[HOAX] Isaac CARET - Drones [HOAX]

Originally posted by davidbiedny
Tomiuk,

Here's the bottom line - if folks find the Drone images interesting, that's their right. It's my right to think that they're amateur renderings. I can't concern myself with worrying about what other folks believe or not - life is a little too precious for that. The OM forums have spent a lot of time and effort on things that I would simply NOT waste a second on - from the Drones crap to the tall tales of Serpo, and a whole lot of garbage in-between. Hell, John Lear is now over there, screaming about how he believes in the Billy Meier nonsense. Whatever - people can believe whatever they want, while some of us are aware enough to avoid swimming in the mud. I have a research partner - Jeff Ritzmann - and we'll look at images that we find compelling, while not bothering to waste time with images that are obviously bogus. I wish the OM folks luck, but I have no desire to team up with their image analysis efforts. Based on the tone of discussion over there - that silly Meier thread is a classic - I will not join the forums, contribute to the childish silliness over there, much less lend them my image processing expertise.

There's an old saying - from the Bible, if I'm not wrong - don't throw your pearls before swine. That about sums it up for me.

dB

[edit on 3-5-2008 by davidbiedny]

[edit on 3-5-2008 by davidbiedny]

Could you possibly provide me with an example of an image more compelling to your analytical skills than this high res image of the BB drone.

www.divshare.com:80...

I don't think there has ever been so much interest in one saga as this over such a period of time with people just hungry for more insight. I can't imagine an example os something more worthy of analysis.

Cheers and thank you for your earlier response.

Thanks for appearing here, David!

Tomi, you are not aware, that you are only a few, who still believe in this story. It is a very entertaining saga, and it would have died soon, if those few did not spend their blood and sweat to defend this hoax to be true.

I said repeatedly, this is a matter of perception, and I don't think - no, I know - that you never will accept any analysis, that does not fit to your perception. So why should an expert spend time on this at all?

Kris Avery spend a lot of time with this. You said, his "crafts" were not convincing. Linda Moulton Howe found them very convincing, assured the world, that Kris' very first video was true. When the Big Basin drone appeared, you said, this is to detailed and complex to copy it. Lately you said, it would be easy, to copy it, Kris should show it from a different angle...

Somebody is payng the PIs to hunt the snarks, why not accept David's offer, to do an analysis, when payed? Why should all the world try to convince you few people, that reality is real?

But it would not be so funny without the DRT...

[edit on 3-5-2008 by Siddharta]

I've done this before, but OK, here you go:

ufologie.net...

ufoevidence.org...

ufoevidence.org...

ufoevidence.org...

ufoevidence.org...

These are genuinely compelling, unexplained photos of UFOs.

That CG rendering you linked to is just hysterical - the idea that anyone thinks that's a real, full-size object is just laughable, IMO. And, BTW, that's not a "high-res" image - it's a low res JPEG sourced-image blown up far too big, still looks like crap to me.

dB





[edit on 3-5-2008 by davidbiedny]

[edit on 3-5-2008 by davidbiedny]

[edit on 3-5-2008 by davidbiedny]

reply to post by davidbiedny

The voice of reason will never be listened to by the DRT! They know the drones are real because LMH told them so.....and she has never been fooled by hoaxers before and is an "investigative journalist" which proves the drones exist and you Mr. Biedny are simply a goverment paid debunker trying to muddy the waters and drown the drone investigation in a basis of logic and reality! How dare you sir!!!

reply to post by TheShadow


I guess the question is how much expert analysis will suffice before it is accepted?

Originally posted by DrDil
reply to post by TheShadow

 

I guess the question is how much expert analysis will suffice before it is accepted?

I dont believe the DRT will accept any analysis that doesn't confirm their pre-conceived notions of a drone reality! Since the drones are obviously a hoax there is no way to prove them real and the DRT will not accept a hoax outcome. Any evidence they present will be pro drone They will NEVER accept any evidence which proves a hoax thus leaving only one possible outcome for their investigation......INCONCLUSIVE! Isn't that convenient?


[edit on 3-5-2008 by TheShadow]

Good report, as always, Dil.

But you forgot to mention that tomi is an expert, too, sitting infront of her pc since centuries and can tell, if it is real or CGI!

Sorry, tomi, needed this now. You are allowed to slap back.

[edit on 3-5-2008 by Siddharta]

Originally posted by DrDil
reply to post by TheShadow

 

I guess the question is how much expert analysis will suffice before it is accepted?

WOW! Everything explained in this link 100% cogent, concise, verified.

Thanks Dr. Dil

Originally posted by Springer

Originally posted by tomiuk

I find this comment simply astounding. EVERY SINGLE expert in the field of imaging (and I mean current, well known experts - NOT obscure "unknown experts"

) that I am aware of who has looked at these "drones" and the Isaac Caret images has called them obvious CGI.

With regard to the Caret images, when you create images in CGI you don't need to manipulate them.

Re: The drone images, the shadows of the composite images have already been proven to be a common screw up when adding CGI objects to real digital photographs.

I read where Linda Moulton Howe considers us here at AboveTopSecret.com to be arrogant, well I would like to say that the HEIGHT of arrogance and SHADY dealings is to hold onto crucial evidence because it will be exposed as a HOAX. There is only one realistic explanation for refusing to allow LEGITIMATE EXPERTS to review the evidence and that is to keep the hoax going. Now who benefits from that?

Bleh, I have a very BAD taste in my mouth about this whole sordid affair.

Springer...



[edit on 5-3-2008 by Springer]

Thank you Gentlemen, And David, we are so honored you joined us, and decisevly put this issue where it belongs Hoax.
As I summarized before we have 5 experts so far, and I am not looking for anymore. This thread was to look for causes, and alien ET, and reverse engineering certainly are not in there. Artists certainly are.
The OM has sent a call fo volunteers and have amassed an army of 30 volunteer amateurs, thats 2 analysts per pic I imagine., not including the DRT. The efforts are commendable, but does it take a manhattan project to convince what is obvious to the experts, of which they have none, who will put his company's or own reputation on the line. The only reason NONE of the ufologists wont touch it with a 100 foot pole is because people ordinarily WONT touch something that is $hi+. Makes Good sense to me.

What is especially egregious here that that they knew of David reputation and conclusion, and essentially buried it, so that their new members joining did not see. When Davids report was rediscovered or mentioned here by Springer, God blees him, and then ported over there to OM by EnlightenedSeeker , it was as if a Handgrenade went off, when Mcbees report went in, it was like a molotov. needless to say what is going on now.

So what are we doing? looking for who did thats all. I hope the newbies over their and here do their homework, read what the experts say and take it from there.
Amazingly they had an early expert, Breazeal, who did vdeo prouctions, and said if it was fake they used advanced software, but then found one photograph, the telephone pole one, witha 3d object OM said was a scanner smudge. Breazeal said no. its a 3d object ppossible a controller, and that should be looked into immediately because it meant it was a hoaxer involved.
We never heard from Breazeal again, but I posted that here a page or two ago. With him that makes 6 including David Biedny, and throwing in Jeff for good measure makes 7..repeat 7..(hmm the magnificent 7, I like that)
Only an organization bent on decieving , repeat DECEIVING the public would push anything contrary to a HOAX on the members and public.
Linda may call us arrogant, she never said we were wrong.
and never produced her own tests.
what my brothers say ye?

So thank you David and Springer and All the ARC, for keeiping our heads above the water, and not somewhere else like the others.

Sys








[edit on 3-5-2008 by Sys_Config]

It saddens me that this is STILL rolling on for some who seem to have a need for it to be real. Back when this 1st started and I was asked by Springer to do sort of a breakdown it was obvious to me and others in the field of 3d that we were dealing with someone trying to pull the wool over people’s eyes with what they obviously thought was a flawless render, but actually was full of mistakes.


Its always going to take a long time to fully explain in a detailed way why a CGI fake ‘is a fake’ as it would take a explanation of the entire background of 3d hard surface modelling, texturing, material and shading theory, lighting and rendering, compositing etc.... so no one is going to sit down and write what amounts to a beginners guide to everything CGI for free. I wouldn’t expect a particle physicist to explain basically ‘an idiots guide to particle physics’ in a few paragraphs in a post. So it’s wrong to expect any working professional to do the same.


The best you’re going to get in most cases is a quick overview from working and experienced professionals or partially informed and partially uninformed opinions presented as fact from hobbyists and amateurs wanting to appear to be more knowledgeable than they are. The sheer amount of uninformed clap trap I’ve seen since this began (what seems like a million years ago) is unreal as it became a beacon to every amateur 3d artist on every conspiracy board wanting their 5 mins of fame...


‘If you get rid of the impossible, whatever remains no matter how impossible (or unpalatable) must be the truth’, to paraphrase Sherlock Holmes. Wanting to believe is not reason enough to believe. If any potential ‘evidence’ is to stand up against the almighty onslaught of the tradition media etc it must1st stand up to the vast majority on this board including experts. If it cannot pass this one task (that is by no means easy) then how can it ever be expected to pass a much more aggressive examination by the world at large?


The trouble is that at this stage there are simply far too many vested interests in the drone as a ‘business’. It has become a new money making racket for some and a potential ‘call to arms’ for others. So I honestly feel that if a rather crude CGI hoax such as this one cannot be brushed aside easily, then maybe a hard look is needed at the entire UFOlogy field as a whole.


‘Something is rotten it the state of Denmark’. I personally think it’s high time a clear out and hard look was taken at the idea of ‘vested interests’ from some researchers who on the face of it appear to treat it not as a search for truth but as a career money making opportunity.


What started to surprise me was when I saw the images I’d done for Springer on the hoax were still getting massive hits from all over the damn place online. It’s something I’d put to the back of my mind to be truthful. After tracing some of the links from my logs it was a surprising read...it’s almost turning into a religion to some.


All I can say is god help the UFO field when the next batch of fakes comes out as tech has moved on a fair way since then. To the credit of ATS members I think 90% of people have now moved on and realised that the drone images were fake. It’s the other 10% that bothers me though.

Wayne...


[edit on 3/5/2008 by the secret web]

Thanks to everyone for all the words posted and linked to since my last post...

But in all of the sounding off, expert opinions, pedegrees, accolaids, etc. epressed never once has anyone yet provided just one example of what is wrong with just one series of these drone pictures.

With respect, I know everyone has busy lives and careers, but many hours has been spent already defending the hoax position, hasn't it?

Why not put at least one series of the pictures to rest, or find a unified fault and nail the whole thing once and for all.

Come up with a reasonable reliable marker for a hoax in these pics and show irrefutable obvious comparisions to other like images.

I mean gentlemen, if you are going to convince a jury, would they expect no less?

reply to post by tomiuk


That, my dear lady, is YOUR job to review this very thread and the others on our site that have each and every specific example, coffin nail and irrefutable FACT that proves these images are CGI composites or, in the case of CARET, 100% CGI.

We are not here to "feed you" the TRUTH (using your own words against you. ).

Springer...

If you look back to the begining of all this, you'll find I did and find a number of things to indicate CGI. (Here's a hint...the samples were set too low during the global illumination ..thats just one there are many more.)



Plus there is BIG difference between spending 5 mins on a post and formulating a book length detailed and indepth critique of the drone images.

It seems to me nothing less than a 500 page manuscript that would basically be complete beginners guide to 3d would suffice. Even then some would still prefer to belive... and as no one here is about to pay my hourly rate for writing such a book alas I must decline as it would be time spent when I could be mkaing money.

Wayne...

[edit on 3/5/2008 by the secret web]

[edit on 3/5/2008 by the secret web]

I remember your page and great work Wayne, I had no idea you had participated in an analysis. This indeed would actually make you the 8th, not in any order here, informed opinion on this matter. It has surprised me as well how many still hold on desperately. I find it a great example of what happens when the perfect murderer finds the perfect victim. No doubt in my mind these are very willing victims. Just as Eisenhower warned about the military industrial complex, we have the same situation here of a collection self promoting interests, or politely, vested interests, who would like a Con artist Minister, fabricate a "miracle" for the public, in the hope of drawing new believers, and keeping their current membership happy. They will even employ the occassional Holy Roller, speaking in tongues, for effect. He occasionally even makes his services available to other struggling churches, just like a traveling medicine man.

Indeed this is what we need to flush out of Ufology, if its to remain a viable field of study. That I hope is those that come here understand what we are doing on this thread, showing connections, showing timelines and a plan, showing motive, what others describe as time, place, and opprtunity.

Thanx so much for weighing in here, your work is truly outastanding.

Sys
ARC
THe Exile Group

One would think that the word of experts would be enough to close the door on the believability of this subject, and when you take into account that there are no photo-witnesses to back them up...it is sad that there are those who will believe the hoax and perpetuate it

I really doubt that any proof offered by the experts, would be believed by the hardcore believers, the DRT.

They can believe what ever they want as far as I am concerned, but my focus now is, Who is, who are, the hoaxers.


Thanks to both experts

Originally posted by Springer
reply to post by tomiuk

 

That, my dear lady, is YOUR job to review this very thread and the others on our site that have each and every specific example, coffin nail and irrefutable FACT that proves these images are CGI composites or, in the case of CARET, 100% CGI.

We are not here to "feed you" the TRUTH (using your own words against you.

).

Springer...

Ok.. we did review the paracast program and here are our specific observations regarding the paracast report, but you admit here you really haven't done one, correct??

The Biedny (and friends) report:

This podcast appears to be the only concise drone ufo debunking available in one place:

www.theparacast.com... (host: Gene Stienberg, with David Biedny & Jeff Ritzman)

Length = 1:54:00 (mostly chit-chat, about 5% evaluation, 95% opinion)

Biedny exclaims that the drone photos where done with Adobe Photoshop Extended Version.

They berate the name Chad, and exclaim that's why it is fake.

They claim it was done with 3-D models composited on photgraphic plates.

The opinion "Obvioulsy ridiculous" concludes it as a hoax.

Jeff Ritzman noticed scale issues; in one photo, the drone appears to be 6ft long, yet in another photo, it seems to be humongous.
In the shot over the trees, the focus is wrong, trees are fuzzy and the ship is clear, then further away the ship is fuzzy.

David Biedney states that surface of the craft is too flat. HDRI is new technique, and the drone photos do not repect that that technique which implies a hoaxer who is not aware of HDRI. The Texturing and lighting is too uniform. He expects to see some entropy because that would be natural.
The shadows are too uniform and symetrical when looking upwards at chad craft.

The host stated that it must be a hoax because it was presented in the wrong places, and he thinks it just isn't right.

Biedny stated that people are not visually sophistcated, only people that want to "believe" think it is real.
It is a hoax because it has never been seen before. Also the weird fake-looking arcane text and labels makes it a hoax.
The ridiculous lettering indicates that only a sci-fi fan would do this, because it has never been seen on any photographs before.
The story is nonsense because it occured over more than one day, and jerky movement does not make sense.

Jeff stated that the lettering is definetley the Arabesh font from Internet. Also, the pale light grey circle cross X is the Star wars Imperial cog. It is all just too weird.

The host proclaims that people should not consider it for more than 5 seconds because it is so different.

David proclaims that believer's frontal lobes have been disconnected, and that people really should google his name to see impressive credentials, then take his word for it.



[edit on 3-5-2008 by tomiuk]

Thanks SYS

While I've been busy working on stuf I can't talk about I did run the drone images past some 3d industry types that Iworked with and for on some projects. (Although I can't say in public for contractual reasons so I gave springer a quick short list of recent clients a few moments ago by U2U. I disregared by book as it'd looks like I was trying to sell it . )

I've yet to come across anyone in such a position who belived there is even the remotest possibility the drone images were real. (Should Springer want some more details of the people I talked to I'll pass them on by U2U.)

No one would want the whole thing to be real more than me, as it would save me and my concept artists a helluva lot of work lol. No more coming up with designs for aliens and ships etc...it'd be just like looking up blue prints for a Audi A4 lol. But I'm digressing...

The field of ufology is heading down a slippery slope with wheels on its backside if the rot isn't stopped or at least slowed down a bit. It could end up being looked at in the same way as the bogus preachers you mentioned...

Wayne...

Originally posted by tomiuk
Come up with a reasonable reliable marker for a hoax in these pics and show irrefutable obvious comparisions to other like images.

Wake up, little tomi!

Where have you been all the year?

I mean gentlemen, if you are going to convince a jury, would they expect no less?

You are talking about the DRT jury? Those who send the only woman to the front at ATS, because they don't want to get in serious discussions?

Once again: We don't have to prove reality, you have to prove the snarks! You can preach all day long, that there are ceiling fans and chandeliers watching... err, what again?

Before you ask anything from anybody: What is the evidence for your view? Still did not get this...

Originally posted by Siddharta

Once again: We don't have to prove reality, you have to prove the snarks! You can preach all day long, that there are ceiling fans and chandeliers watching... err, what again?

We are trying to find out.

Before you ask anything from anybody: What is the evidence for your view? Still did not get this...

Still waiting for evidence to the contrary!

Originally posted by tomiuk
Still waiting for evidence to the contrary!

How about... reality???