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: 39
185
<< 36  37  38    40  41  42 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 29 2007 @ 11:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by ejsaunders
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.


I'm quoting other peoples comments in their entireity so no-one can claim anything is taken out of context.

I am new to this forum so if I am not supposed to do that please accept my apologies and advise me on the way things should be done.

I will not argue regardless, I will argue until someone proves or convinces me otherwise.

I am sorry but I don't understand what you are saying about mailing me a copy of the renderer, please could you expand on this.

Otherwise you actually appear to be agreeing with me that it matters not whether or not these pictures can be replicated by CGI means ?


[edit on 29-6-2007 by chunder]




posted on Jun, 29 2007 @ 11:31 AM
link   
I can tell you quite honestly that that last attempt from greatlakes is obvious CGI. That's the difference that I am noticing, every attempted CGI on this thread has been easily identified as such. That's what makes this case more compelling, if the perpetrators are using CGI then they are obviously very, very good.

No offense to GL or others that do CGI as I respect your talent.



posted on Jun, 29 2007 @ 11:33 AM
link   
Couldn't help noticing a couple statements he gave on the site (emphasis is mine):

"Why we were given this technology has never been clear to me, but it's responsible for a lot. "

and

"I can assure you that most (and in my opinion all) incidents of UFO crashes or that kind of thing had more to do with our meddling with extremely powerful technology at an inopportune time than it did mechanical failure on their part. Trust me, those things don't fail unless something even more powerful than them makes them fail (intentionally or not)."

So... is he saying that something that we would have in our possession is more powerful than a UFO craft....? He says that we were given the technology... but what ET in their right mind would even give us something like that to begin with...????
I've always heard just the opposite. Wouldn't that be like an adult handing a power saw over to a baby??

Not saying it's a hoax or not... and maybe he's just not very good at expressing himself in writing... but I thought those statements were just a little strange and contradictory. They didn't sit right with me. I don't know about the images... they might be for real... but this part of the story seems a little odd to me, could be just me though.

S

edited for my typo! Oopsie LOL


[edit on 29-6-2007 by Sunalei]



posted on Jun, 29 2007 @ 11:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by Sunalei
maybe he's just not very good at expressing himself in writing


I believe he may be trying to say an even more powerful group of aliens may be shooting down these ships.



posted on Jun, 29 2007 @ 11:44 AM
link   
Yes, sorry Chunder, it appears that I mixed up your comments and questions with someone elses in the reply you made. Please see my edit to that post for my pre-emptive apology.

Sorry.



posted on Jun, 29 2007 @ 11:45 AM
link   
Hi Wildone,

I'm not entirely clear on what you are saying as it looks like some quotes didn't work.

However, what is clear from the sigh and comments is that you don't get it.

Yes you keep trying to foist your opinion on this thread. I have raised an argument that questions the validity of everything you have said.

I would appreciate your response to that argument.



posted on Jun, 29 2007 @ 11:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by Sunalei

"I can assure you that most (and in my opinion all) incidents of UFO crashes or that kind of thing had more to do with our meddling with extremely powerful technology at an inopportune time than it did mechanical failure on their part. Trust me, those things don't fail unless something even more powerful than them makes them fail (intentionally or not)."



Very good observation. My take on it is a little different though.

The recent HOAXER, "Ghost Raven" had a tale to tell us about the USG wanting to convince us all that the "Visitors" are mad at us and we should fight them off. That was the patently absurd part of his hoax, I mean who would possibly believe we could fight the "Visitors"? With what technology or weapon would we fight them? hmmm...

I can't help but notice that the CARET site was started last Friday and Ghost Raven started posting here at AboveTopSecret.com, you guessed it, last Friday.

Is there a connection?


Springer...



posted on Jun, 29 2007 @ 11:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by Springer
I can't help but notice that the CARET site was started last Friday and Ghost Raven started posting here at AboveTopSecret.com, you guessed it, last Friday.

Is there a connection?


Springer...


Did you read what my take on that quote was Springer?

Anyway, I could see thru GR's thread and didn't even bother to post there but this one is different in that it's not so easy to piece a legitimate string of hoax proof together.

Many of us sit on the fence until someone hangs themselves by talking too much and I think that's a definite advantage for this one in that the alleged perpetrators are not posting here.



posted on Jun, 29 2007 @ 12:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by jbondo
That's the difference that I am noticing, every attempted CGI on this thread has been easily identified as such.


This is exactly what I've been seeing throughout this thread. I also understand on the CGI side that the default setting for that software is that of Isaac's image. But the issue still stands:

Why can't our ATS folks reproduce this image in the quality that Isaac represented? If you really want to prove to us it's CGI, do just that. Not an object that kinda' maybe looks like it. They don't, especially that "old" picture. That looks exactly like models in TES: Oblivion. The quality, I mean.

At the same time, lets have somebody create a physical model that looks exactly like that. I think this is much more likely. I've never understood why folks transitioned into CGI for movies. It's the cheap and easy way to reproduce something fantastic. The original Star Wars movies felt real in the same way Isaac's image feels real. Why? They were using physical models to create the image which we saw on film. Now with the current generation of films, nope, those look silly. The technology at Skywalker Ranch seems to be INFERIOR compared to Isaacs. I don't understand.

I'm not bashing folks who take CGI up as an art form. I understand and love it in that context.

But can we move past this back and forth argument and try to focus on something that can't be "reproduced" (not in the scientific sense, obviously)? A fault in the possible hoaxers story, physics, linguistics, etc etc. I think it's far better to have conclusive evidence then to just believe this or that. That's what we need at this point.

Has anyone at ATS tried to get in contact with somebody who may have contact with Isaac? Has (s)he written to Coast to Coast yet with possible new pictures and pieces of the story? If so, we really need to try and get that person to come here or at least get in touch with one of our admins.

Just my 2 cents.



posted on Jun, 29 2007 @ 12:01 PM
link   
As regards GhostRaven and Isaac appearing on the same day, I'm thinking more of a coinidence. Purely based on the fact that GhostRaven would have been far more compelling if he had have had access to Isaac's images. Can you imagine the combined effect?

The biggest problem with Isaac's time-line is that too much time has elapsed since the beginning of the "Chad" drone saga and his revelation - more than enough (in my opinion) to have created the documentation.

My other sizeable problem is the broomstick analogy in the "report". Who was this report intended for, pre-school children? I can't believe an official in-house document like this is supposed to be would simplify things that much. The lowest common denominator in a facility such as Isaac describes must still be set pretty high, don't you think?

[edit on 29-6-2007 by Karilla]



posted on Jun, 29 2007 @ 12:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by CthulhuRising
OK so ever since I first read Isaacs story this comment bothered me..


More importantly though, I'm very familiar with the “language” on their undersides seen clearly in photos by Chad and Rajman, and in another form in the Big Basin photos.


Until LMH posted the recent up close high res pic (4th pic down on the page)from the big basin photo shoot how was it possible to see the difference in the "language" used in the big basin pics compared to the Rajman pic?



Is no one else seeing this as a glaring mistake indicating that Isaac had access to more information and details regarding the released Big Basin pic's?

Surely the only way he could "clearly" see the "language" on the BB pic's would be if he produced them or had access to them from another source other than those posted on the web...



posted on Jun, 29 2007 @ 12:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Springer

Is there a connection?



Well, you've got the IP information. My feeling is that the skill sets are so different. On the one hand you've got someone who can do fairly good CGI. I know, I know. There are so many CGI experts on this forum that you can't help but bump into one going from one side of the room to the other, but the point is, someone who can do that. And on the other a so-called sociologist. Yes, both GR and Isaac can write, but in my opinion, GR is a much better writer who never delved into technological subjects. Think of the time involved, too. There have to be several people going at this.



posted on Jun, 29 2007 @ 12:07 PM
link   
imo, the "cgi or not" discussion is leading nowhere. it's a fact that one could, given time, money and expertise, produce images similar to those shown. BUT this doesn't say NOTHING about the point if these images show actual objects or not. focus should be on the opposite: proving that the images *can't* be real photos for whatever reason. just the fact that the images *could* be renderings proves nothing at all imo, i really don't see the logic here. also, i think there are more interesting aspects of this whole thing, until someone uploads a zip of the whole render project with the models, texture maps, scene design and everything.

edit: sorry donoso, missed your post.

[edit on 29-6-2007 by Lamâshtu]



posted on Jun, 29 2007 @ 12:10 PM
link   
Uhhhh:

"The photographs show what are described as extraterrestrial instruments used for antigravity and for 3-dimensional image recording and projecting. The sizes of the photographed instruments are only inches long, according to Isaac and the document."

From LMH's page. WHERE does Isaac or the document say this?

It also says:

"... is BLACKED OUT entirely. In a separate follow-up email, the document's leaker – who calls himself by the alias “Isaac” – explained that the blacked out sections had been done by CARET in Palo Alto, and not by him."

WHY WHY WHY? HE SAID HIMSELF he took them from the organisation, and as I asked, why the hell do you have documents internally to the organisation that have been blacked out? Unless, the pages seem to have been bound into a report. Perhaps it was common knowledge of the parts that were missing, but this seems unlikely, given that he also says a lot of people were kept in the dark about other areas of the project and only worked on their own areas. You can't mutilate the cake and then eat it Isaac. Either you removed the pages yourself (as you said) in STACKS which would I'd imagine mean they were unbound (since you can't keep a 300 page document in your pants) or they were bound into a report and then it was blacked and printed.

Sorry I think I just fell off the fence.

Source: www.earthfiles.com...



posted on Jun, 29 2007 @ 12:17 PM
link   
about the blackening, did he say he actually created the report, or is it possible that he himself didn't have access to the full report (ie got it already blackened himself, for lack of good enough security clearance)?

something different i've been wondering, do digital cameras have a "fingerprint", so that you can decide if a picture was taken by a specific camera? just curious as there are exact cam specs on some of the photos.

edit: and if digital cams, there would probably be the raw files as well, i know i would take the photos in raw if i were to witness such a thing hovering over my head


[edit on 29-6-2007 by Lamâshtu]



posted on Jun, 29 2007 @ 12:19 PM
link   
EXIF info is camera specific, but it would only be on digi cams, which would have been unuseable at the time of the report, since they looked like they've been scanned in if you mean Isaac.

If you mean the picures the people took, open it in something like Irfranview (free) and click Image Information. Of course, altering the image in any way and not having save EXIF on would take it out of the picture or change it.



posted on Jun, 29 2007 @ 12:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by ejsaunders
You can't mutilate the cake and then eat it Isaac. Either you removed the pages yourself (as you said) in STACKS which would I'd imagine mean they were unbound (since you can't keep a 300 page document in your pants) or they were bound into a report and then it was blacked and printed.

Sorry I think I just fell off the fence.


Since the different departments would probably share bits and pieces of documentation it would be unlikely that they would be bound.

As for the blacking out, couldn't Issac do that after the fact or am I missing a point here?



posted on Jun, 29 2007 @ 12:22 PM
link   
Here's another interesting correlation that relates to the "Game Viral Marketing Campaign" theory:

There is a series of games (and books for that matter) called "Myst", it's a wonderful set of games and one of the pioneers of beautiful environments on the PC/MAC.

There are a couple similarities that are striking between the Myst universe and the CARET/Drones.

The circular symbol, the one similar to the HALO logo, (can't find it right now or I'd link it) is almost identical to some symbols used in one of the puzzles in "URU" the last Myst game.

In Myst there is a race of scholars called the D'nai, they discovered that there language when written on the proper parchment created worlds (called "Ages" in the game). All they had to do was describe the world in writing in one of their "linking books" and it was created. If that wasn't enough, once the book was complete they could go to the world they just created by placing their hand on the linking page of the book.

Let's review the similarities:

Myst - Written words/symbols = "magical" power/technology
CARET - Written symbols/words = "magical" technology/power

Pretty striking to me. Obviously this could be pure coincidence but it's interesting none the less.

schuyler I only have the IP info on GR I have nothing on Isaac.

Regarding the possible connection, I would think this is a group effort if there is a connection. It seems Isaac has been more successful than GR if they are in cahoots though.


Springer...

[edit on 6-29-2007 by Springer]



posted on Jun, 29 2007 @ 12:23 PM
link   
Damn, I didn't notice that either. If you're like me, you probably can't stand LMH, and her repeating everything and hyping it up over the top, so I just didn't read her site, just the top few bits and pieces.

Half way down (same page), she says:

"... In addition to the symbol language, the CARET document on Page 56, has a photograph of rings that closely match the structure of the rings in the larger scale dragonfly-drones, estimated to be about 25-feet-long."

25 FEET. That's a LOT of drone, surely that a. makes some sort of noise cancelling the gravity out like normal UFOs and b. knocks into #.



posted on Jun, 29 2007 @ 12:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by ejsaunders
EXIF info is camera specific, but it would only be on digi cams, which would have been unuseable at the time of the report, since they looked like they've been scanned in if you mean Isaac.


yea i was talking about the chad et al photos ... is the exif info in the jpeg's as well?




top topics



 
185
<< 36  37  38    40  41  42 >>

log in

join