It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable 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: 24
<< 21  22  23    25  26  27 >>

log in


posted on Jun, 28 2007 @ 12:25 AM
Yea ignor the bolts ect because those renders are for a robot..what Im trying to get at is that the rendering quality is the same on the images I found and on Isaacs object. Its using the same mental ray rendering. Focus on that

Missing the point people..the 'look' is no chance accident..its the same thing they're using for both sets of images...

Originally posted by BitRaiser

Originally posted by wildone106
Well well well..look what I found..

I strongly suspect you did those yourself.

The "Issac" pics are all scans of prints/photos.
Yours is a straight render.
The type face is off.
The bolts are poorly textured.

And you didn't even read the documents... atleast not very closely.
One of the points that the "papers" bring up is that due to the nature of this technology, all parts of these craft are held together by "Ridged Spatial Relationship" (RSR), meaning the anti-gravity field holds the whole craft together.

In other words, no bolts.

I'm not saying I swallow this story (people tend to call me a skeptic), but the attention to detail shown in the rest of this urban myth is very tight. There's no way that our "Issac" would have forgotten that his craft don't need bolts.

My point is, either you've found some dis-info or you are generating it.
If you are making it, you need to be removed from this site as a hoaxer.

[edit on 28-6-2007 by wildone106]

posted on Jun, 28 2007 @ 12:27 AM
yea keep warning me too, please..I forgot I live in a nanny society..

its cool when one loses an argument, you have to make complaints.

[edit on 28-6-2007 by wildone106]

posted on Jun, 28 2007 @ 12:40 AM

Originally posted by wildone106
yea keep warning me too, please..I forgot I live in a nanny society..

its cool when one loses an argument, you have to make complaints.

[edit on 28-6-2007 by wildone106]

Did you, or did you not attempt to pass those pics off as being from the same source as Issac's?

If I, and others, have mis-read your meaning, you need to clear it up.

Edit to add:

You really aren't proving anything. Your pics are OBVIOUS CGs. As in painfully obvious. The Issac pics are at least good.

Yes, I am a graphics guy.
You might have played some games featuring my work.

[edit on 28-6-2007 by BitRaiser]

posted on Jun, 28 2007 @ 12:41 AM
Meh. No, yer renderings feel nothing like Isaac's, pup. There's no where near the amount of subtle detail that suggests some strange utilitarian purpose found in Isaac's images. Your rendered images don't even suggest an authentic camera or techy gadget that I'd like to own. They're unimaginative and don't spark any need for interpretation. And the slap-dash application of the "alien symbols" is readily transparent - first thing that caught my eye. No thanks for playing.

posted on Jun, 28 2007 @ 12:42 AM
Haven't bothered too much with this thread, but i'll once again put forth my opinion as a professional CG artist.
Wildone, you are correct, Mental Ray would be my first guess, the images show all the signs of a global illumination lighting solution or final gathering (similiar but different). The blotchiness in the diffuse shadows is a tell tale sign. This is also prelevent in the original drone pics as well.

This is just one of the many red flags that's apparrent in this whole deal.
For gods sake let it go.

posted on Jun, 28 2007 @ 12:44 AM
Just a reply for people on the white background, most pro photographers use white cubs and under lighting to get this effect and to photograph objects, this is a very very common thing for REAL photographs, this day an age anyone can get them also.

posted on Jun, 28 2007 @ 12:46 AM
Wildone, I have to agree that the 'feel' does seem the same. But that is the idea of these damn CGI things, to look as close to real as possible. And for most of us, we can't conclusively tell the difference.

And there's no use saying we're stupid or dim witted, because that's like telling a skunk it stinks, and being surprised when it doesn't believe you.

I knew things were going south when that movie Jurassic Park came out. In one scene near the end, the young girl is being pulled up through the ceiling, and just for a second, she looks up, and you see her face clearly. Then I learned it had been a stunt double, and they just used the girls face 'over' the stunt double.

I told my wife right then that if she ever saw me on the 6:00PM news as a bank robber, don't believe it till I came home with the money. Now days, all pictures can tell a lie.

And by the way there Wild Thing, I know you hate them pretty little red stickers, but look at the bright side, if you were bleeding as fast as your losing points, somebody would have to call 911.

posted on Jun, 28 2007 @ 12:49 AM
The white background is HEAVILY used, as well as the floating effect when taking photos of Jewelry, this is something I know for a fact. I can pull up image after image after image of pieces of jewelry, rings especially, that have the pure white background, and also appears to be floating with no shadow.

Real Objects and Real Photos, to say that the effect proves it's CGI is not accurate.

posted on Jun, 28 2007 @ 01:58 AM

Originally posted by squiz
This is just one of the many red flags that's apparrent in this whole deal.
For gods sake let it go.

LOL never happen... there will be at least 10 pages AFTER its been proven a hoax

Ducking for cover.......

posted on Jun, 28 2007 @ 02:07 AM
The watermark looks like a T over a shield type coat of arms.

one thing that i feel is there are two places in the area where this is taking place that has the people that have the skill level to do a hoax like this. One is students from Stanford university in Palo Alto Ca and the other is the people that work at Industrial Light and Magic in San Rafael Ca.

[edit on 28-6-2007 by augoldminer]

posted on Jun, 28 2007 @ 02:09 AM
If anything is going to be proven real or hoax it's just going to take a lot of time going through all the probabilities on certain elements, be it CGI or not, be it this font or that font, or this strange watermark, or did this printer exist, yes, no , maybe, perhaps it was done this way or that way.....

To be honest with you, I like these threads, they intrigue me, but I'm not buying anything either way, it could be real, it could be a hoax. I don't think that's the point, or the things that really interest people, or myself I should say. What I enjoy is seeking the answer, I enjoy talking about these things because they're pretty neat, even if it is fantasy.... there's always a sense that maybe, it could be real, and that's pretty exciting.

So what if the thread goes on 10 more pages after being labeled a hoax, if people can be civil, and still want to talk about it.... I don't see anything wrong with that. I can just as easily move on to another thread if I'm done with this one.

posted on Jun, 28 2007 @ 02:17 AM
"1. The original Chad photos were sent to coast to coast.

2. The only person to talk directly to 'witnesses' of these drones is supposedly Linda Multon Howe who does exclusive reports for Coast to Coast and dreamland.

3. The Isaac story and documents were sent to coast to coast. Isaac claims to be a listener.
What are the odds of all of this being directly connected back to coast to coast?

4. Directly under the drone explanation story on the Coast to Coast website is an announcement for Coast to Coast doing a live show at Roswell for the 60th anniversary.

I am not saying coast to coast is in on a hoax but I am also not saying they aren't I am just trying to point out that all of this seems to go back to Coast to Coast am.

Now a little background, I have been a listener for a long time and I really don't think Art or any of the other hosts would take part in a hoax but are the suits behind c2c am above such a thing? If it means more ratings? I don't know.

Take this theory for what it's worth (not much, ha) it is just me noticing how it all sort of reverts back to coast to coast.....


Viral marketing for

posted on Jun, 28 2007 @ 02:22 AM

Originally posted by ShiftTrio
Just a reply for people on the white background, most pro photographers use white cubs and under lighting to get this effect and to photograph objects, this is a very very common thing for REAL photographs, this day an age anyone can get them also.

This is very true.

I work for a good-sized furniture company in NJ and I can tell you guys right now that even before 20 years ago (1987), furniture companies were taking perfectly nice photos of furniture against completely white backdrops. In fact, these photos would look very similar to the ones in Isaac's pictures (white background, purplish hazy shadows).

I find it pretty funny that everyone is assuming only CGI and 3D rendering programs can create white backdrops with no reflections of flash, etc. All you need is a table, a white fabric "cube" (of whatever size you need), several stand-lamps outside the cube that light up its entire fabric, and very bright bulbs called "daylight bulbs". Depending on how you arrange the entire configuration, you can create shadows or lack thereof, and make it seem like light is coming from any which way you'd like.

This is not exactly cutting-edge technology, and trust me was available well before the 80s. This has been used by retailers all over the world for a loooong time.

EDIT: Here is a pretty nice picture showing what I'm talking about: lightbox

[edit on 28-6-2007 by Amberite]

posted on Jun, 28 2007 @ 02:23 AM

Originally posted by promomag
So what if the thread goes on 10 more pages after being labeled a hoax,

DOH! T'was a joke son... and directed at the "Give it up folks" post

posted on Jun, 28 2007 @ 02:31 AM
Okay, this thread blew up while I was at work today... so I will throw in what I have made of this so far.

1. The watermark "T"
My main issue on this is... if this is some kind of special designated paper strictly for "Caret" only use, then what are the possibilites that all of the watermarks would end up right-side up? I mean if this big "T" was part of the paper itself is it logical to assume that this said paper is inserted into the printer the same way every time to keep it right-side-up? The diagrams and flow-charts of Linguistic Analysis are also the same. We have only a glimpse with some page numbers, but I'm assuming there are hundreds of pages just on these diagrams alone, several hundred pages and not one of the watermarks are upside down..... ?

2. The Linguistic Analysis Primer itself:
I did a quick set of layers on these documents in photoshop, starting with Pg. 119 as a control background, then transforming the sequential pages to fit graphically to the control. This is where it gets strange, and I'm afraid I will need someone to corroborate my own evidence. Anyone on here sharp with photoshop and want to lend a hand?

Pg. 120: Obviously fits in the bottom section of the control. I scaled this down to fit and rotated it clockwise. Pretty good match.
Pg. 121: Fits in the upper right, I only had to scale this one down.
Pg. 122: Located in the center of the control, this one neede to be scaled down, but unfortunately I found something odd here... I had to flip this layer horizontally and vertically to match the control.

Why on the green earth would you make a schematic of this thing, but then invert one section of it as a mirror image! That in itself boggles my mind. Understand what I'm getting at here?

Pg. 123: Once again, a simple scale down and look at that, another match made in heaven.

Why, oh why would someone draw this schematic to be viewed from the top side, but just so happen to invert one of the nodes that could be crucial to it's operation is beyond me. Maybe that is why they didn't get it to work!
Here is a sample.

Shot at 2007-06-28

looking forward to your input on this matter.


[edit on 28-6-2007 by telemetry]

[edit on 28-6-2007 by telemetry]

Mod Edit: Image Size – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 28/6/2007 by Mirthful Me]

posted on Jun, 28 2007 @ 02:38 AM

Originally posted by promomag
The white background is HEAVILY used, as well as the floating effect when taking photos of Jewelry, this is something I know for a fact.

promomag does have a point, white background is HEAVILY used in jewerly. I'm a amateur CGI artist, I've seen some Ebay stuff done that way as well. At first glance there is nothing to say the current photo's are CGI.

I wouldn't go so fast to call it CGI, however its all computer generated so far... scan docs, photos, web page...ext ( John Titor style). There's nothing physical to it yet other than seeing objects that go along with a good story..

I would almost bet Isaac's next photo's maybe showing someones hands holding the drone objects...
If I was a HOAXER, that's the thing to do to piss off the CGI people here.

posted on Jun, 28 2007 @ 02:40 AM

I guess you could say I've just about had it with some of the types of posts on this board. And I'm up to the point that I can't shut up about it..

Let me first start off pointing out the first thing that is really, really annoying:

- People posting on threads like this one, claiming they are the expert of experts.. They have all the knowledge of every CG software program on the market. It's amazing.

People who advertise themselves in this manner, are 99% of the time BS!!! They do not back their so called expertise.(plus, a real expert wouldn't be going around forums claiming they are the best in the world. They have nothing to prove to forum readers) And when they do create or show something, it looks so horribly fake, you could propably do better with a box of crayons.

- Now, like many people, I have been following this Drone since the first pictures and ofcourse examined the pictures thoroughly. Even though some pictures do have certain qualities that are very very hard to categorise, there is in no way enough proof to definately place it on either sides of the fence.

-Lastly, I would like to share with you my main thought on why people constantly keep pointing at CGI. I believe, that most of the poeple posting these kinds of comments are just scared. They are scared of being wrong! See, playing the CGI card is an almost shure win. Until this day, aprox every picture taken had indeed been proven fake or unexplained. But ecspecially, fake. So, saying this is a fake will give you the most chance of being right, right? And always being right must prove that you indeed are that MASTER CGI EXPERT... Right????

Give me a break...

Please, could we just discuss the context of the mather at hand and not turn this into another almost religious holy war. CGI or NOT CGI.
That's NOT the question.......

posted on Jun, 28 2007 @ 02:43 AM

Originally posted by SaucyRossy
Check out the article at the daily grail about this story.

Those are some compelling arguments for this thing being a hoax. Frankly, I am surprised at how balanced this argument has been. When the pictures of the drones started popping up, most people could clearly see that they are CG. Now, with Isaac's story, some people seem to be doubting their gut feelings. The story is very well written. The story tries to offset the weaknesses of the pictures. What was the one characteristic of the drones that got the most attention? The 'writing' I believe. Notice how Isaac spends a great deal of time explaining how the language is 'magic'. Well, magic if the language is exposed to the right kind of energy field.
It's a flying Ouija board? Let's try not to be blinded by a good story by a good writer. What do the pictures say? I still think they say CG.

posted on Jun, 28 2007 @ 03:07 AM
I havent followed the "drone" story, but it seemed like, watching the you tube video, that the drones became more complex as time went on. Which would agree with the viral-advertising theory. Here is a small sample of the Transformers "language" (heh, I can put "language" in quotes too, Isaac!). I used the color dodge tool in photoshop to make them brighter. There are more samples of the "language" on the Transformers, but they are less ledgible and many are supposed to look like scratches, and probably wont become more readable until the movie comes out. In one of the links provided in this thread, there was a message board where someone said that in past Transformers stories, the machines sent out drones to look for energy sources in the universe. That would make the new drones American copies of captured "real" drones.

I think that some of the symbols look like crude scratchings of some of the stylized symbols "Issac" provided. The pictures that Issac provided only have a few symbols and the difference between many of them is an additional hash mark or dash. So either the aliens only need like 10 letters max in their language, or there are more symbols unaccounted for, and may be the other symbols seen on the Transformers.

[edit on 6/28/2007 by ViolatoR]

Mod Edit: Image Size – Please Review This Link.

Mod Edit: Image Hotlinking – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 28/6/2007 by Mirthful Me]

posted on Jun, 28 2007 @ 03:08 AM
oops double posted somehow (?)

[edit on 6/28/2007 by ViolatoR]

top topics

<< 21  22  23    25  26  27 >>

log in