build your imagination, when in reality your existing theorys are only half truths. Even then, you have skipped the "proving its real" step, just so you can be decieved by the Devil, its great.

At least we are using our minds to explore how these things might function. But I'm sure it's so much easier for someone like you to just go on insulting people at leisure.

I especially love how you came up with your theory of god based on magnetism, which you blindly believe, and then insult everyone who doesn't agree with your theory. I would love to tell you what I really think of your attitude and ego but it would be inappropriate to do so here. However, my e-mail information and Yahoo! Messenger info is on my profile if you wish to contact me off ATS.

[edit on 8/19/2007 by pjslug]

chunder and pj, I am truly learning to appreciate your input as time moves forward. Sorry if I was a bit of an asshole earlier on.

Expanding on the whole idea of alien technology, your two statements: "I would imagine that their technology is not fallible like something we would build" and "Mind you I am applying human thoughts so I guess anything's possible, maybe ET just has to think of a device and it appears."
This has stimulated my thinking a bit further to ask the questions:

1.) If these alien concepts are truly beyond our ken and scope of thought, then how can we ever possibly decipher to our satisfaction the DRONE/CARET PRIMER/ISAAC mystery? Perhaps our own non-alien human thought processes will never be able to grasp the workings and constructs of the alien mind. And what if there is a whole new physics, alternate dimensions, and previously-unknown unknown matter structure for us to identify? Are we ready to make such a quantum leap in knowledge?

2.) Even more striking when one looks deeper into the concepts you both posit above, that the alien technology could/would be infallible (never making a mistake in design/concept/function with 100% reliability) and that aliens might possibly have only to think of a device and it appears (thus created by thought). Sounds like spontaneous creationism to me.

Taken together, we now have a paradigm that smacks of one we humans are very familiar with and have struggled with for eons: Religion, and the existence of an omnipotent God or Supreme Being. And we all know how impossible this is to prove, save factoring in very unscientific whopping individual portion of faith in something greater than the self and the material world.

I never philosophized so much in my life thanks to you two!

I think we can go too far both ways in any discussion of 'alien' technology. We can make it our Deus Ex Machina, with powers over time and space itself, or we can see that, more than likely, it would be very similar to something we could create now, albeit it would be rudimentary and perhaps inefficient.

I'm not up to giving the aliens any awards for science before I see anything they've built - I want to know what it does, how it does it, what its made from, etc. When we just don't know enough we either guess in terms of what we as humans can do, or we wildly jump to some almost mystical area that seems impossible to us and of course, is naturally 'the alien way' because 'well they're alien'.

These things (the drones), I'm still pretty sure if they are real, they're ours based on some alien tech.