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: 313
185
<< 310  311  312    314  315  316 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 7 2008 @ 04:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by tomiuk

Finally the right word has come to me to describe the big difference I see that the original drones have over anything cgi created and that is the word character.

The original drones have character, that is something you can not achieve with cgi. Character comes from real life not from an airbrush or a pixel.
There is a hard character about the drones.. like they have seen a bit too much.. or maybe I'm getting carried away with this idea..


Are you serious? "Character"?

This is why people get caught up in this kind of nonsense - tomiuk, I'n guessing that you've never stood in front of a Rembrandt painting, and wondered how this artist possibly used relatively crude tools - hundreds of years ago - to impart an absolutely sense of presence, of realism, of CHARACTER to the paint on a flat canvas, creating the feeling of standing in front of the actual person who Rembrandt used to create the painting. You state that a painting can't have character? That totally, absolutely qualifies your understanding of the subtleties of visual arts. You can't achieve character with computer graphics? I'll let the creative forces at WETA know that their groundbreaking Gollum character lacked "character". I'll let the folks at ILM know that the T-Rex from Jurassic Park, as well as the velociraptors lacked "character".

You've now clearly qualified your own credibility in making statements about visual information. There is no reason for anyone to take anything you type, or say, seriously. Thanks for putting your thoughts to words, you've put yourself in the toilet.

And that, as they say, is enough for me. I'll spend not another moment on this crap.

dB




posted on Jun, 7 2008 @ 04:40 PM
link   
reply to post by onthefence55
 


We don't allow people to advertise their sites in their signatures unless they ask us for PERMISSION (you know, "manners") and even then we wouldn't allow someone to promote a site that promotes hoaxes under a false guise of investigating one.


Springer...



posted on Jun, 7 2008 @ 04:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Siddharta

Originally posted by tomiuk
I have recreated this shadow and sun angle test with a clothes drying rack..

What have you done??? Eh?? eh??


I put my guinea pigs in the fridge for an hour and washed them with 60° afterwards. Than I dried them on the balcony and wrote some alien lettering on them.

Sadly all the results of my research were lost, when the cat ate them...

I will try again as soon as I found some new guinea pigs.


I know at least 2 things she has done that you have not Sidd,and that is lie here about the Arthur mess, and and help promote a bigger lie, helped a bigger Untruther, LMH and this hoax. Perhaps it was she who belonged hanging on the clothes rack to get more accurate results, eh, eh. Is she in canada now too??


Sidd, those poor Guinea Pigs!



[edit on 7-6-2008 by Sys_Config]

[edit on 7-6-2008 by Sys_Config]

[edit on 7-6-2008 by Sys_Config]



posted on Jun, 7 2008 @ 05:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by onthefence55
The only reason I respond here is that the DRT continues to get slammed here for no reasonable reason. And I am just trying to provide some answers to questions being brought forth here.


Oh please.... I know, and everyone else knows the ONLY reason you and Tomi continue to post here is because you and Tomi know ATS is the ONLY place your CGI Hoax Drones will ever get any "big time" attention/play.

Let's cut the crapola, for at least this part okay?


Springer...



posted on Jun, 7 2008 @ 05:51 PM
link   
reply to post by Springer
 



Gee willickers Uncle Springer, maybe we should change the thread caption not to "possible hoax", but more appropriately, Clumsy Hoax, That would certainly be more accurate, after all the hard work OTF and Nemo and Linda have done.
At this point, would any of us buy a used car from any of them?
they might tell us "good as new", "almost new", and that only a little old lady "shirley" drove it, and is guaranteed but not past the sales lot. should we? we already had 6 grade A mechanics look at it, and tell us its a bucket of bolts . Dang Springer, I need a car bad though,
and those French boys look pretty honest, They kicked the tires and it still held up, maybe need some shocks, thats all and if ya stand back a few feet it looks like it got a little shine on it left....so what ya think



[edit on 7-6-2008 by Sys_Config]

[edit on 7-6-2008 by Sys_Config]



posted on Jun, 7 2008 @ 05:58 PM
link   
reply to post by Sys_Config
 


I was not asked, but I think if Brent could come along with his airbrush, it surely could look very droney at last.



posted on Jun, 7 2008 @ 07:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Siddharta
reply to post by Sys_Config
 


I was not asked, but I think if Brent could come along with his airbrush, it surely could look very droney at last.


Thats it! the airbrush! He can give character to it. Tomi, Lev, and another person have agreed unanimously at DRT That character defines the real from the fake. David was right , Tomi just plopped herself and at least Lev and the others straight down the letrine .
This is too good to be true. Shall we get some old newspapers for them to clean each other off and read too, when they hit bottom. Some Letrines have a lot of character too you know. Not much to do down there I think.

I am starting to enjoy this. Springer..keep them talking!



posted on Jun, 7 2008 @ 07:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by davidbiedny

Are you serious? "Character"?


You took the words right out of my mouth David. Words such as 'character' are used about 'art'.... so by saying that you are comparing it to human made pieces of art.

Shadows and lighting are the least of the problems with the drones. The construction alone screams CGI and thats the tip of a very large iceberg.


I suggest if anyone was REALLY wanting to seriously research the drones to start at the beginning and read the entire thread, taking notes and tracking down references. That would be a good start if anyone wanted to be taken seriously.

A cardboard model and a cloths rack!!??? Thats so ...well there's not a word for it yet, I've never laughed so much in years I swear.

Next week I shall disprove the existance of the loch ness monster using a Bic razor and a hairdryer painted prple and covered in custard.



I really do despair at times..if an obvious hoax such as this one is causing anyone trouble.... the ufology field is going to be screwed as more complex hoaxes come along.


Wayne...



posted on Jun, 7 2008 @ 07:23 PM
link   
Yes, and looking for the hoaxer, maybe we should look at this one.

Tomi said this very same thing at the DreamTeam Forum two days ago:

"Finally the right word has come to me to describe the big difference I see that the original drones have over anything cgi created and that is the word character.

The original drones have character, that is something you can not achieve with cgi. Character comes from real life not from an airbrush or a pixel.
There is a hard character about the drones.. like they have seen a bit too much.. or maybe I'm getting carried away with this idea..
"

And he, who answers was this one:

"That is correct and character is a good word. They have a quality that is not in any fakes including our own. That is why we keep going and no "expert" will change our minds.
IC"

Former enemy of the DRT, passionate enemy of Kris Avery, CG expert of the other kind... IC

Edit to add: Did Leviathan ever appear here in any thread? I never saw him here. Maybe he fears realistic people?!


[edit on 7-6-2008 by Siddharta]



posted on Jun, 7 2008 @ 07:25 PM
link   
reply to post by the secret web
 


Lots of intelligent thought in your post, but this is my favorite, "..if an obvious hoax such as this one is causing anyone trouble.... the ufology field is going to be screwed as more complex hoaxes come along."

That's the main reason this is worth the fight. It will get nothing but more difficult for the average person to tell a hoax from the real thing, and to throw the established rules of evidence and sensible investigation to the wind in favor of some claptrap, as the DRT has done, is reprehensible. Those fools constantly belittle, ignore, and misuse the only reliable tools we have when it comes to separating the junk from the valuable experience. Stupidity is not an excuse. Insanity is not a reason to let them off the hook.



posted on Jun, 7 2008 @ 07:44 PM
link   
reply to post by Double_Nought_Spy
 


Indeed. The hoaxes right now are still rather crude and to some degree its still possible to exmplin 'why' they are hoaxes to 'the man in the street'. However as they get more complex it will get eventually to the point where it will be impossible to explain why something is a hoax as it would take so long. You are then forced to either take the word of experts with checkable backgrounds, or accept them all as real /fake depending on your position.

I would not expect a physist to explain to me particle physics so I could understand it without some serious background in the subject...3d is the same...there are specialist areas and knowledge. I think some people assume its just a matter of 'pressing a few buttons and knowing where stuff is in the application.'

I would say that the time has came the last 12 months were there needs to be formed an ATS panel that covers multiple displines to investigate possible hoaxes. Maybe that seems harsh, but I'd ask people this question:

Would you rather have a fake busted and not sully the ufology field, or wait until 3 days after its been on the news and every damn paper in the world, only for some 22 year old to come and say' sorry it was me' and consign the whole ufology field to the scrapheap? If we truley want proof then we must weed out each and every hoax,vested interest and case we can.

In case anyone wonders what is stopping a person who didn't create this fake taking credit, I spotted something orginally in the drones that the hoaxer did wrong (its something very commonly overlooked for some modellers). This is my personal 'ace in the hole' as with one question I can tell a real hoaxer from some attention seeker. I've not shared it with anyone (not Springer or on ATS or anywhere...)as its then opens up a can of worms of hoaxers knowing a 'tell tale sign'.



Wayne...

[edit on 7/6/2008 by the secret web]



posted on Jun, 7 2008 @ 07:56 PM
link   
reply to post by the secret web
 


Interesting! Your strategy with the detail you describe as an "ace in the hole" is just the sort of thing done by the more astute and professional investigators, for precisely the reason you have kept quiet about your discovery. We know this because they are mentioned at times, when a particularly good case has one of those arcane details and the investigator decides the revelation is worthwhile. Of course it's usually mentioned only once, and buried in a report somewhere.

I like your idea of an ATS panel to look carefully at future claims. That would be most valuable. Ufology has suffered great indignity many times in cases like your hypothetical one with some kid coming forward. That's actually a relatively common scenario. Of course we would still have plenty of cranks saying things like, "Well, the experts say it's a hoax, so it has to be real," but the vast majority of adults would have something to go on.

[edit on 6/7/08 by Double_Nought_Spy]



posted on Jun, 7 2008 @ 08:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by the secret web
In case anyone wonders what is stopping a person who didn't create this fake taking credit, I spotted something orginally in the drones that the hoaxer did wrong (its something very commonly overlooked for some modellers). This is my personal 'ace in the hole' as with one question I can tell a real hoaxer from some attention seeker. I've not shared it with anyone (not Springer or on ATS or anywhere...)as its then opens up a can of worms of hoaxers knowing a 'tell tale sign'.


So how are you going to handle this, Wayne?

Bringing it to the public for a handful of believers is useless anyway. Teaching future hoaxers would be the other side of the road...

Did you think about to inform all the serious researchers? You said, you did not inform Springer, nor anyone...

Who may be informed? Are we going to be paranoid about that?

Would I be one of those, you would inform? Would MUFON be one of those?

I hope, we don't sink into "trust nobody, he could be" whatever.

How about a kind of comittee? David as the expert for pics, I would suggest DrDil as a rather neutral reporter, and OnTheFence as a supporter of the pro-theory. How about inviting LMH. Of course, we need some weight on the other side for the fifth member. Springer? Sys? Shadows? Doubles? Would be interesting.



posted on Jun, 7 2008 @ 08:19 PM
link   
reply to post by davidbiedny
 


Spot on David...



posted on Jun, 7 2008 @ 08:28 PM
link   
And spot on the few people we are, discussing this funny toys.

Miss Marple would ask us all into the room, I guess.



posted on Jun, 7 2008 @ 08:31 PM
link   
Thats for sure sid....



posted on Jun, 7 2008 @ 08:40 PM
link   
reply to post by Siddharta
 


Its something I've been wrestling with for a while to be honest. Although until (or if) someone claims responsibiity its sort of mute point. I will pass the info on to Springer and probably let him make final decision how its passed on and to who. The last thing anyone wants is to bust one hoax and cause 10 others as a result. But also the last thing I personally want is to pee a load of people off who are working their damndest to find out the hoaxer.

A panel could eb quite complex to compile to eb honest. ON the 3d side alone you'd be looking at various types of modellers from organic to hard surface etc, lighting and rendering guys, experts in the big apps...the list could end up so huge as to be unworkable. But if something like that could be pulled together its would only be of benefit to the world of ufology once it had the confidence of the community. Maybe I'll put a set of things together for a serious dsicussion on the subject.



posted on Jun, 7 2008 @ 08:42 PM
link   
reply to post by Siddharta
 


I think Wayne means it would be a good idea to establish such a panel for the inevitable next round of amazing sightings and photographic "proof." This one is dead, it's just that there are a few very noisy people who haven't figured it out yet.

Anyone who hopes to be recognized as an "investigator" needs to do way more homework than most people are likely to do. Anyone who does not understand that photographic evidence has never been proof of any paranormal event all by itself is not intellectually qualified to be a real investigator. There have been faked photographs for as long as there have been photographs. A fake photograph from 100 years ago could easily be a good enough hoax to fool most of the "investigators" in this sorry episode.



posted on Jun, 7 2008 @ 09:25 PM
link   
reply to post by spf33
 


When I asked about relevance I meant aside from the obvious.

I thought you had something interesting to add, my assumption was wrong also.

One all and the final whistle, let's not go into extra time.



posted on Jun, 7 2008 @ 09:30 PM
link   
You've brought to mind the exact point why I take such an issue with what the DRT are doing. By not holding this case to a higher standard, by not demanding named and verified photographers - they make it too easy for the hoaxers.

It's one thing to play these kinds of games anonymously, it's another entirely to have to stand face to face and answer the tough questions.

And for the record, "character" is what an old porn star develops to fight gravity. What you're seeing on those drones is called "motion blur" and "texture". Nothing a combination of models, photography and CG couldn't do and IMO, did in this case.

[edit on 7-6-2008 by nfotech]

[edit on 7-6-2008 by nfotech]



new topics




 
185
<< 310  311  312    314  315  316 >>

log in

join