[HOAX] Isaac CARET - Drones [HOAX]

Thank you again SPF33 , Ididnt have that count, as I do get lazy, I have Ivos, and ACs, My own, but yours are so much more "weighty" , and I needed to get as many of the ohers together too. So I needed something recent. I did have one ofside question, an aesthetics one I guess. Have you noted any kind of religious effect/design that is familar to you or flagged you in some way. like lets say Urantian, Raelian, Scientolgy, even Levyatan, an xian offshoot like that Tony Savo , who did the Isaac Caret server, in Oregon called We are One. . I dont mean like The jesus holding a little sheep, that would be rather obvious, but lines, , symbols in either lap or craft. But as an artist you'd notice immediately or soon therafter.
I really dont have any more questions, its just nice having you here to enhance the discussion.
I hope you believe that.
Cheers



[edit on 8-7-2008 by Sys_Config]

Originally posted by spf33
well given the subject matter and the history of alleged govt cover ups toward the e.t. possibilities, is it any wonder i wish to make damn sure the drones don't get disinfo'ed out of existence? that's one of the reasons behind my efforts aside from all things i've mentioned along the way.

That is the point where I am a naysayer. And where have you been before May 2007?

Originally posted by ALLis0NE

Right, I believe it is CG and I think the edge gives it away.. imho

Originally posted by spf33
but seen as purely created imagery i think the knife image and the a1 image are very close artistic skill level wise.

Even if I'm wrong and the knife is real, the rotorooter is beyond the edge ever imagined in any knife..

filigree, Japanese.. you name it..

[edit on 8-7-2008 by tomiuk]

Originally posted by Siddharta

Originally posted by spf33
well given the subject matter and the history of alleged govt cover ups toward the e.t. possibilities, is it any wonder i wish to make damn sure the drones don't get disinfo'ed out of existence? that's one of the reasons behind my efforts aside from all things i've mentioned along the way.

That is the point where I am a naysayer. And where have you been before May 2007?

Hmm gee wiz sid I see he joined ATS May 18, the friday before Raj did the Woo Woo Pix , and joined OMF May 23, and I see a few autodesk font probs in 2006, some game stuff, but no Lets fight the power ufo paranormal or ufology, ! groups before that. before May. . That is very Peculiar for a ufo advocate. I thought there would be at least something with getofftheplanet, but thats like fusion art and game related. But no out on the western front for ufology .
well what do you say SPF33. That is peculiar.

Originally posted by spf33

since we know that isaac must have scanned real photos, or at least scanned scans to get all the jpgs online.

Hi SP, just the once according to the Isaac documentation as it states that:

Wrote by Isaac

With this initial letter I have attached high resolution scans of the following:
[snip]
Scans of the original photographs used in that report, since the photocopies obscure most of the details.

That’s of course if you take whoever wrote it at their word…..

Cheers.

Originally posted by Sys_Config
Have you noted any kind of religious effect/design that is familair...as an artist you'd notice immediately or soon therafter.

interesting question that i will think about.

i'm not one who is into organized religion so off the top of my head the only couple of religious things i've noticed as they relate to isaac and the drones are just some of the old oil paintings from 1400 and 1500's that show objects in the sky that are reminiscent of the drone shape.

and that golden staff thing that the pope holds, someone posted it not too long ago.

Originally posted by spf33
my first instinct is to suggest the possibilty of color shifts due to scanner issues,
since we know that isaac must have scanned real photos, or at least scanned scans to get all the jpgs online.

SPF33, I don't think you understand how scanners work. They use light, to reflect light, then it is captured into an array of CCD's. Exactly like a camera with a flash. There is no reason for a scanner to mistake a grayscale shadow, and turn it blue. There is absolutly no reason for a color change. Also, scanners defualt to grayscale when they can not pick up a color. There is no reason to go from grayscale to blue. However it would be plausible if it went from blue to grayscale. So your scanner explaination is very weak, if not completly wrong.

Originally posted by spf33
but instead i will ask you what causes a colored cast shadow in these real photo examples...well, in the top 4 at least.

I did a color sample of each images background, and their shadows.
img262.imageshack.us...

It shows that image 1, 2, and 3 have completely white backgrounds, and that image 4 has a shade of blue background.

It also shows that the shadows of 1, 2, and 3 are almost perfectly grayscale and are not even close to Isaac's pig. When the Red, Blue, and Green values are all equal, it means it is grayscale from white to gray to black, and contain no color.

The analysis also shows that image 4 has a shaded blue shadow as well. If I had to give an opinion, I would say images 1 and 2 are real, image 3 is borderline and I am not sure it is real or fake, but image 4 appears really fake to me. I would really like to see the source of these images, and I would like to be proven wrong. Can you show the source of these images?

Now, I think these following images are very misleading:
img262.imageshack.us...

Not only does this fool the general public, but it seems like a deliberate attempt to fool people. The images have been digitally manipulated using computer generated filters/functions.

Every image expert knows that when you have a digital image, the pixels you see are what you get. You can NOT run computer calculated functions on an image and expect it to uncover any hidden data. There is no hidden data.

As a software engineer by hobby, I know exactly how it works. I myself have written programs that open, manipulate, and compress and save digital images. I know for a fact that when you open a digital image, a small section of random access memory(RAM) is allocated for the pixel data in the image to be stored into. Once the image data is in the memory, you then can use human created functions/cacluations/equations to manipulate the data. It is completly unnatural. In most cases the program will search the image pixel by pixel for a certain color sample range in R.G.B. value. Then according the the person that programmed the function, and or according to what the computer calculates, the image will then be manipulated.

The above example is exactly why running functions in image editing software does NOT prove anything. You are manipulating the image, nothing more, nothing less. You are NOT uncovering "blue" in this case, you are actually creating the blue, to help your argeument. That is very misleading.

Originally posted by Sys_Config

Originally posted by Siddharta

Originally posted by spf33
well given the subject matter and the history of alleged govt cover ups toward the e.t. possibilities, is it any wonder i wish to make damn sure the drones don't get disinfo'ed out of existence? that's one of the reasons behind my efforts aside from all things i've mentioned along the way.

That is the point where I am a naysayer. And where have you been before May 2007?

Hmm gee wiz sid I see he joined ATS May 18, the friday before Raj did the Woo Woo Pix , and joined OMF May 23, and I see a few autodesk font probs in 2006, some game stuff, but no Lets fight the power ufo paranormal or ufology, ! groups before that. before May. . That is very Peculiar for a ufo advocate. I thought there would be at least something with getofftheplanet, but thats like fusion art and game related. But no out on the western front for ufology .
well what do you say SPF33. That is peculiar.

i'm sorry i don't follow what is being discussed here. am i being accused again?

to answer your question, sidd, about where i was before 2007, like i said, if the drones had come out in 2006 i would have been there. i've never seen ufo photos that compare to the drones before 2007. it's a combination of things really, like my personal skill and knowledge level, my current workload, etc. had the drones photos come out in 1997 i wouldn't have nearly the depth of knowledge to speak as confidently to the technical issues involved.

Honestly, this is the first time i've ever heard of anybody believing this was real.

The first time i saw these images, when they first came out, i looked through them and right away shouted hoax. Though, honestly, i'm a little surprised taht they're CGI. I thought they were just thrown together scraps of whatever and hung in the air, or given a motor and flown.

The fact that people believed this kind of confuses me.

Originally posted by ALLis0NE
If I had to give an opinion, I would say images 1 and 2 are real, image 3 is borderline and I am not sure it is real or fake, but image 4 appears really fake to me. I would really like to see the source of these images, and I would like to be proven wrong. Can you show the source of these images?

man, turn down the paranoia a notch, will ya?

all the images are real photos and were found using the search term
"light box" from picturesandbox.com and flickrleech.net

You are NOT uncovering "blue" in this case, you are actually creating the blue, to help your argeument. That is very misleading.

all i did was tweak the brightness and contrast.

Spf! I thought we had that behind us!

Not every question is an accusation!

It's night again here. So I say: Good night!

Originally posted by stonespiral
Honestly, this is the first time i've ever heard of anybody believing this was real.

The first time i saw these images, when they first came out, i looked through them and right away shouted hoax. Though, honestly, i'm a little surprised taht they're CGI. I thought they were just thrown together scraps of whatever and hung in the air, or given a motor and flown.

The fact that people believed this kind of confuses me.

Yeah, you say it just like that! And this is my problem with this thing.

Originally posted by spf33
man, turn down the paranoia a notch, will ya?

Paranoia? I just gave you my honest opinion on the digitaly manipulated images you provided.

Originally posted by spf33
all the images are real photos and were found using the search term
"light box" from picturesandbox.com and flickrleech.net

How does that prove that images are real? I am an image analysis expert by hobby, and it is my opinion that image 3 is a possible computer generated image. Also, I think that image 4 is CGI as well. This does not help your argument at all.

Originally posted by spf33
all i did was tweak the brightness and contrast.

Exactly, all you did was digitally manipulate it to support your argument.

Originally posted by ALLis0NE
How does that prove that images are real?

man, you are a piece of work.

i didn't say anything about real.

here are the unaltered photos

i was merely answering your earlier questions:

"Anyway, can I ask, how often do you see blue shadows? Especialy on a white background? How do you create blue shadows in a real life enviornment? "





[edit on 8-7-2008 by spf33]

Originally posted by spf33
man, you are a piece of work.

I know this wasn't a compliment, but I will pretend it was so we can avoid my anger issue.

Originally posted by spf33
i didn't say anything about real.

SPF, my main question was this:

Originally posted by ALLis0NE
How do you create blue shadows in a real life enviornment? "

You then proceed to show me misleading images that you digitally manipulated, and, which I believe are CGI and not real. That is why I asked this:

Originally posted by ALLis0NE
If I had to give an opinion, I would say images 1 and 2 are real, image 3 is borderline and I am not sure it is real or fake, but image 4 appears really fake to me. I would really like to see the source of these images, and I would like to be proven wrong. Can you show the source of these images?

The reason I asked for the source of the images, was to find out if they are real, which corisponds with my original question about real life enviornment.

You didn't provide links to the source, instead you decided to make me search for them. You also are now avoiding the conflict of them being real or not...

Originally posted by spf33
i didn't say anything about real.

Full circle....


[edit on 8-7-2008 by ALLis0NE]

Originally posted by ALLis0NE

I suggest that the objects are photographed using artificial light. The light source can be warm toned or more of a cold blue tone and anything inbetween based on the decisions of the photographer.

[edit on 8-7-2008 by tomiuk]

I also wanted to add, you said this:

Originally posted by spf33
but instead i will ask you what causes a colored cast shadow in these real photo examples...well, in the top 4 at least.

REAL PHOTO EXAMPLES. You yourself called them real.