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: 176
185
<< 173  174  175    177  178  179 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 6 2007 @ 01:38 AM
link   
If I can remind you all of this post I made two days ago... Then you'll remember that I did ask nicely to stay focus and on topic.

Please guys. There is no need for this.

General ATS Discussion Etiquette – Please Review This Link.

The Digital Ego – Please Review This Link.

Stay on topic. Don't focus on your fellow member or his/her behaviour.

Edit to add:
VERY IMPORTANT: ATS BIG THREAD POLICY


[edit on 6-9-2007 by Gemwolf]




posted on Sep, 6 2007 @ 01:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by pjslug

Soloist -- I look forward to hearing more insights from you. The only thing I disagree with you on is the size of the models you believe the drones to be. I happen to think they are quite a bit larger than what would fit in your hand. .....Unless you believe that all the objects in the telephone pole photo were models, or that the model of the drone was placed into the scene with CGI (very possible)??

[edit on 9/6/2007 by pjslug]



I was specifically talking about the images where the object is sitting on the ground. The images up in that air look out of scale and fake to me as well, and I could see these being done with CGI or an image package of some sort by an amateur artist. I don't see a positive indication that those are actual models, they certainly could be and were added to the original photo. With those it's just too hard for me to say one way or another, other than that to my eye they just look fake.

The images of it on the ground with the 2 I-beam pieces, the reason I think they are of the smaller size is because it looks to me like the little tubes that come out of the bottom of the model to be made from stretched styrene, they just exhibit that property. And if you've seen a model with stretched sprue pieces on it, you see that they are very thin and easily warped and of a very small diameter. These look to me *exactly* like that technique.

I would not discount the possibility that those images were taken of a model on a green screen either, or that the lighting and other aspects of the image have been played with.



posted on Sep, 6 2007 @ 02:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by Soloist The images of it on the ground with the 2 I-beam pieces, the reason I think they are of the smaller size is because it looks to me like the little tubes that come out of the bottom of the model to be made from stretched styrene, they just exhibit that property. And if you've seen a model with stretched sprue pieces on it, you see that they are very thin and easily warped and of a very small diameter. These look to me *exactly* like that technique.

I would not discount the possibility that those images were taken of a model on a green screen either, or that the lighting and other aspects of the image have been played with.


Are you referring to the black & white halftone inventory report or to the anti gravity generator and I-beam color images from the CARET report? The latter, actually, could be CGI but are probably models like you say
The items in the inventory report and the drones themselves are the ones that I believe to be the models.

[edit on 9/6/2007 by pjslug]



posted on Sep, 6 2007 @ 02:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by klatunictobarata

I agree with 11 11's challenges and observations of our latest poster. Soloist's writing is more than a bit too pat, somewhat prideful and extremely self-centered. Just like Isaac's prose.


Once again I apologize if I sound like I'm tooting my own horn, I explained this and my reasons for giving my background and professional experience in how it relates to my conclusion of the object being an actual model.

But in doing so, I have been told that I was a liar at first, then a TV repairman, now I'm someone else? C'mon now, most forums have restrictions on multiple accounts and I'm sure an admin looking at the logs could see I come from the same unique IP address.

I merely offered my professional opinion, not to sway anyone else's , but to shed a little light on the subject and actually confirm the opinions of others from someone who has seen and worked with both thousands of expertly built models to some of the most amazing CGI work being done by the movie studios today.

If you are unconvinced, then that's cool with me, I promise you I won't blast you for thinking what you do, or in believing what you want. But I seem to have caught the exact opposite of what I wanted to accomplish.




No one can say with 100% certainty that these were styrene models with transfer decals unless they built them themselves or know the person who did.


I am so certain that these are models that if ever proven wrong I would be happy to buy everyone in this thread a drink. And 10 drinks to the person/persons that made a CGI look so much like a real styrene model!




And Soloist countered with some dynamite photos of model-making, to be sure. Yet, I cannot believe that these ( CARET Inventory) models are ‘as big as your hand' when the models shown by Soloist are MUCH LARGER.


I'm afraid I don't understand what the pictures of the models we made that I posted have to do with the size of the model of the craft in the images.

I was put on the defensive by an attack on my credibility and I posted the model pictures to show that not everything you think is CGI actually is. There are several tell-tale signs of the models construction that I believe are consistent with a large proportion of styrene models made, and I just wanted to point those out.

I have already posted why I believe they are of a small size.





And how about the DRONE photos? Are they as small as your hand too and made of styrene and festooned with decals?


I just posted an answer to this as well in response to an earlier inquiry. I honestly cannot tell you if they are models or not. I do not know, other than that the scale looks off to my eyes and they seem very fake to me. It could be CGI or a model, or a cut and paste job, but I have nothing to offer you about those images.


OK: model maker VS CGI render . . . it could be either, right? It still makes this a HOAX as most of us (but not all) will agree.


Agreed.

============================================

Mod Note: You Have An Urgent U2U- Click Here.

[edit on 6-9-2007 by Gemwolf]



posted on Sep, 6 2007 @ 03:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by pjslug

Are you referring to the black & white halftone inventory report or to the anti gravity generator and I-beam color images from the CARET report? The latter, actually, could be CGI but are probably models like you say
The items in the inventory report and the drones themselves are the ones that I believe to be the models.


Sorry, let me clarify.. the images from PACL Q4-86 Report Photo 4.1 to 4.4 ,with the I-beams are what I firmly believe to be models.

The other images with the telephone pole etc, on the front page and the inventory report, I could not say with any amount of certainty if they are a model , CGI or cut and paste of a model image and inserted into the photo. All I know is that in my opinion , especially the one over the tree and the one over the telephone pole look out of scale and just wrong to my eyes.

Given the distance and grainy texture it would be much easier to fool people using a CGI or some image package trickery, but close up... it's still much more realistic to use an actual object.



posted on Sep, 6 2007 @ 03:14 AM
link   
Soloist: Thank you for your amplifying your comments. Sometimes it takes a bit of time to accept the writing style and credentials as presented by a new ATS contributor in their initial posts. You I do respect now as you have attempted to clear up my questions and narrowed your focus much more than before. The others here, who have accepted you immediately and with apparent little forethought, are ATS ‘agents provocateur' and they bait those who they consider less powerful or knowledgeable with what they think is a subtle wit. Of course, that's my OPINION only.

That said, Soloist, we agree that this is a hoax. If I'm wrong, well, I'm sure I will be corrected by the self-appointed watchdogs here. Again that is my OPINION only, mate.

=====================================

Mod Note: You Have An Urgent U2U- Click Here.

[edit on 6-9-2007 by Gemwolf]



posted on Sep, 6 2007 @ 03:33 AM
link   
I would like to state publicly that I am NOT Isaac! Chunder printed the following: "Maybe you're Isaac - there are similarities, he doesn't seem to have much credibility anymore either. (Sorry, hope that wasn't too vulgar, just repartee to stimulate the mind)." Well, that sure stimulates my opinion concerning this thread but when push comes down to shove, and we find that words DO have meaning, google 'chunder' and you will get 'vomit.' Now, that is a fact, and not opinion. Just like the fact that I am not Isaac, although I can't say I mind the compliment!

=====================================
Mod Note: You Have An Urgent U2U- Click Here.

[edit on 6-9-2007 by Gemwolf]



posted on Sep, 6 2007 @ 01:29 PM
link   
I confess: Me, too, is not Isaac. But if I was, I would have a big grin on my face, seeing how a pro-hoax-it's-cgi-skeptic attacks a pro-hoax-it's-mainly-models-skeptic.

Since I have thought to see a toy from the first Chad-foto, I appreciate this new aspect.
If it was for Isaac, this thread would be dead already. So let's keep the smile on our faces.

On the other hand: Somehow we are Isaac now, because we carry on the story for him. He can lean back and enjoy.

He who laughs



posted on Sep, 6 2007 @ 03:11 PM
link   
Yes Sidharta..many a good lad and lass has left this story..the few here are counting on them to return to the scene of the crime....Interesting that I have seen others in absolute lamentation over the lack of interest. But as the dust and shock of the gilded "whoopee cushion" wears out., and the experts really weigh..was it really that "super" an animation/cgI or a mesmerizing document forgery that sets new standards?..I do not think so..Actually, I am enjoying in a perverse way seeing his creation go nowhere and as we open the body to reveal the vital organs..it was indeed in a bad state of health and mind, causing a premature death, a suicide without a note.

RIP
SyS



posted on Sep, 6 2007 @ 05:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Soloist
C'mon now, most forums have restrictions on multiple accounts and I'm sure an admin looking at the logs could see I come from the same unique IP address.


It doesn't get any more obvious than that.


ANYWAY, some day the creator of this hoax will have the balls to end it. Right now, they don't. Until then, I'll have fun watching you people discuss what this hoax ISN'T, instead of what it IS.


p.s.

The hoaxer is watching, don't forget.

p.s.s.

Unique IP's are free.

[edit on 6-9-2007 by 11 11]



posted on Sep, 6 2007 @ 05:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Soloist
There are several tell-tale signs of the models construction that I believe are consistent with a large proportion of styrene models made, and I just wanted to point those out.


For my personal edifice, while I am away, PLEASE point out these "tell-tale signs of styrene models". I REALLY REALLY would like to see your information regarding this, as I feel it will make me more intelligent if correct.

admin edit: 11 11, being a "high maintenance" member, requires the occasional "admin edit" to keep him from getting banned.




[edit on 9-6-2007 by Springer]



posted on Sep, 6 2007 @ 06:53 PM
link   

admin edit by Springer: 11 11, being a "high maintenance" member, requires the occasional "admin edit" to keep him from getting banned.


I'm sorry, that just cracked me the hell up. TFF, Springer! It's great to know you have the members' best interests at heart.


Back on topic, I guess...


(Please feel free to remove this post if you'd like)

[edit on 9/6/2007 by pjslug]



posted on Sep, 6 2007 @ 09:22 PM
link   
OK, I have another legitimate question set. 11 11 did an excellent job (IMO) in describing how he would set up a CGI/computer-generated CARET INVENTORY /DRONE scenario. Now, how would someone use physical model-making and photography (either digital or film stock) to achieve the DRONE photos as well as the PACL INVENTORY photos? Specifically:

#1.) How would someone, if they wanted to make physical MODELS for the various permutations of the original CHAD drone, go about doing this? As in ‘where do I get the basic shapes/design from' and what do I make it out of (metal, polystyrene, foam, etc.).

#2.) What scale would they use, and why use that particular scale size?

#3.) How would someone support and place these models into the preexisting photos, or would they attempt to either throw or suspend these models (which look to be extremely fragile to say the least) in the various locations claimed by the photographers?

Since Soloist seems to be the most familiar with models here, I would be especially interested in hearing his expert explanation as well as from others who might also share in this model-making proficiency.



posted on Sep, 7 2007 @ 12:12 AM
link   
Klattus question are as JJ used to say in the Vernacular
"Dynomite !"..Soloist, here is where you can help us make .way..No other forum has an animator of your caliber ..everyone is CGI photoshop, Maya, 3dmax, blender, lightwave..and yes even paintshop, they have even bought in remote viewers, and oudgi boards and using the document diagrams as coloring pages..I know you have witnessed this..At this moment they at the other forum are literally playing scrabble with anagrams.!.It may very well aside from flesh and blood witnesses that you can indeed provide the missing perspective needed ,using the tried and true tools of the original masters: keen eyes, depth of vision, steady hands, ablity to integrate real elements with the environment..the "old school" as I am fond of saying..I will post no further as we await ,and thank you so much. Thank you Klatuu for being a galvanizing force, you have been so patient and forthright,refocusing the issues..you incredibally captured the essence of it all.

Regards

SyS



[edit on 7-9-2007 by Sys_Config]

[edit on 7-9-2007 by Sys_Config]

[edit on 7-9-2007 by Sys_Config]



posted on Sep, 7 2007 @ 03:19 AM
link   



#1.) How would someone, if they wanted to make physical MODELS for the various permutations of the original CHAD drone, go about doing this? As in ‘where do I get the basic shapes/design from' and what do I make it out of (metal, polystyrene, foam, etc.).


My eyes tell me mostly styrene, it is easy enough to make custom molds for the parts, the material is cheap and very forgiving... the design coming from the creators imagination. I wouldn't toss out the possibility of photo-etched brass parts either, as serious modelers would have access to the equipment and it's fairly inexpensive and can produce highly detailed realistic parts.




#2.) What scale would they use, and why use that particular scale size?


Since this is in my opinion a fictional craft there really is nothing to base scale size upon. However if one were to use some pre-existing parts (some of which I believe may be on this model) then I would assume they would stick to roughly the same scale or modify the parts to look more real.




#3.) How would someone support and place these models into the preexisting photos, or would they attempt to either throw or suspend these models (which look to be extremely fragile to say the least) in the various locations claimed by the photographers?


I don't know if the images that are suspended or that appear to be flying are actual models or CGI, they are too far away to see any detail. If they are models then I would suppose they were photographed on a green-screen and then superimposed onto the background image. If they are actual models they could be suspended with modern monofilament or flurocarbon fishing line, say 2lb test.. at that distance it would be invisible to the naked eye.



Since Soloist seems to be the most familiar with models here, I would be especially interested in hearing his expert explanation as well as from others who might also share in this model-making proficiency.


To answer another posters question about the tell-tale signs of this being a model , most likely styrene, I see some familiar parts , *especially* the bottom "turbine" looking thing, I know I have seen it before somewhere, and have been going through every kit parts catalog and modeling book I have to locate it, I have also found very similar parts (the "boxed" frame beam looking things that surround the smaller "turbine" piece) from aircraft models. Most likely not the same exact ones, but very very close, it's possible these came from some type of aircraft kit.

Also the alignment of those pieces looks off to my eye, but the biggest thing that caught my eye, was on the bottom turbine looking thing, is what appears to me to be crazing of the styrene from too much CA (cyanoacrylate) glue.

I've seen this time and time again, and it looks to me as if someone attached this piece after all the other work had been done which would make it very difficult to fix after the fact. CA glue for those of you unfamiliar actually melts and fuses styrene parts to each other and in the process when pressed against will produce a "bead" of melted plastic which fills the gap between the parts. This is why on nicely done aircraft models you don't see the cracks down the length of the fuselage. The bead is then sanded flat, and open spots are filled in with putty.

Very easy to do on a long piece of fuselage with no parts on it, not so easy to do on a curved surface with parts on it (assuming they were) as this image appears to have.



posted on Sep, 7 2007 @ 04:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by Sys_Config
Klattus question are as JJ used to say in the Vernacular
"Dynomite !"..Soloist, here is where you can help us make .way..No other forum has an animator of your caliber ..everyone is CGI photoshop, Maya, 3dmax, blender, lightwave..and yes even paintshop, they have even bought in remote viewers, and oudgi boards and using the document diagrams as coloring pages..I know you have witnessed this..At this moment they at the other forum are literally playing scrabble with anagrams.!.It may very well aside from flesh and blood witnesses that you can indeed provide the missing perspective needed ,using the tried and true tools of the original masters: keen eyes, depth of vision, steady hands, ablity to integrate real elements with the environment..the "old school" as I am fond of saying..I will post no further as we await ,and thank you so much. Thank you Klatuu for being a galvanizing force, you have been so patient and forthright,refocusing the issues..you incredibally captured the essence of it all.

Regards

SyS



Whew, it took me awhile to search and find the forum I think you're talking about, if this is the one ... they are posting dreams ,etc... I think I will stay away. People here seem to show logic in their thoughts and opinions, and I would much rather flow downstream on that river than fight upstream with people who are dreaming up science about drones and whatnot.

However, reading through some posts on there I found some links to the full size images of the drones that were on the webpage, I made a comment above that I was unaware of these objects origin, that it was too small of a picture to judge, and that they could be either models or CGI.

Now that I've seen them up close and clear, I am 110% sure those drone objects are CGI. No question about it. I knew the second I saw the first picture load. And not even good CGI. One shot even has an almost humanly impossible camera angle from the treetops.

The drones are in no way models, nor real. The closeups of the little I-beams and such are still styrene models.


[edit on 7-9-2007 by Soloist]



posted on Sep, 7 2007 @ 05:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by Soloist
Now that I've seen them up close and clear, I am 110% sure those drone objects are CGI. No question about it. I knew the second I saw the first picture load. And not even good CGI. One shot even has an almost humanly impossible camera angle from the treetops.

The drones are in no way models, nor real. The closeups of the little I-beams and such are still styrene models.


[edit on 7-9-2007 by Soloist]


If you are so sure that they are CGI, please show me one or two examples of CGI images that are as good a quality as they are. There have been many posted in here and links to some sites on the internet, and nothing I've seen looks anywhere near as real as the drones do. Did you see the ones with the telephone poll, the large images? Make sure you study all of the full size images from all of the drone photos taken in all the supposed locations.

Also, myself and another person here did a stereoscopic image analysis and motion study and they appear to be in perfect scale and relation to their surrounding objects as they fly through 3D space. If you want to do that yourself, put two of the same images side by side and let your eyes cross. It's not very comfortable, but it allows you to view them in 3D.

It's funny. You think the turbine object and I-beams are models and the drones are CGI. I think exactly the opposite. I think the turbine and I-beams are CGI and the drones are real objects. On the turbine thingy, take a look at the foreground "pod" object sticking out of it. Look at the arm supporting the pod. You can see through it. It's translucent. That pretty much tells me it's CGI unless some sort of trick lighting and photography in a light box was done to it.

[edit on 9/7/2007 by pjslug]



posted on Sep, 7 2007 @ 10:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by Soloist
Now that I've seen them up close and clear, I am 110% sure those drone objects are CGI. No question about it. I knew the second I saw the first picture load. And not even good CGI. One shot even has an almost humanly impossible camera angle from the treetops.

The drones are in no way models, nor real. The closeups of the little I-beams and such are still styrene models.




I totally agree with you about the CGI models, and that most if not all drone images have false depth of field and perspective, but, I do not agree with the "styrene models" of the I-beams and Pipe Pig looking thing.

With your "professional opinion" why would they make both REAL and CGI models? Wouldn't it be more logical AND cost effective if they just did the entire thing CGI?

I guarantee if you study the Isaac images that you believe are "styrene models" you will notice the lighting flaws. All 10+ of them.



posted on Sep, 7 2007 @ 02:54 PM
link   
Thank you Soloist..I was not aware you had incomplete information, and regret you had to scour that site, but it was fortuitous if not divine.. providence, as we do seem to be narrowing the divergence considerably..
well done..if we had been facing an old master animator things may have been more difficult..but a cgi artist ..levels the playing field.. the combination of all of you 11 11 psiplug ..actually gives us the advantage..

How the screw does turn..


SyS



posted on Sep, 7 2007 @ 05:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by pjslug

If you are so sure that they are CGI, please show me one or two examples of CGI images that are as good a quality as they are. There have been many posted in here and links to some sites on the internet, and nothing I've seen looks anywhere near as real as the drones do. Did you see the ones with the telephone poll, the large images? Make sure you study all of the full size images from all of the drone photos taken in all the supposed locations.



First of all I don't believe they are good quality in my opinion, but please remember that I'm biased from having seen some of the movie industries best.

The images that I came across last night are here :

www.coasttocoastam.com...

If there are other large images I have not found them yet,and wouldn't mind taking a look.

The images on that page, while the photographs are most likely real, the craft in them is absolutely CGI.




It's funny. You think the turbine object and I-beams are models and the drones are CGI. I think exactly the opposite. I think the turbine and I-beams are CGI and the drones are real objects. On the turbine thingy, take a look at the foreground "pod" object sticking out of it. Look at the arm supporting the pod. You can see through it. It's translucent. That pretty much tells me it's CGI unless some sort of trick lighting and photography in a light box was done to it.


I believe it's just an effect of the lighter gray paint on top of the "landing gear" blending in with the background color, which tricks the eye. Notice that where the circular shadow underneath the object meets up with the arm , the colors once again contrast and that effect is gone, you can also see another piece of the model effectively disappear underneath the arm as well.

One thing to think about is that if CGI, this piece would be simply made once and recreated on other areas of the model since they are all the same. I could not see why anyone would want to model the same piece several times otherwise, however you would expect to see other problems with this same area, and you don't . Of course there is the chance that you may only see this "glitch" when the colors clash, if it were CGI. I see definition , and no true transparency, only a melting of the background color with the paint on top of the arm.



new topics

top topics



 
185
<< 173  174  175    177  178  179 >>

log in

join