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: 25
185
<< 22  23  24    26  27  28 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 28 2007 @ 03:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by Rotoplooker
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?


A point of interest...

People once believed that writing had power. Literal power.
For example; In Norse Mythology, Runes imparted power simply by inscribing them onto something. The name of something (or someone) written in runes was more than just a word, it was a connection to that object or person.

So basically, the idea of symbols doing something all by themselves isn't all that *ahem* alien. We have human accounts of the same thing.

This still doesn't mean I believe this story.
I just thought I'd toss that out there since it occurs to me to be an interesting concept.




posted on Jun, 28 2007 @ 03:23 AM
link   
I don't think that this case requires any study into photographs or documents as "Isaac" has provided the pertinent details necessary for an analysis into the veracity of his claims and story.

Claim 1: "Isaac" is a Linguist.

His diction, grammar and spelling are atrocious. Look up Linguist and Linguistics, if you will. After doing so, examine "Isaac's" material. Compare them with works published by real Linguists. Judge "Isaac's" material by the same standard.

Please examine his words at: isaaccaret.fortunecity.com... Right off the bat, in the very first sentence, we can observe a spelling error and atrocious diction. My personal favorite is this gem:

"Much like the technology in these crafts themselves, the device capable of remotely hijacking a vehicle's clacking comes from a non-human source too."

and

"I never experienced that myself, but a very close friend of mine did when were boys..."

- Isaac, isaaccaret.fortunecity.com...

Remember, "Isaac" claims to be a Linguist.

Claim 2: "Isaac" is an Engineer.

What kind of Engineer? Engineers live and breathe data. If you ever have the opportunity to examine an engineering tome, you will quickly grasp my point. Go to your local library, better yet a University library, and glimpse through material written by real, honest-to-goodness Engineers. Again, compare their works with "Isaac's" material.

Let's examine "Isaac's" own engineering prowess. Here is a gem:

"So 4 elements working together is actually more than 4 times more powerful than 1." -- Isaac, ref. prev. url.

So let me get this straight, "Isaac". Four elements "working together" (covalent bond? Hermetic earth, air, fire and water? Busting rocks at "Sing Sing"?) is actually (got that, Four things "is", what Linguistic command!) "more powerful than one." One what, pray tell? One circus clown balancing a plate while juggling two tomatoes and a bowling pin? A thermonuclear explosion? The 1.2 Giggawatts required power a flux capacitor and send a Delorean plus passenger forward in time?

Now, "CARET" was allegedly developing commercial applications of an 'alien' technology, right? Have you ever researched the development of the American space program? I urge you to hold "Isaac" or anyone else claiming to be an Engineer to the same, real-world standards. I say real-world because they were doing a "commercial applications" study, right? Where are the materials analysis, the spectrography, the SEM's, chemical studies, etc.? Where are the infrastructure and man power studies? Where are the costs and benefits study, the economical impact study, and so on, ad infinitum. "Isaac" claimed that "CARET" was studying "commercial applications", so I would expect to see reams of data, especially from a Linguist AND an Engineer. As one or the other (or both, as claimed by "Isaac") he should know exactly what information would back up his claims and I guarantee some of it could be released without specifically identifying him (which is another topic entirely).

If someone told me magic words can make a pig fly and showed me pretty pictures of pigs and magic words, I would give them the same amount of credence I give "Isaac's" alleged credentials and cockamamie story. I don't need to know whether the photographs are models, cgi or whatever. All I need to do is compare "Isaac's" claims he is to what he has written and produced.

"Isaac" fails the veracity test on every single point. This is not opinion, this is observable and testable fact. Please note that I have in no way attacked the entity "Isaac", only "Isaac's" claims, only "Isaac's" claims, and with that, I'm done.



posted on Jun, 28 2007 @ 03:27 AM
link   
What is funny at this point is the CGI discussion regarding the scanned material... Umm.. it's scanned and in black/white.. this leaves no room for debate really because nothing can be proved regarding rendering if these are scanned and I believe everyone here agrees they are scans.. even if they have been printed from a rendering.

How bout this.
If someone is open to the challenge, I'll go out and take a photo set very similar to the images you can find
HERE
I challenge you, any cg artist you know or can find to "insert" an image of a cg craft into each image I take and make it visibly match with the same continuity as the other drone photos.
The craft can be any model already around that has sufficient detail to be compared to the "drone" in the pics above.
The only thing I would require is the model be of similar footprint as the drone. Meaning whatever model is used, the mesh/model parts could be duplicated and added to the edge until a similar silhoute as the drone was achieved.. i.e. low long and wide... the reason for this would be to help compare angles, overall shadow occurences etc.

I wouldl make a video capture with audio dissecting any submission for all here to view.
I charge good money to make photoshop training videos tailored to specific company needs and this would sort of be a free lesson to everyone.

Or should I start a new thread with this challenge?

The video I would make would take the high res images from the sightng in the link above and the inserted craft into my digital files provided.
My files would be of similar quality and resolution.
I would zip around the computer pointing out hardware vs render anomolies.. why the anomolies exist etc.. you would be surprised at all the hidden patterns hardware leaves in images.
HDRI: if someone accepts, I'll even photograph at the same time as and HDRI environment they may already have.
I'll also vector trace the scanned docs to also give the cg artist a flawless symbol file for texture purposes. Just tell me your format preference.

If you are a 3d rendering and photoshop compositing bad@ss, be the champion for the hoax screamers!
To really be the champion, Do two sets of rendering to photos taken by different cameras... I have a few lying around

if two sets is too much though i would understand but would further increase your status as ULTRA-MEDIA-MAN.

does anyone have an archive of all the drone images floating around. The high res version of the link above are no longer available since the flickr account has been closed... why may be a conspiracy on it's own.
I have a couple of higher res versions but not all.

maybe you don't think it's worth it to go through all that trouble..
to me it is just so I can maybe quell a few of the people screaming CGI.

there are other issues I would like to debate such as why would someone show a scanned render of a model we haven't even seen before? No sense there..

Sightings of this drone for the past 2 years have been noted as well. That sure is a hella long viral campaign...

b



posted on Jun, 28 2007 @ 03:52 AM
link   


"Isaac" fails the veracity test on every single point. This is not opinion, this is observable and testable fact. Please note that I have in no way attacked the entity "Isaac", only "Isaac's" claims, only "Isaac's" claims, and with that, I'm done.


Having ripped into the guy with respect to one or two issues that I personally feel are extremely trivial, it might have been a good idea to proof read your own post.


[edit on 28-6-2007 by Mogget]



posted on Jun, 28 2007 @ 04:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by Amberite
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]


White boxes or otherwise using backlight/exposure technique in order to get rid of the background is not the give away. Like you say, this is old tech. Boulevard Photographic Studios even did it with cars back in the late 40´s.

------------------

The extremly poor sampling of the shadows however is a dead give away and not something you get in photography. Some early digital cameras like the Canon 1D had serious banding issues but it in no way looks like this.

Further, most people working within the CG "industry" doing photoreal (there´s a difference between photoreal and realistic) will tell you that one of the complicated things to recreate is the chaos of mother nature as well as photographic anomalies. This means that CGI are quite often easy to spot because due to the mathematical origin everything looks too perfect. In real life nothing is perfect, even highly polished machined surface will show subtle imperfections. You might not be able to put your finger on it but your brain will tell you that something is "not right".

IMHO the pictures provided from "isaac" clearly falls in the category of surfaces/reflections/reflectivity beeing waaay to perfect. Add to the typical poor samling artifacts in the shadowareas on the table/floor this sums up IMHO 100% CGI.

------

Mm...i also planned to provide a link to one of the images but they are gone?!?
What´s up with that?



posted on Jun, 28 2007 @ 04:41 AM
link   
Looking at all the pictures and documents it screams CGI/HOAX. Like others have said in prior post that there is no perception of background other then a complete white background. Is the objects sitting on the floor, wall, counter top, ceiling? Furthermore, I would like to comment on these 2 pictures. First link the backside of the main device top arm looks as though there is motion blur?

It appears as though the device is in action and the I beams are floating or suspended. If the arm in the rear has motion blur and they are connected then why doesn't the one in the front not showing motion blur? ROFL I don't know maybe it's just a camera effect.

Secondly the schematics



I have to admit something like that indeed would take a long long time to draft of that magnitude and scale. If CGI images can be created by a computer so can schematics. Looking at the details of the schematics it's likely it was computer generated. Overall commenting on this material. I would have to say that this is a hoax. If a person is dedicated enough to get his/her 5 minute fame and it is that important to them then they will go to any great lengths to achieve it. It is possible to CGI stuff like this, print kodak quality pictures put together a real looking pamplet of the scanned photo's and cook up any story you want people to believe.

Is it possible to make a gravity drive sure I don't see why not. Magnetism is being used everyday. I have studied electronics, it will open your world and give you a new perspective of how the world works. For a person that doesn't know anything about electronics and components and electrical theory they have no clue in what time and effort and engineering goes into making a device such as a remote control for a T.V etc. Electronics theory electricity and magnetism do work hand in hand. However, this whack story of symbols themselves have something to with the molecular function of mechanical or non-mechanical devices or objects sounds like way out there stuff even for me. Maybe there is a little gray alien out there moving about hopping dimension to dimension and galaxies and so forth and has the technology of gods and are here to check and make sure we haven't blown ourselves to kingdom come.

[edit on 28-6-2007 by sean]

[edit on 28-6-2007 by sean]

[edit on 28-6-2007 by sean]



posted on Jun, 28 2007 @ 05:03 AM
link   
Too tired to check, but its on Front page at Digg.com

www.digg.com...


Leads to this
www.nowpublic.com...



posted on Jun, 28 2007 @ 05:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by rwiggins
I don't think that this case requires any study into photographs or documents as "Isaac" has provided the pertinent details necessary for an analysis into the veracity of his claims and story.

Claim 1: "Isaac" is a Linguist.

His diction, grammar and spelling are atrocious. Look up Linguist and Linguistics, if you will. After doing so, examine "Isaac's" material. Compare them with works published by real Linguists. Judge "Isaac's" material by the same standard.


Maybe his native tongue isn't english?



posted on Jun, 28 2007 @ 05:38 AM
link   
Its all lead finally to Halo 3. Matt Asher is a key.

www....##.###/ar.jpg

Hmm, cannot give URL: To the Matt's site

remove spaces:
www . 27 . com/ar.jpg

[edit on 28-6-2007 by northwoods]

[edit on 28-6-2007 by northwoods]

[edit on 28-6-2007 by northwoods]



posted on Jun, 28 2007 @ 05:44 AM
link   
Yeah, we've gone trough that already, he isn't in any way connected to halo in any official capacity, just a huge fan. He has done this same thing with halo2.



posted on Jun, 28 2007 @ 05:50 AM
link   
Ok then.

Anyway, what if: i150.photobucket.com...



posted on Jun, 28 2007 @ 05:56 AM
link   
Please, before going into a subject, that has been discussed for weeks here, read the available material. There are several threads on the drone, there is a sticky with all collected info right on top of the list.

Getting back to already dissected topics won't help much.

No offense meant, just saying.



posted on Jun, 28 2007 @ 05:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by northwoods
Ok then.

Anyway, what if: i150.photobucket.com...


I've been following these coincidences as well.. Not enough to definately call it a link between the two. It could also be one of the two, using the other to make it seem more real.

I hate waiting for more evidence either way.



posted on Jun, 28 2007 @ 06:23 AM
link   
I think that there's one "issue" that indicates this Drone phenomenom is Part of Viral marketing. And what is this issue..well, in my opinion it's easy to see mut hard to realise...or vise versa. I mean that none of these eyewitness, Chad or else or Isaac didn't post their UFO proofs directly to the press.

They cannot do that because it's against marketing ethics and law to fake news to marketing new product/service/etc. So, instead of that "eyewitnesses" and company that is marketing something use of course social network in viral marketing way and post their stories and photos to forums and non profit sites only. Just think, how normal is that you see ufo and get clear sensational picture of it but not contact press? But you just post it to flickr.com and be cool and silent


[edit on 28-6-2007 by northwoods]

[edit on 28-6-2007 by northwoods]



posted on Jun, 28 2007 @ 06:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by northwoods
I mean that none of these eyewitness, Chad or else or Isaac didn't post their UFO proofs directly to the press.

They cannot do that because it's against marketing ethics and law to fake news to marketing new product/service/etc. So, instead of that "eyewitnesses" and company that is marketing something use of course social network in viral marketing way and post their stories and photos to forums and non profit sites only. Just think, how normal is that you see ufo and get clear sensational picture of it but not contact press? But you just post it to flickr.com and be cool and silent


[edit on 28-6-2007 by northwoods]

[edit on 28-6-2007 by northwoods]


It's certainly a possibility... But I thought there were references in the leters of these eyewitnesses that they did contact the media or where about to. Still kind of strange though... You might be right.

But then again, the news we get here from the states is aprox the same crap as we get from our own country, the Netherlands. And you should know, that like 80% percent of our news is completely useless. A puppy born under special conditions, kids were having a special day for elderly people.... All this cute and huggy huggy kiss kiss nonsense.. They would never report anything like this Drone business going on... Just a thought...

[edit on 28/6/2007 by LoDGiKaL]



posted on Jun, 28 2007 @ 07:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by wildone106 And I guess you people are too dumb to realise that. its ok, Im laughing at you along with Chad/Isaac.


I understand that you get your kicks by making hateful comments to people online because you are in some way compensating for some other issue in your life. Maybe your just a geek who can’t get laid I don’t know. But please try and keep the Hateful remarks to yourself. It doesn’t further your arguments and it doesn’t give anything you say here more integrity. All it does it shows your lack of people skills and the ability to carry on an intelligent meaningful discussion about something I think most of us are not at all intelligent enough to comment on. (CGI rendering) if you would just refrain from calling us dumb and stupid people we may try and understand what you are telling us. But to continue to treat the people in this thread as though we are cave dwellers will only get you banned. It seems you have some knowledge about what you are saying however you will never get taken seriously unless you learn to play with others in an adult way. im sure there are those of us that can do things that you couldn’t fathom, so please we are all just trying to understand all of this so play nice or just leave. You’re doing nothing to help us..... I also understand that since you are online you are talking big. I guess that’s your only way of feeling better about yourself. Now go back to your video games little boy.......



posted on Jun, 28 2007 @ 07:27 AM
link   
If i could draw your attention to THIS image ladies and gentleman:




I found this building from trawling through Halo 3 Viral updates, they seem to think it is of importance.

www.aps.anl.gov

I think the Halo 3 symbol can be seen there, try to imagine the actual building not being there but you can see the grounds, the Halo 3 symbol is there and guess what? the building looks remarkably like one of our Isaac rings don't you think.

[edit on 28/6/07 by October]



posted on Jun, 28 2007 @ 07:58 AM
link   
Someone on another forum posted these photos and commentary. Compare the second photo below with this ISAAC one: isaaccaret.fortunecity.com...

img169.imageshack.us...

img177.imageshack.us...

"I made that in like.. an hour yesterday. it's CGI. it's ridiculously easy to pictures like those. there are certain subtleties you can notice in pictures of these type that indicate they're CGI.

from my perspective, I think it's fascinating that people keep going on about this fake cieling fan ufo thing."

[edit on 28-6-2007 by bridas]

[edit on 28-6-2007 by bridas]



posted on Jun, 28 2007 @ 08:03 AM
link   
More proof there that this is all a big hoax, that second image is identical, it's only a matter of time now.



posted on Jun, 28 2007 @ 08:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by October
More proof there that this is all a big hoax, that second image is identical, it's only a matter of time now.


It is very similar and that actually is Japanese, as I can read it. The last part says, "This is just a test."



new topics

top topics



 
185
<< 22  23  24    26  27  28 >>

log in

join