[HOAX] Isaac CARET - Drones [HOAX]

Originally posted by LoDGiKaL
Why?? You were right!!!! It does say SaladFingers Hoax...
I already slept!!!

yeah, I know. I think that is a recreation, not an original.



Thats why I retracted my post.

Yeah it is.. So what?
It's good to point that out, before others start claiming that it's a real picture...

There's also an other recreation floating around somewhere. Had Japanese lettering on it. Some guy said that it said: "This is a test" or
something to that effect.

Observation about the drone pictures with the white background and about the lack of shadows if we assume that it isn't cgi (I'm not sure about this issue). These seem like typical product photographs to me, and the lack of shadows suggest that the lighting has been done with something like large softboxes, product photography tent or such. This is the kind of quality a real photographer could aim for, no visible reflections of flashes and minimal shadows.
Personally I use a table that has a white plexi plastic sheet for the table top and it's bent so that it's the background too. With this you can have a studio light shooting trought the plastic upwards and from behind and studiolights on the sides, this setup doesn't produce any shadows.
If this is cgi then this kind of presentation on a white background might be pretty standard practice, cgi experts know that better.

Originally posted by LoDGiKaL
Yeah it is.. So what?

I told you that I needed to sleep.




I had to look at the originals again, to make sure I wasn't dreaming. lol

PART 13

C.G.I CAN'T

Okay. This is one I didn't even want to go into because this topic has reigned this thread, but as part of it, it must be addressed. And since I am expressing viewpoints to all topics in this thread, here we go.

So, so many of you have made claims such as, "it's so easy, of course it's CGI" or "look at those shadows, it's obviously Mental Ray". Yet none of you have provided any evidence that you can create something as realistic looking as what I see with my own two eyes in these photographs. The only one who has come close is saladfingers, and kudos to him on the attempt. But even he would admit the level of detail in those photos is extreme. I have yet to see anyone attempt to produce some vector artwork that resembles the diagram, or some font that resembles this alien code. All I've heard is "I can, I can, I can" when "you can't and you haven't" and you probably won't.

For me to be a graphic artist, I must concede that it can be reproduced with CGI. The extreme level of detail can be made, but it is a lot of work which noone here seems to want to do. All you want to do is moan and complain about it, post your incessant ramblings about it, and be lazy if you indeed posess the talent to re-create it. I know darn well I could never pull something like that off. And once you create it in CGI, then you would have to make a physical model of it, as I have seen no evidence from any CGI images anyone has displayed here that the lighting and shadow similarities are on par. You can purchase items called "Studio In A Box" which include a backdrop, the lighting, and the camera to take product pictures in your office. I know this because I did work for the company I just mentioned.

This sort of project would take so much time and money to pull off, I can't see the rewards of passing off a hoax on people justification for this kind of budget and resources. And viral marketing? It's so unlikely, the odds are staggeringly against it. What type of revenue will this so-called marketing ploy generate for the product? From what I can see, the majority here say they would be pissed off at the company behind it, so that doesn't help their cause any. And in the rare chance an employee working for one of those companies was this good at pulling off a hoax, they should change professions and work for a publishing company and produce a 21st century bible.

Let's change course now, and view this from a position of content. What do we see in those pictures that lend towards a CGI response? Well, none mentioned so far have, not in my opinion anyway, but let me point out some that are questionable - some will raise more speculation, and some may lend towards CGI doubt.

(continued on next post)

PART 14

Let's start with the "pad" arm in the Q4-86 photo 4, the picture with the floating items. If you zoom into this "pad" arm, you will notice something. You will notice that the lighting of the item makes it look translucent. Now look closer, at the lower portion of the arm. You can see the little square with the writing that is behind it. Look at the corner of the square, you can see it through the arm. Now what would cause this to happen? Well, some will say it's a definitive thumbs up for CGI, that they made a mistake. When I first noticed this, I would have agreed. But recently more revelations have unearthed themselves and I try to take everything into account before making any judgment, which is why I have been taking notes all this time until I was ready to finally post my findings and thoughts. If you go to Linda Moulton Howe's site, you will see an interview with a man that lives near Maxwell AFB. He described seeing the drone in two places at once. He couldn't believe what he had seen. It was moving at 2 m.p.h., and as it started to move he saw it in the new location and in the location where it had been hovering. He described as a motion blur. He then said he saw the motion blur move towards the new location, as if it was being sucked into its present location. Well this sounds to me like whatever cloaking method is employed, it can produce some seriously crazy looking things. They could be atmospheric effects, or they could be refractions of light. Since we don't know what this substrate is, we have no way of knowing how it will refract light. In this photo, the device is supposed to be turned on, and if it is, who knows what strange light refractions may result from an anti-gravity field or otherwise. If this is in fact the real deal, this lends evidence to Isaac's claims of it being a holographic substrate of sorts.

I've heard, "the text is inverted, it's a mirror image." Well, that didn't last very long because noone has mentioned it since. If you invert the other half of the image, you will clearly see the shadows of the spaces next to the letters do not match. As far as the writing being inverted on the
other side, so what? You don't know how this device operates, and if the other half is supposed to be symetrical with regard to the written portion, are you going to tell the aliens they don't know what they are doing with regards to their own technology?

I have noticed other things as well, such as the brightness of the letters not being consistant. Look at different objects in different photos. Some of the lighting on some of the letters is brighter than others, but this has nothing at all to do with the position of the lights illuminating the objects. If it did, the brightness of the letters would fade into eachother, but they do not. They stop being as bright immediately following that character. Who knows what strange things these characters do, if they glow, or what their exact function is. We don't even know how the characters were applied to the substrate, if they were carved, painted, etched, fused, melted, etc.

(continued in next post)

PART 15

The last element of the photos I will mention is the white backdrop. Some of you think it is being used because of ease. You think that if there were a real world environment behind it, it would be harder to fake. Well this goes both ways, because there are things about a white backdrop that are
easier, and things about a more detailed environment that are easier. And I know this from working with both. Lighting casts shadows of the environment onto glossy objects, so it would be harder to mimic the refraction of the environment on this generator when in CGI. By the same token, working with white backgrounds can often cast too much lighting refraction and doesn't provide a good source of depth for the image, except for the shadows. I don't know all the specifics of working in a CGI environment, but I'm sure the real CGI experts can fill you in. But if this was a hoax, why would the person not render the objects to make them all float? Why would he want to leave the generator sitting on its side? After all, it does look pretty boring just sitting there on its side while its partners are having all the fun in the air. Wouldn't it be more impactful to make them all float? This is another reason I think it's a geniune photo.

Based on what I've seen here, the CGI guys aren't going to be swayed, and that is not my goal here at all. I am trying to show a different side here, one that might even make the naysayers think a little more about it before shooting it down so quickly. As I've said, I want to believe this is real, and have no conclusive evidence that it is. At the same time, I have no conclusive evidence that it isn't real and nothing said here so far has pointed my thinking towards a different direction. But I am always open to suggestions and ideas, and thinking about subjects like this before opening your mouth too early can only prove useful. There have been so many posts trying to debunk this thing, yet none have. There are highly intelligent people in this forum that are trying very hard to shed factual
light to a story of wonder, but have so far failed. Doesn't that alone say something?

Originally posted by LoDGiKaL

Originally posted by greatlakes

Why?? You were right!!!! It does say SaladFingers Hoax...
I already slept!!!

Yeah isnt that funny, thought I'd post it.

Anyway...the saladfingers model was created in quick fashion, just a rough model, if he spent another few hours on it, maybe even another 1-2 days, he could make something rivaling or exceeding the Isaac CGI model.

Sorry but I have missed your point pjslug. What do you believe this is all about? I don't quite understand your aggressive attack against viral marketing claims.

Somehow it just sounds for me that even you could be part of this viral marketing. Of course you're aint but because of your enthusiastic posting it feels like you try to hide something eh.

Why are some people still speculating as to whether these pictures can be replicated through CGI techniques ?

Even if somebody exactly reproduces all of the pictures presented, and the text documents and schematics, down to the last stray dust molecule or reflected photon, it will not add one iota of weight to any argument about whether the originals are what they are purported to be.

Yes it will show that they could have been created, but to what end ?
Until proven otherwise they could still be something else entirely.

Yes it's all well and good to have a range of opinions and theories but only if they are relevant to the subject. There's plenty of other material and angles that are better explored.

I know I'm not exactly adding much to the debate in terms of info or insight but, for example, for all we know Isaac could have been a cleaner, what better way to hide his identity than make the statements he has, therefore not too much can be read into his covering statements. Isaac is supposedly an alias and in all likelihood a false name, the covering statement could also be all false.

In order to get to the truth I believe we should concentrate on the documents and pictures, material presented in it's supposed original form, no ambiguity or meanings lost in translation, and hope that further documentation follows.

This is probably the most important piece of evidence ever to surface in the ET debate, should it be proven real beyond reasonable doubt.

The information as presented does also tie in exactly to the process used by the military to create applications for ET technology as described by Col. Philip Corso in the book The Day After Roswell.

Oh yes, northwoods. It's all a conspiracy, and I'm involved. I've been involved in every conspiracy since the days of Jesus, Moses even, and I have no plans of stopping anytime soon.

I am energetic and passionate about it. I've seen so many ridiculous and bogus UFO articles out there, and I just have some gut intuition that tells me this is the real deal. I can't explain it, and I don't know why, but I've felt it since I started reading the letter and report. If it was based on the images alone, no, I wouldn't have believed it.

So many people are trying to refute it, shouldn't there be at least one of us who pushes just as hard if not harder to think of all the reasons it could be real? Imagine if we find out it is real, and no attention is paid to it because of all the people who tried to shut it down. If I can contribute to the realization that these objects and documents are factual, do you have any idea how important that is? Only time will tell, and my pursuit will be truth.

At the very least, I hope the military recruits me for a high level security job position, with all the time and effort I've put into these notations and ideas. I'm kidding, Mr. military man. I have no desire to be held to secrecy and work under those conditions, so please don't take me out of my bed in the middle of the night, okay? Thank you so much. You'll never know how much I appreciate it, Mr. military man.

I will start with PART 16 tomorrow. For now, I'm thoroughly exhausted as I have been devoting most of my waking hours to this over the past 72, and have gotten very little sleep.

[edit on 29-6-2007 by pjslug]

Originally posted by pjslug

I am energetic and passionate about it. I've seen so many ridiculous and bogus UFO articles out there, and I just have some gut intuition that tells me this is the real deal. I can't explain it, and I don't know why, but I've felt it since I started reading the letter and report. If it was based on the images alone, no, I wouldn't have believed it.

Exacly the same reason I got involved. Usually you can already smell the BS as soon as your done reading the topic of thread. But for some reason, this one seems .... Different..

Originally posted by northwoods
Sorry but I have missed your point pjslug. What do you believe this is all about? I don't quite understand your aggressive attack against viral marketing claims.

Somehow it just sounds for me that even you could be part of this viral marketing. Of course you're aint but because of your enthusiastic posting it feels like you try to hide something eh.

I believed I had read all posts in this thread, but maybe not. That being the case could you please point me in the direction of a single shred of evidence that points to this being a VMC ?

Evidence please, not "it sounds like the most likely explanation to me", "this symbol here on a piece of artwork only 3 people in the world have seen looks a bit like this scanned hair here" or similar ramblings.

Originally posted by chunder

Evidence please, not "it sounds like the most likely explanation to me", "this symbol here on a piece of artwork only 3 people in the world have seen looks a bit like this scanned hair here" or similar ramblings.

Yeah, would be nice to see some Evidence backing up their claims.

Even better, maybe, if they would realize that it is their own denial of reality making them say these daft things, instead of logic or reasoning...

Exactly, chunder. How do we know that the Halo game logo wasn't thought up because someone saw a picture of a crop circle or witnessed a craft in the sky? I don't see how people could disregard that and turn this into an automatic hoax.

And that's exactly why I didn't rush into posting anything. I said to myself, "Are they done yet?" I wanted to wait until they had a chance to go back and forth with eachother and get all that CGI banter out of the way before I really said anything. After all that dust settled, maybe the people who were really interested in this would look at what was presented to us in a brighter light. And it seems that it will now happen that way, which is wonderful.

Whoever Isaac is, and Chad, Rajman, etc., I commend and thank them, if this is legitimate.

Originally posted by chunder
I believed I had read all posts in this thread, but maybe not. That being the case could you please point me in the direction of a single shred of evidence that points to this being a VMC ?

Evidence please, not "it sounds like the most likely explanation to me", "this symbol here on a piece of artwork only 3 people in the world have seen looks a bit like this scanned hair here" or similar ramblings.

I don't say that I have evidence about something. This whole issue is right now in believing-state since there's no HARD evidence for and against of anything.

So, while we have no evidence or not even piece of evidence about VMC or ET origin or total HOAX, all theory are equally false. All material, pictures, scanned documents and explanations are just assumptions not evidence.

That's why, we have only our believs. And please guys hold by your believes, it's only thing that keeps discussion rolling.

This is just an idea thats buzzing round my head along with a few others, but does anyone else think that maybe this is a lure to get chad and the rest of the witnesses to come forward?

Isaac does ask in his letter for them to contact him, as he has something he could tell them I just can't think what that could be!

I prefer to wait and see what happens over the coming weeks and months, rather than frantically try to create a convincing CGI render, and then claim that all of the photos are fake.

The latter proves absolutely nothing. If you want to expose a hoax, then you have to expose the original photos and/or documentation as fraudulent.



[edit on 29-6-2007 by Mogget]

Originally posted by Whiterabbit29
This is just an idea thats buzzing round my head along with a few others, but does anyone else think that maybe this is a lure to get chad and the rest of the witnesses to come forward?

Isaac does ask in his letter for them to contact him, as he has something he could tell them I just can't think what that could be!

As far as a lure, no, not at all. What would he tell them? Well, he might tell them the same thing he showed us if they haven't seen it by now, but my guess is that he is going to tell them to be very careful with regards to the crafts and not to try to bring them down or do anything stupid if they see them again. He will probably tell them that they contain awesome powers that the people couldn't protect themselves against if they tried to capture one of them. He might also tell them to watch their backs for who might be watching them. If they are involved for scouting, as some of those people felt (they got eerie feelings of being watched), then they should especially be cautious. You never know who could be waiting around the corner to pop one in you, or haul you off to some place (as sci-fi as that sounds) when you have hovering craft in your front yard.

Another model from saladfingers, again quickly thrown together, shaded black and rendered.

No. That is not my point. If credible witnesses come forward; multiple credible witnesses, then it is fair to believe. But all we have are documents and images that can easily be faked. More to the point, they look CG. I wouldn't be doing all this if I didn't feel so strongly. I'm trying to keep minds open to the realistic possibilities!

After reading 15 pages of 'Oh my god! This can't be CG because these documents and pictures have turned up' Non believers go elsewhere, I felt it needed grounding. More so because the images that came with the documents were less convincing than the RAJ images.

I mean forget the CG side of things. My main point that hit me when I saw the documents was that the company was called CARET! Why does no one respond to this?

Cheers, Kris

[edit on 6/29/2007 by greatlakes]