[HOAX] Isaac CARET - Drones [HOAX]

Originally posted by spf33
i am not the hoaxer, i don't know any hoaxer, i don't know that this is a hoax, and i apologize in advance, again, for giving this case so much attention if it turns out to be a hoax.

You are in denial.

SPF33, if you are not the hoaxer, than tell me, what are the chances that both you and the hoaxer made the same screw/fan alignment mistake on your models??

As pointed out earlier, they are not aligned:


...also, your model is not aligned either!


Another thing, you also made the same exact "azimuth and altitude" mistake that the hoaxer did. You relied on 3D Studio Max's azimuth and altitude calculator, which was not correct. You yourself even said it:

Originally posted by spf33
noticing earlier that 1111 incorrectly stated the time incorrectly for rajman pic16 as 17:20 20.1 279.4, i went back and double checked my own work.

for some reason 3ds max and the navy don't agree.

max calculates altitude and azimuth for 17:40 as 27 and 273
navy calculates altitude and azimuth for 17:40 as 16 and 282

Instead of using real world calculations to determine your lighting, you used 3DSM which is incorrect. This explains why there is a major missing shadow under the drones main arm. How is it you made 2 of the same exact mistakes that the hoaxer did???

You are busted.

[edit on 11-6-2008 by ALLis0NE]

Thats the Spirit!
Oh my, Sp33, we did give you a chance..Lord knows we did, how do you explain That?

Please, not the devil made me do it.

YRM are you sill with us?

AllisOne.
That is most excellent.

Panning out or not, You are automatically drafted into ARC
All for : Aye 10
All Nay 0
The ayes have it.
welcome


Gentlemen, we are now back in Reality.



[edit on 11-6-2008 by Sys_Config]

Originally posted by ALLis0NE
You are in denial.

have you been talking with my girlfriend?

what are the chances that both you and the hoaxer made the same screw/fan alignment mistake on your models??

excellent catch!
but sorry, it's not my model and any geometry changes made were aligned to the existing model. rwiggins, maybe? there were a couple.
*actually, i even may have slid them over when trying to match the photo.
i'll have to dig through the old versions of the file to check.

Instead of using real world calculations to determine your lighting, you used 3DSM which is incorrect.

max is correct. i did not compensate for daylight savings at first by ticking the specific box. which also that year, 2007, the us went thru an uncommon daylight savings which the version of max i used at the time was also coded to handle properly. that's how it went down in my memory. now that omf user hpo has generously lent his very nice drone model to the investigation i plan to re-examine that study.

This explains why there is a major missing shadow under the drones main arm.

huh? the very first study i did of pict16 showed the shadow very faintly.

does anyone remember omf user organelle warning of the dangers of becoming a remora? well..

[edit on 11-6-2008 by spf33]

[edit on 11-6-2008 by spf33]

Good now just come out of the closet, along with the rest of the masked experts or missing experts and we will be one happy family

Originally posted by spf33

but sorry, it's not my model and any geometry changes made were aligned to the existing model. rwiggins, maybe? there were a couple.

Can't imagine, that rwiggins joined the CG creating. He used to say, that the photo debate was useless and not necessary at all, since he didn't buy the document at all.

He also recommended the believers to draw the letters on a pig, to see if they can fly on it.

Just to evade quick rumours...


[edit on 11-6-2008 by Siddharta]

the above view of the mesh

here

that is producing this view

here

arg. didn't imageshack code once work here?


[edit on 11-6-2008 by spf33]

[edit on 11-6-2008 by spf33]

Need a little help from a friend?

Why are you so nervous suddenly?

Thinking about that whole flicr update story, you must say, that it makes sense now.
You knew, that the pics were their in hi res, otherwise it was useless to do it.

After many had thought, the power lines prooved it was a hoax, you could show them, this was not the case. As you did with 11 11 and as the DRT still is shouting out about the MUFON statements...

Makes sense...

Edit: okay, it looks bad, but now the link should work.

[edit on 11-6-2008 by Siddharta]

Originally posted by spf33
have you been talking with my girlfriend?

Distraction? Jokes?

Originally posted by spf33
excellent catch!

I know.

Originally posted by spf33
but sorry, it's not my model and any geometry changes made were aligned to the existing model. rwiggins, maybe?

It's not your model? Pointing fingers?

Originally posted by spf33
*actually, i even may have slid them over when trying to match the photo.

If you modified the model, then IT IS YOUR MODEL.

Originally posted by spf33
it's not my model

Originally posted by spf33
max is correct. i did not compensate for daylight savings at first by ticking the specific box. which also that year, 2007, the us went thru an uncommon daylight savings which the version of max i used at the time was also coded to handle properly. that's how it went down in my memory.

You said this:

Originally posted by spf33
for some reason 3ds max and the navy don't agree.

Then you said this:

Originally posted by spf33
why this is i'm not sure, maybe because max v8sp3 doesn't have the newest us daylight savings changes that were implemented recently.

But now you claim to know. So what is it? Is max correct? Or is the navy correct? Daylight savings issues with max? Or what? I think you made a mistake and you are trying to cover it up.

Originally posted by spf33
huh? the very first study i did of pict16 showed the shadow very faintly.

Yes, and you said this:

Originally posted by spf33
and now that i've had even more time with this image, i'm more ready to call this photo fake than i was 2 weeks ago. i'm beginning to think there are too many lighting inconsistencies here.

But, just a few posts ago, you said this:

Originally posted by spf33
i don't know that this is a hoax

You aren't even sure that this is a hoax... Why would someone with your "CGI SKILL" over look simple shadows? You did the study yourself, and you STILL say that you aren't sure its a hoax.

If I wasn't capable of reading minds by studying reactions, I would almost say you didn't make this hoax. But, its quite clear that you are involved and you want this hoax to last as long as possible. It's also quite clear that you take offense when people make fun of your horrible CGI work.

Originally posted by spf33
does anyone remember omf user organelle warning of the dangers of becoming a remora? well..

well...?

You should of taken your own advice.

Yes That is a stroke of luck Sidd, And lucky Sp33 was right there to get the pictures from BJ UCB, he said the pictures had no exif data for stephen, then all of a sudden after sp33 and eleven got it presto, it had exif. This is like magic to me.
Luck and Talent can work miracles like explaining away. Go away problems, and the problems go away!


[edit on 11-6-2008 by Sys_Config]

reply to post by spf33



SPF33 that is NOT the same model that you used when you made your lighting example. Please, stop hiding the real model you used.

Originally posted by spf33
my point being i don't think this is a case of the potential hoaxer using 3ds max and incorrect data. rather, if it's a hoax perhaps the artist somehow miscalculated the sun angle or the publics ability to measure it so precisely even using rough estimates.

[edit on 11-6-2008 by ALLis0NE]

Originally posted by spf33
here

[edit on 11-6-2008 by spf33]

I spy with my little eye something beginning with 'N'.

N
U
L
L

Maybe take a look back a few pages to see a little possibility I mentioned about nulls. The thing about nulls is most 3d guys either use them all the time or not at all on multi part models. Not many use them 'some of the time.

Time to join the dots...

Wayne...

Originally posted by Siddharta
Why are you so nervous suddenly?

not nervous exactly, but i will say i understand this line of inquisition has to happen. i'd have to be blind and dumb not to be keenly aware of why the suspicions are being cast towards me.

You knew, that the pics were their in hi res, otherwise it was useless to do it.

of course i knew there were high res photos behind the free account. so did anyone with the sense to have seen the stupid flickr page.

Originally posted by ALLis0NE
Distraction? Jokes?

no, making light of something rather serious.

If you modified the model, then IT IS YOUR MODEL.

ok, if you want to say it that way.
so do you want to explain why the above view of the same mesh shows
the nubs appearing off center? do you understand? you are
now saying 2 different versions of the model which have the nubs
centered also show the nubs off center when view in perspective?

Or is the navy correct? Daylight savings issues with max? Or what? I think you made a mistake and you are trying to cover it up.

what is it about the path of my learning about max that says i hoaxed?
for now, i'll stick with max is correct with it's daylight system.
but if you would like i will contact autodesk and get confirmation.

Why would someone with your "CGI SKILL" over look simple shadows?

overlooked?
no, more like noted and moved on. perhaps i overthink things and need more confirmation than most.

If I wasn't capable of reading minds by studying reactions, I would almost say you didn't make this hoax.

that's quite a talent. but remind me to not take what you say too seriously, as with this you're 100% incorrect.

It's also quite clear that you take offense when people make fun of your horrible CGI work.

what? and why wouldn't i?

You should of taken your own advice.

what is this supposed to mean, that i'm organelle?
did i warn myself?

Originally posted by Sys_Config
And lucky Sp33 was right there to get the pictures from BJ UCB, he said the pictures had no exif data for stephen, then all of a sudden after sp33 and eleven got it presto, it had exif. This is like magic to me.

well, i got it because my a was\is parked a computer 15-17 hrs a day, how and why would i miss it?
as far the story behind the exif on stevens pictures, it's my understanding that omf admin ended up with them somehow and didn't realize they had them.
good point though, appreciate any info you could provide on this.

@ wayne - yep, you got me. i used a dummy just like any other idiot 3d guy would. i am the hoaxer.


[edit on 11-6-2008 by spf33]

[edit on 11-6-2008 by spf33]

reply to post by the secret web



Yup you are correct, he just proved that your "null object" or "dummy node" explanation for the misalignment of the "nubs" is correct.

b.t.w. "nubs" is what SPF33 calls them when he names his images. Actually his imageshack images says "old nubs" as apposed to "new nubs"? -clue

Looks like SPF33 straightened out the "nubs" before he posted the images again.


"rajoldnubsperspective01ii6.jpg"

[edit on 11-6-2008 by ALLis0NE]

Have you guys been watching the Earthfiles site lately. There's been a few issues with the drones popping up and people are coming forth with their real names and locations.

There's been some testimonies that's offered some explanations to why people think the pics were made using "radiosity" as a rendering type.. specifically there was a description that says the metal seemed to "absorb" the light.

That makes me realize that some of the shadow issues people are having is explained.. though not explained in our normal understanding.

I encourage the reading of the site.
The guy tubing down the river who took some other pics was interesting as well.
I'm curious to the responses..

b

Looks like SPF33 straightened out the "nubs" before he posted the images again.

are you blind? i just screen grabbed from a file dated 7-9-2007.
aligned, the 3d nubs render with the same perspective issues as the photo.

Originally posted by spf33
are you blind? i just screen grabbed from a file dated 7-9-2007.
aligned, the 3d nubs render with the same perspective issues as the photo.

No, I am far from blind. But, I admit that I don't see ANY dates posted anywhere...

Also, I was talking about this image:
img247.imageshack.us...

Looks like they are straight in that image.

I also noticed that very high poly/vertex count you used for the body of the drone. Why would you need such detail for a test model??

Actually, that model looks so misaligned, and so sloppy, that I am sure its the exact model used in all the drone images. That model screams out to me as being "improvised" which would explain the oddness of the shape of the drone. This is why it looks nothing like any other "ufo" anyone has seen, because the modeler just improvised, and made it up as he went along. Usually, really good 3D artists keep their polys/vertex's straight and perfect when they know what they are modeling, but some reason your mesh is very sloppy.

Also, why would you use a "null" or "dummy node"?? The only reason anyone would use that is to control it in a video game, or animation. But, a real professional wouldn't even use multi-piece models, because completely solid models make for much better images and handling. Ever herd of a "boolean" operation?

I think someone needs to do some talking..

[edit on 11-6-2008 by ALLis0NE]

reply to post by Siddharta


I'll just ask Lex myself.

Springer...

Sorry, for quoting myself, but I think this one can be seen in a new light now:

Originally posted by Siddharta

I had missed the new discussion about the perforation over there lately. As I learned, they already did it in June last year and presented than and now again a composition - to my surprise made by spf33, which can be viewed here:

ovnis-usa.com...

Presenting the document like this, hides, what I showed one time over there:

It's all perception. And of course, perception can be manipulated by presentation.

Originally posted by spf33
@ wayne - yep, you got me. i used a dummy just like any other idiot 3d guy would. i am the hoaxer.

Actually, I wouldn't use a dummy. I would just move the Pivot/IK/Link of the object which is way easier than creating a dummy, and making a hierarchy of parts.



But, since you are an amateur, I'm sure you don't know how to use pivots.

Originally posted by ALLis0NE
Looks like they are straight in that image.

they are straight. what are you not understanding here?
they are straight but when viewed at raj's camera angle perspective foreshortening happens. combine that with a host of jpg pixel transformation possibilities on an area that is smaller than the 8x8.
combine that with built in camera distortions...etc.

I also noticed that very high poly/vertex count you used for the body of the drone. Why would you need such detail for a test model??

it's not my fricken model! go look at the models that have been posted.
they are silly high in poly count. i personally don't think i would have use that high a poly count if i built it from scratch.

really good 3D artists keep their polys/vertex's straight and perfect when they know what they are modeling, but some reason your mesh is very sloppy.

agreed. and my meshes are, but the drone model used is not mine.
in later versions i started using simple geometry because i got sick of the slowdowns using the high poly versions.

Also, why would you use a "null" or "dummy node"?? The only reason anyone would use that is to control it in a video game, or animation. But, a real professional wouldn't even use multi-piece models, because completely solid models make for much better images and handling. Ever herd of a "boolean" operation?

you know just enough to be dangerous, don't you?
i used a dummy and parented it to all the drone geometry because i did animate it when doing the shadow studies.

completely solid model...wow...
you have no idea what you are talking about. go over to omf and check out hpo's model, his model is dozens of separate pieces.