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: 18
185
<< 15  16  17    19  20  21 >>

log in

join
share:

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

Originally posted by promomagI believe all printers put something on the paper when printed out,


true, but that wouldn't be visible just so.




posted on Jun, 27 2007 @ 05:05 PM
link   
The following site might be helpful in identifying certain watermarks found

www.watermarks.info...

There is a collection of photos of various watermarks, although I've not found anything that matches up yet.



posted on Jun, 27 2007 @ 05:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by promomag
The following site might be helpful in identifying certain watermarks found

www.watermarks.info...

There is a collection of photos of various watermarks, although I've not found anything that matches up yet.


This doesn't look like a typical watermark, but then again who is to say what a watermark should look like.

It seems digital to me. I don't think a scanner would be able to pick it up so easily. Then again I don't have a scanner to test with at the moment.



posted on Jun, 27 2007 @ 05:17 PM
link   
OK everyone is quick to shoot down my post, but did anyone see the post I made before? if so then why not agree or disagree with me on that one?

I mean look...the part is freakin floating. you're telling me that these individual pieces are anti-gravitational? If so why are they on the ground in 1 pic, and in another its floating?

isaaccaret.fortunecity.com...



posted on Jun, 27 2007 @ 05:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by RandomThought
OK everyone is quick to shoot down my post, but did anyone see the post I made before? if so then why not agree or disagree with me on that one?

I mean look...the part is freakin floating. you're telling me that these individual pieces are anti-gravitational? If so why are they on the ground in 1 pic, and in another its floating?

isaaccaret.fortunecity.com...


you need to go back and read what RSR means



posted on Jun, 27 2007 @ 05:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by RandomThought
OK everyone is quick to shoot down my post, but did anyone see the post I made before? if so then why not agree or disagree with me on that one?


The link doesn't appear to work.



I mean look...the part is freakin floating. you're telling me that these individual pieces are anti-gravitational? If so why are they on the ground in 1 pic, and in another its floating?

isaaccaret.fortunecity.com...


The link doesn't appear to work.



posted on Jun, 27 2007 @ 05:26 PM
link   
Link works, i just tested it. and RSR? why do i need to read up on what RSR means?



posted on Jun, 27 2007 @ 05:28 PM
link   
because it would answer your question as to why they are supposedly floating.



posted on Jun, 27 2007 @ 05:31 PM
link   
I don't see a shadow, therefore it is in the air, every other pictures have shadows meaning they are placed on the ground. this is the only one with no shadow, meaning it is above the ground...which people do a lot to show dif angles of pieces in 3d renders.



posted on Jun, 27 2007 @ 05:34 PM
link   
I'm rather surprised, when checking ATS today and discovering this thread about "PACL". This stuff (Chad drones, latest pictures, documents, and story) are really odd.

I noticed that some members have noticed what is believed to be a "water-mark" on the papers.

From my experience as an offset-printer (20 years of practice), I can tell you that the splotchy marks are not water marks.

Further, the photocopied documents of this Isaac have not been replicated on a photocopier, (at least not originally).

The scanned documents bear the hallmarks of having been printed on a small offset-machine, like an AB-Dick, Ryobi or similar, which you may find at Government duplicating offices, or your friendly neighborhood printer.

I once worked at a printing operation in Galway, Ireland, which printed manuals for DIGITAL Equipment corporation. The style and layout of the documents is very professional and comparable to those manuals.

The "water-marks" can actually be marks from the delivery table of a printing machine, ink-smudging, or roller marks.

So someone has actually gone to the trouble of PRINTING on a offset machine each of those marked sheets, including creating the printing plates.

(The odd contrast of the lettering on some docs can be an artifact of platemaking and sloppy photographic reproduction.)

This is weird.

PS and edit: "splotchy sections" added.

[edit on 27-6-2007 by osaitax]



posted on Jun, 27 2007 @ 05:35 PM
link   
Source of the blue? Could also be associated with the Blue Watermark that people are seeing in the documents, but wanted to point out the blue artifacts that seem to jump out at me in the picture below:




farm2.static.flickr.com...

Link to the original image:
isaaccaret.fortunecity.com...



posted on Jun, 27 2007 @ 05:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by RandomThought
I don't see a shadow, therefore it is in the air, every other pictures have shadows meaning they are placed on the ground. this is the only one with no shadow, meaning it is above the ground...which people do a lot to show dif angles of pieces in 3d renders.


"4.2.3 RIGID SPATIAL RELATIONSHIPS

Unlike the more general-purpose antigravity fields generated by implementations of this technology obtained from other sources, A1 is capable of multiple modes of operation and varying levels of precision. Perhaps the most compelling aspect of A1's functionality is its ability to focus its antigravitational effects on specific objects, rather than entire spatial volumes, creating what PACL has termed a rigid spatial relationship (RSR).

An RSR can be thought of as creating an "implicit solid" between two or more constituent parts separated by empty space. Once in effect, these constituent parts behave as if they are directly and physically linked, and are completely inseperable by pulling or pushing them in opposing directions. Only when the effect of the A1 is deactivated will they once again behave as separate objects."

The photo is captioned:

I-beam segments linked to the antigravity generator in the RSR



posted on Jun, 27 2007 @ 05:50 PM
link   
This can be the result of a bad scanner:


...or an inkjet printer running out of ink...

Edit: or it could be having fed too much water on the offset printing machine (where there is too much water, the ink gets rejected from the printing plate). But why the underlying color should appear blue I don't know...

The streaks can also be an artifact of an unknown type of BLUEPRINT process.


[edit on 27-6-2007 by osaitax]
I believe this is a test.
And I don't mean these blue streaks, but the whole chad picture episode. It is conceivable that someone has indeed found something tangible extraterrestrial, and that these people are at their wits end at what to make of it.

[edit on 27-6-2007 by osaitax]



posted on Jun, 27 2007 @ 06:05 PM
link   
I have been following this thread of discussion and the whole "chad ufo images" thing for quite some time now. My background is in information technology and graphic design. I have been exposed to high-end CGI for games, medical imaging, motion pictures and publication still imagery for years at a professional level. The images of the craft, that was allegedly witnessed by many people, and the images and documentation provided by "issac" are very interesting. I can't say for sure yet that they are a hoax or real. I will be determining that in the near future.

I am fascinated though by the closed-minded posts that unequivocally state that they know this is a hoax for various illogical reasons. I say illogical because at this point in time there is not enough data to make such a presumption. Doing so only highlights the ignorance of those that make such statements. You can know nothing from these images and documents without gaining some insight into who made them and why; and if the objects depicted are real or not. There is no way to garner this information from the data provided thus far. But how does one gather the details to discover whether they are real or not when there is no way for anyone to physically inspect the hardware in the images? The same way governments, law enforcement and many corporations do. They employ remote viewers, under contract and very quietly.

There are various forms of RV that I am sure people on the site are aware of and the usual nay-sayers will probably doubt the veracity and accuracy of RV. I can say without a doubt that RV does work; as long as it is not psychic-remote-viewing. I have learned RV using the protocols that were developed by SRI for the DOD/CIA via Maj. Ed Dames. The methodology used is a rigorous protocol that does produce accurate details of ANY target that is investigated. It eliminates the conscious minds efforts to overlay imagination on the data collection process; something that psychics are usually unable to do. It is a truly amazing and not incredible skill that anyone can develope. The RV efforts of a single remote viewer, even a beginner, usually achieves 80% accuracy for any target that is RV'ed and analyzed. When a target is investigated by a group of remote viewers this accuracy can be be improved to 90% or better.

I and others in our RV group will view these images. After one session we will be able to determine the following:

"Whether the objects are real or CGI"

Once we can make that determination we can explore other aspects. Obviously if it is hoax there will not be any reason for further investigation.

And please do not read into this anything that I have not typed. I have been very specific. The first sessions we do will only determine if the objects are real or not. I am not saying we will know if they are alien or manmade or any thing else. We will only determine if they are real structures that exists in temporal reality.

If the objects are real then we can further investigate the source that created them.

I will keep you posted.

0mikron



posted on Jun, 27 2007 @ 06:10 PM
link   
I'm just throwing thoughts around whilst this whole event is still fresh, but, with regards to the relatively 'basic' tone of the report:

I haven't fully read the report, so perhaps I'm overlooking something here, but I'm trying to look for reasons why this may or may not be a hoax. In favour of the 'genuine' theory, anybody who works in management or in a hierarchical administrative system will be familiar with the idea of generalised reports.

I work in films, and that's a hugely multifaceted industry to work in. From the Production Office through to VFX, Construction, Design, Music, Sound, Post-Production management etc. film has a huge variety of very specialised departments that come together to form a whole. I see some comparisons between that and the sort of project that Isaac was working on.

Now, when I receive reports from our Accounting Department, Construction/Design Team or on Post-Production, I receive very generalised reports. After all, I don't need to know all the details, I need to know the general plan and results. I'll never be a VFX artist, so the precise method a VFX may choose to employ is unimportant to me, but what is important is the overall aim the VFX artist has.

Linking this to the report and what I've read so far, it's not such a stretch to imagine this being genuine. Granted its very basic, but there could be two reasons for this:

1) It's a report, a summary of what is happening and not a research paper.

2) Isaac says that he was in management. He also says that most of the departments worked fairly seperately so as to reduce the amount of chatter and chance of problems arising.

I personally feel that, perhaps, Isaac was in management, and these were the sorts of papers he could get hold of. Perhaps they were only getting generalised reports, showing basic research and analysis. Lets not forget that reports are written for individuals or groups of people. If I write a report for shareholders I don't include sections on what software we use, or the contents of a Post-Production schedule. I give them an overview, and write it to contain the information they are most interested in.

So, there is a good chance this is an overview report, not a thorough analysis. Again, I'm not convinced on this yet, but I'm just countering some of the argumetns that this CAN'T be true because the report paper is so basic.



posted on Jun, 27 2007 @ 06:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by wildone106
I think alot of people here are frankly ignorant of whats possible and further have no idea of the current state in 3d techniques or whats possible


Takes one to know one....... I bet your the sharpest tool in the shed!!!!!!!!!!!!! I have never claimed to know about graphics or; what is it CGI? I guess you get to go to the head of the class.

[edit on 27-6-2007 by geemony]



posted on Jun, 27 2007 @ 06:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Springer
Please see member 11 11's addition to this topic here: www.abovetopsecret.com...

Hopefully he will repost that material to this thread for continuity.


Springer...


Thats Enough for me guys and gals...... Thx to 11 11 and Springer for shareing. oh well it will happen one day right?



posted on Jun, 27 2007 @ 06:23 PM
link   
I've just seen the pics of this "alien device" and they are definitly a hoax. It looks like man-made device straight out of japan with all its unreadable symbols.



posted on Jun, 27 2007 @ 06:28 PM
link   
OK this is a huge thread and I have read everything but I don't feel like hunting this down......

There is a member here in this thread ( forgot the screen name ) who says that the colors of the drone photos differ and in a CGI rendering the colors are all smooth and show no 'static'.
He says that by this logic it shows the drone photos to be real. Why has nobody challenged this statement or some CGI expert refuted this claim? Its like nobody has even seen the guys post.
What does Springers experts think about this notion? Would someone take notice?



posted on Jun, 27 2007 @ 06:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Megadeth
OK this is a huge thread and I have read everything but I don't feel like hunting this down......

There is a member here in this thread ( forgot the screen name ) who says that the colors of the drone photos differ and in a CGI rendering the colors are all smooth and show no 'static'.
He says that by this logic it shows the drone photos to be real. Why has nobody challenged this statement or some CGI expert refuted this claim? Its like nobody has even seen the guys post.
What does Springers experts think about this notion? Would someone take notice?


Paging Mr. Biedny... paging Mr Biedny...



new topics

top topics



 
185
<< 15  16  17    19  20  21 >>

log in

join