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: 38
185
<< 35  36  37    39  40  41 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 29 2007 @ 10:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by chunder
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.


Kind of like making a crude crop circle with a board and a rope and saying that proves all crop circles are fake.




posted on Jun, 29 2007 @ 10:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by pjslug
The majority of people so far have said it is a hoax. They say prove it's real. I say prove it isn't real. If it were so easy to debunk, it would have been debunked by now. Innocent until proven guilty, and noone on this forum (and I mean NOONE) has proven any elements of Isaac's story, report, diagrams, and photos to be fake. What they have proven is that they know how to makes fools of themselves with all the heresay.


Sorry, but that sounds just plain silly. In a COURT OF LAW where the outcome is very important, do people have to prove guilt. Why should we automatically believe him. I could post made-up documents that gave me rights to the USA as its sole owner and king and in your opinion, I'd have to be proven wrong after I could take the land and titles since I *might* be telling the truth?

HE needs to prove to us with HIS information that its true. WE CAN'T by the nature of the beast pop round his house and look ourselves, or wring PACL and ask can we? Journalists who investigate such stories can only go on hunches and information provided by those who give it. That's why they INVESTIGATE the evidence, not immediately believe them, print the story and then publish a 'oops we were wrong' afterwards (although even journalists aren't infallable).

If he posts some credible documentation that involves more than a few mock-ups and non-technical data, I'd be off the fence quicker than if I'd been hit by a tornado. So far, nothing proves either way, but people are posting on what they have either discovered or have some knowledge about. OK everyone thinks they're an expert on the 'net, that's a given, but some of the posts are making some headway, we can't just dismiss everyone out of hand.

I just want to see or ask:

1. Some TECHNICAL documents that actually involve numbers and formula that could prove the project exists, not a TPS report that gives me some absctract into the project.
2. IF the spikey ball is the KEY to the whole thing, why do most of the drones have NO WERE that it would fit? And WHY does it have no scale? I admit if you were posting pictures to non-engineers you'd probably just take a picture without a rule, but anyone who's worked near anything scientific or such would know the first thing anyone would do would be to take a picture of the thing next to a rule. Why duplicate pictures if that one would suffice for any subsequent reports?
3. If the documents are from the 80s, and he's kept them hidden in a shoebox in the attic away from the FBI, why are the colour prints not somewhat yellowed, given that there was very little knowedge about acid-archival properties at the time?
4. And why, can't he tell us the name of the supposed cover company, that is probably now long gone? Even Bob Lazar mentioned EG&G which gave him CREDIT to be believed. It won't given that he's made himself 'un-findable' be of any worry to him.
5. Why, given he is investigating the language, does he have no papers that try and EXPLAIN what the symbols mean or do? If he needs to know and that's his field of expertise (and he could only smuggle out stuff he could get to) why does he not have any to show us? Surely if you leak, you leak it all at once, not some generic wishwash and then wait and see if people enjoy it.

I'm on the fence ATM, but the onus is on HIM not me to prove the point. Sorry, you sound like a government agent who's trying to make us out to be the bad man.



posted on Jun, 29 2007 @ 10:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by greatlakes
Well some on this thread have said they really havent seen someone make a CGI model similar to the ISAAC ones, sooooo.

Its a good comparison of whats possible by us amateurs with limited software, time and resources.

Here's one rendered like that of the objects sitting on the cement tarmac of Isaacs...



Ok, lets try and get past this CGI or not CGI point.

I can guarantee that given the time, money and expertise I can create a real life, real size model, of any object pictured.
I can also guarantee that given the same, I can employ a professional photographer that can exactly duplicate the lighting and background etc of the pics provided.
The picture will be identical, in all respects, and will be captured on film, the negatives made available for anyone to test, the outcome being that the pictures are of a real object.

Does that mean the claims are true ? Obviously no.

That being the case, how come, if you argue the opposite, that the pictures can be faked using CGI methods, that if that is the case, obviously the pictures are faked.

You can't. Full stop, please stop posting, get over it.

If you can provide evidence that the only way these pictures can have been produced is through CGI then you will have a point.


I have to say that I am new to this type of forum. I do take part in a few other forums, totally unrelated to this kind of subject matter. In those, if you post an opinion, then fair enough. If you post total BS you are told by the next person or it is removed by the moderators.
Reading what ATS is supposed to be about and trying to reconcile that with the previous 30 odd pages is difficult.



posted on Jun, 29 2007 @ 10:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by pjslug
Well, let's assume the engineers they have hired over the past 60 years haven't been able to reverse engineer this alien technology. How would they put their feelers out for potential employees? They aren't going to post an ad on Monster.com that says "UNCLE SAM NEEDS UFOLOGIST ENGINEERS TO WORK ON BLACK OPS PROJECTS". They would put their feelers out by creating a UFO sensation in places where they know ufologists go. They will wait for people to post their theories and ideas, their thoughts on the subject matter, and then if they see some that they like, they will locate you - you don't locate them.



Uhh, NO! I can relate my story as to how I got into a specialist project, and anyone who's ever been chosen would give a similar story I'm sure.

Either you know someone who already works at an installation, or you have family ties and or knowledge of the ideas and can therefore be already partially vetted by association with another who has passed (the government is generally fairly set in their ways and mostly picks people who have been in service as a family for generations) or you have been hired by a front organisation and vetted and can therefore be trusted.

NO GOVERNMENT AGENCY would hire ANYONE relatively involved with the UFO community BECAUSE OF THE LACK OF TRUST. If I found you posting theories on a UFO board, how would I trust you enough that if I hired you, you'd not get as much information as possible, and then run off with it? Just doesn't happen sorry.

Most spies (at least in the UK) are hand picked by vetting agents and informants who visit places like Oxford and Cambridge and choose the top picks of that years graduating class with fields of expertise that are relevant to any missions they might have currently open. They then get vetted while working for some cover organisation, and if they fail to pass any (usually secret background checks so they don't even know yet they're being picked) they are generally shunted of to a more legitimate, yet still generally associated with government contracts scientific organisation in the private sector, like say BAE or Marconi or whatever etc.

Those who pass are taken deeper, but still generally only work on minor projects as more and more vetting is done. Until you get in fairly deep, do they ever reveal who you work for really. And before you ask, much of this is released and or public knowledge. Most people who work in Whitehall are lowly government staff who just sit in the same building.



posted on Jun, 29 2007 @ 10:37 AM
link   
Im embarrassed for the UFO community right now, you guys are being played..HARD...

Whats funny is I see these images posted on other forums and most people see right thru it.

[edit on 29-6-2007 by wildone106]



posted on Jun, 29 2007 @ 10:47 AM
link   
I'm embarrassed with how violent some people are reacting to the due diligence of people on this board looking at all the evidence and continuing to pursue an interesting and fun story.

Yeah, these images are most likely faked. The story is most likely made up. But its fun to review it and learn from it. Honestly, this is one of the more fun an intriguing stories I have come across in a long time. Maybe because I see many parallels on how it would really happen if it were true or if this somehow amazingly becomes true.



posted on Jun, 29 2007 @ 10:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by wildone106
Im embarrassed for the UFO community right now, you guys are being played..HARD...

Whats funny is I see these images posted on other forums and most people see right thru it too...


You are entitled to your opinion. If lots of other people agree with it then that is their choice, a majority doesn't make it correct.

What I find funny is that you have no rational response to my earlier comments on the validity or otherwise of any of your findings.

Instead of being embarrassed for others and trying to foist your opinion on this thread, how about responding to the queries that have been raised about the validity of your argument.



posted on Jun, 29 2007 @ 10:50 AM
link   

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!


I like that, that seems... absolutely nefarious and probable. If I were the guys in charge and say I'd leaked something that perhaps HADN'T made it onto the net yet because the people who were leaking it hadn't worked up courage but the object had accidentally been seen in public, so putting both together that'd be a no-no...

Yes, if someone does have something and someone's seen it, that seems very likely that a government insider would 'leak' out absolutely no information, but with enough substance to entice people, like a Venus Fly Trap or an angler fish. I mean, just WHAT does that weird spiral document help anyone understand, except that the writing you've seen, someone knows more about, and if you'd seen the flying doohicky you'd probably want to know more from someone 'in the know' who's 'on your side'. They could then be picked up and 'suggestively' quitened without too much time and money. Why look for them if you can bring them to you. That smacks of so much truth, I think I broke my jaw just reading it.



posted on Jun, 29 2007 @ 10:52 AM
link   
Yea I understand, but there's been more than few people with some expertise in CG who have come on here with very good reason's why its a hoax, yet people still make up baloney excuses for the hoaxer while completely ignoring some very compelling reason's why its not real. And there are far more Con's than pro's. From the story right thru to the images.
Ultimately its doing far more harm than good and if/when it come's out officially these are fakes (either by the hoaxer themselves or being caught by some other method) its gonna be a big fat kick to the gut..I can't wait to see it.




Originally posted by build319
I'm embarrassed with how violent some people are reacting to the due diligence of people on this board looking at all the evidence and continuing to pursue an interesting and fun story.

Yeah, these images are most likely faked. The story is most likely made up. But its fun to review it and learn from it. Honestly, this is one of the more fun an intriguing stories I have come across in a long time. Maybe because I see many parallels on how it would really happen if it were true or if this somehow amazingly becomes true.



posted on Jun, 29 2007 @ 11:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by geemony
What Do Dragonfly Drones Monitor?

When I saw this thing, it was like, ‘Oh, my God!’ It was staring at me!! It just gave me the heebie jeebies.

SO YOU HAD THE FEELING THAT THIS MIGHT ACTUALLY BE MONITORING YOU SPECIFICALLY?

Exactly.



As freaky as this is gonna sound, I have something odd that happened after reading and replying to this thread yesterday...

Last night in bed I kept hearing weird # outside. First it started raining, whole hot # in a handbasket sort of rain, pouring, and then a dog started howling like it'd caught its knackers in a car door. Just after this I hear 'window open'. I thought it was next door so I just ignored it, but it did sound EXACTLY like the really old, 1920s metal frame window we have downstairs which creaks like a bastd when you open it and close it, even the handle makes a grinding noise its so old and painted.

So, I gets up, and go poke my father - suddenly it all stops, nothing, NO RAIN, NO DOG. He moans at me for waking him up and goes back to bed, and so did I. Nothing ever come up the stairs, so I guess the window was the neighbours, but bloody hell!

About twenty minutes later I hear what I have to call the most weird buzzing noise I've ever heard in my life. It sounded partially like a wounded bee, crossed with an electrical transformer, and a generic 'electric hum'. Again, I poke him and he wakes up - NOTHING.

I'm sorry to say that while I believe in UFOs and the rest, I'm not in any way going to open the curtains and poke my head out or ever going to get a camera and turn the lights on. Sorry, I've seen too many movies were people say "That suspicious deathly scream, which was was it coming from? I'm going to investigate". I WANT to believe, NOT be probed by a fugly grey mutant dwarf. Belief is one thing, actual physical anal probing proof when its happening to me, is another.

Makes me shudder just to think about it to be honest. I've kept well away from doors and windows all day truth be told.

After the second time, it did it again just once more with teh same results (poke "huh, would you stop poking me, I can't hear a thing!"... silence).

Weird, and probably just conjectual, but IMO odd.



posted on Jun, 29 2007 @ 11:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by wildone106
Yea I understand, but there's been more than few people with some expertise in CG who have come on here with very good reason's why its a hoax, yet people still make up baloney excuses for the hoaxer while completely ignoring some very compelling reason's why its not real. And there are far more Con's than pro's. From the story right thru to the images.
Ultimately its doing far more harm than good and if/when it come's out officially these are fakes (either by the hoaxer themselves or being caught by some other method) its gonna be a big fat kick to the gut..I can't wait to see it.




Originally posted by build319
I'm embarrassed with how violent some people are reacting to the due diligence of people on this board looking at all the evidence and continuing to pursue an interesting and fun story.

Yeah, these images are most likely faked. The story is most likely made up. But its fun to review it and learn from it. Honestly, this is one of the more fun an intriguing stories I have come across in a long time. Maybe because I see many parallels on how it would really happen if it were true or if this somehow amazingly becomes true.


I will repeat what I said.

Will you please answer the queries raised about the validity or otherwise of your argument and it's ultimate effect on whether or not the evidence currently provided is real.



posted on Jun, 29 2007 @ 11:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by wildone106
Im embarrassed for the UFO community right now, you guys are being played..HARD...

Whats funny is I see these images posted on other forums and most people see right thru it.




Yeah I totaly agree with you. Ive seen way better looking UFO photos that have been passed as CGI by the community near instantly, yet on this one they have a defualt render, with defualt lighting, with default shading, and a default white background, and they STILL think it is real. It's like right in front of their face, and the CG guys all know it.

This is one of those very odd times the smoking gun is actually handed to the community and completly ignored..

Seriously people, the ENTIRE THING is CGI and you are all being fooled at a scale so large you can't believe that its fake. This is a great example how to brainwash people to believe something by simply making it complex. Because surely, ultra complex things CANT be fake. LOL

Every single photo I have seen screams CGI, its just so simply debunkable its laughable that its still going...



posted on Jun, 29 2007 @ 11:12 AM
link   


I like that, that seems... absolutely nefarious and probable. If I were the guys in charge and say I'd leaked something that perhaps HADN'T made it onto the net yet because the people who were leaking it hadn't worked up courage but the object had accidentally been seen in public, so putting both together that'd be a no-no...

Yes, if someone does have something and someone's seen it, that seems very likely that a government insider would 'leak' out absolutely no information, but with enough substance to entice people, like a Venus Fly Trap or an angler fish. I mean, just WHAT does that weird spiral document help anyone understand, except that the writing you've seen, someone knows more about, and if you'd seen the flying doohicky you'd probably want to know more from someone 'in the know' who's 'on your side'. They could then be picked up and 'suggestively' quitened without too much time and money. Why look for them if you can bring them to you. That smacks of so much truth, I think I broke my jaw just reading it.


Perhaps even after 20 odd years they haven't figured this thing out yet?, so they could also be looking to get some more information on these objects. This could be done without ever revealing who they really are. I'm sure they must have all kinds of questions, I dunno I'm purely speculating, I still haven't decided either way yet, as its to soon, it does kinda fit though.



posted on Jun, 29 2007 @ 11:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by 11 11

Originally posted by wildone106
Im embarrassed for the UFO community right now, you guys are being played..HARD...

Whats funny is I see these images posted on other forums and most people see right thru it.




Yeah I totaly agree with you. Ive seen way better looking UFO photos that have been passed as CGI by the community near instantly, yet on this one they have a defualt render, with defualt lighting, with default shading, and a default white background, and they STILL think it is real. It's like right in front of their face, and the CG guys all know it.

This is one of those very odd times the smoking gun is actually handed to the community and completly ignored..

Seriously people, the ENTIRE THING is CGI and you are all being fooled at a scale so large you can't believe that its fake. This is a great example how to brainwash people to believe something by simply making it complex. Because surely, ultra complex things CANT be fake. LOL

Every single photo I have seen screams CGI, its just so simply debunkable its laughable that its still going...


Ok, I will repeat what I said earlier to you also.

Will you please answer the queries that have been raised about the validity of your argument.



posted on Jun, 29 2007 @ 11:18 AM
link   
YES exactly!!! Its PAINFULLY obvious C'MON GUYS--- Im shaking my head at the audacity of Chad/Isaac and thoroughly ashamed of people like Linda Howe jumped all over this without researching it further..Im a UFO fanatic and would love for this to be real but its slapping me in the face with every fiber of knowledge I have about the art of computer graphics having worked in it for over 10 years myself. The renders are NOTHING REMARKABLE when it comes to modeling & lighting and as you say its even the fricken DEFAULT settings makes it all the more ridiculous.

They should have just made the real model at least it'd look more authentic than this piece of..uhm..





Yeah I totaly agree with you. Ive seen way better looking UFO photos that have been passed as CGI by the community near instantly, yet on this one they have a defualt render, with defualt lighting, with default shading, and a default white background, and they STILL think it is real. It's like right in front of their face, and the CG guys all know it.

This is one of those very odd times the smoking gun is actually handed to the community and completly ignored..

Seriously people, the ENTIRE THING is CGI and you are all being fooled at a scale so large you can't believe that its fake. This is a great example how to brainwash people to believe something by simply making it complex. Because surely, ultra complex things CANT be fake. LOL

Every single photo I have seen screams CGI, its just so simply debunkable its laughable that its still going...



posted on Jun, 29 2007 @ 11:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by chunder
Will you please answer the queries that have been raised about the validity of your argument.


They show us a default render! Some odd reason you people still think it is real... The photo that has the object and the white background, is a default render using default settings on a default 3D rendering software

The answer is right there, under your nose.



posted on Jun, 29 2007 @ 11:22 AM
link   
There is absolutely nothing wrong with working this thing to conclusion. The more we investigate and analyze the more knowledge that's under our belts for next time. When you get something elaborate like this it's not like one of the many run of the mill deals we see here that can just be cast off.

To just accept it as a hoax and ignore the rest is not very thorough IMO. Lets find out all the reasons behind it and techniques used. Shoot it could even help a CGI person to improve their own skills.

Shame on those that just want to drop it, I'm embarrassed for you.



posted on Jun, 29 2007 @ 11:23 AM
link   
Chunder, while I am no expert at CGI, I've played enough games and watched enough movies (and used enough packages in schools or at home) to see that it IS suspicious that the default white background and default blue-grey shadow is almost exactly the same on the renders as it is on a printed photo from a report.

If someone mailed you a copy of a renderer and you opened it and looked at an image in exactly the same setting (ON DEFAULT AS THE PACKAGE SHIPS) would it make it any more believeable to you? You seem to want to argue regardless and its distracting that you're posting the question AND a huge chunk of quotes multiple times. It add's nothing to the thread, either you can see it or you can't but EITHER WAY, it could be a mock-up of a real object in CGI for scientists to experiment on the way it fits together, etc, so its a mute point.

EDIT: I apologise if I've mistaken your questions and someone elses together, if you can see the thing as a default background, please accept my apologies. If not, see above.


[edit on 29-6-2007 by ejsaunders]



posted on Jun, 29 2007 @ 11:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by wildone106
YES exactly!!! Its PAINFULLY obvious C'MON GUYS--- Im shaking my head at the audacity of Chad/Isaac and thoroughly ashamed of people like Linda Howe jumped all over this without researching it further..Im a UFO fanatic and would love for this to be real but its slapping me in the face with every fiber of knowledge I have about the art of computer graphics having worked in it for over 10 years myself. The renders are NOTHING REMARKABLE when it comes to modeling & lighting and as you say its even the fricken DEFAULT settings makes it all the more ridiculous.

They should have just made the real model at least it'd look more authentic than this piece of..uhm..





Yeah I totaly agree with you. Ive seen way better looking UFO photos that have been passed as CGI by the community near instantly, yet on this one they have a defualt render, with defualt lighting, with default shading, and a default white background, and they STILL think it is real. It's like right in front of their face, and the CG guys all know it.

This is one of those very odd times the smoking gun is actually handed to the community and completly ignored..

Seriously people, the ENTIRE THING is CGI and you are all being fooled at a scale so large you can't believe that its fake. This is a great example how to brainwash people to believe something by simply making it complex. Because surely, ultra complex things CANT be fake. LOL

Every single photo I have seen screams CGI, its just so simply debunkable its laughable that its still going...

All well and good, but will you answer the queries that have been raised about the validity of your argument.



posted on Jun, 29 2007 @ 11:25 AM
link   
*sigh* read back its been said by me and many others, many times...




I will repeat what I said.

Will you please answer the queries raised about the validity or otherwise of your argument and it's ultimate effect on whether or not the evidence currently provided is real.



new topics

top topics



 
185
<< 35  36  37    39  40  41 >>

log in

join