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: 403
185
<< 400  401  402    404  405  406 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 3 2009 @ 11:33 PM
link   
Here is something I thought was interesting it is a link between the
Caret drones and The Philadelphia Experiment.
Caret drones The Philadelphia Experiment link
The Philadelphia Experiment A to Z
THE PHILADELPHIA EXPERIMENT
Also could someone post a link to the Drone library?




posted on Jan, 4 2009 @ 12:30 PM
link   
As part of the process in cleaning up the debris of Hoaxters, AllisOne or 1111 as he is known affectionately known to us, went on the scene to where Chad took the famous picture behind the Restaurant..He released part of his own ongoing investigation, in pursuit of the hoaxters, as a rebuttal to attempts to resuurect, like so many other hoaxes still try to do this particular hoax.
Reed has done it, The moon Hoaxers still try..we must always be on guard.. Thank you 1111
[quote author=neveleeleven link=board=drone&num=1223123924&start=832#55 date=1231090282]

Uh WHAT?!?! Do you even understand my argument?

Read carefully, because this is another smoking gun that I can prove, and that you will have a hard time debunking, just like the Raj image. Ready?

So we all are familiar with this image right?:



Well guess what!? I know exactly where this location is!





You know what that means?!

IT MEANS I KNOW THE EXACT LOCATION OF THE SUN!



The Sun is roughly behind the drone, this is what is creating the shadows on the trees on the left, and directly under the drone. The pure fact that the Sun is behind the drone, and the drone is in the sky with the Sun as a BACKLIGHT, the drone should have a darker bottom. There should be a slight silhouette happening, but there isn't. This is FALSE LIGHTING.

Not only that but outlined in red is specular highlights! These highlights should NOT exist, because the Sun is in the opposite direction of the highlights!. Another sign of fake lighting!

You can't blame this on "ambient light reflecting off another object" because I know that there is nothing but trees, plants, and a dirt road in this location. Nothing that would reflect a light more intense than the Sun on the drone.

Beside the painfully obvious lighting mistakes, THE DEPTH OF FIELD IS INNCORRECT! You see, the trees that are shaded directly under the drone, have a slight unfocused look to them, they are a bit blurry. However the drone itself is pretty clear, and looks focused.

The problem is, the arm that goes behind the tree should be more out of focus. Since the camera can only focus on one spot, everything closer and everything further away should be slightly out of focus. Since the main body of the drone appears focused, and the trees under it appear slightly out of focus, this means the drone arm that goes behind the tree should be half focused and half out of focus, because the arm is extending away from the camera. So the arm should get more out of focus the further away from the camera it is. You may not see it as clearly as I do, you have to look close and notice slight differences, but the depth of field is horribly wrong!

Also the arm going behind the tree just looks fake period, because it is not actually behind the tree! Add that to all the lighting problems, and all the rest of the problems with every other image and you have yourself a HOAX!

This Chad image is by far the worst image out of all the drone images. I kept quiet about it because I wanted to see all the disinformation first.



You failed!














[edit on 4-1-2009 by Sys_Config]



posted on Jan, 4 2009 @ 01:55 PM
link   
It’s only getting worse. It almost doesn’t matter any more what is real or what is fake. UFO bibs have become free therapy for the masses and many of them fall into groups that feed off one another. C2C and LMH are just portals for this symbiosis but need the groups just as well to survive. One big happy parasite feeding off what a few of us see as a genuine mystery. This seems apparently more important than any truth.

Copied
From Mufon (no cite found) ( : Moderator)

“Just look at what dominates the UFO community. Although the "Real Mufon" may have the lofty goal of a scientific approach, and try their darndest to separate fantasy, fiction from reality their efforts are but a pee drop in the ocean. In fact I doubt if the UFO community as a whole actually gives a hoot about the truth.

Just look what dominates the UFO community.

Not in any particular order.

Hoaxters, for whatever reason those who perpetrate a hoax, take for example, the Jonathan Reid fiasco which was monetarily motivated, the alien autopsy, which again was monetarily motivated, and the Haiti video, apparently a just for fun motivation, the drones, apparently a viral campaign, which Mufon recognized as hoax from the beginning since all the pictures have been CGI modified.

Profiteers, those who would sell something, usually a book, or something if you buy their story. This ties in with the hoaxters so there is some overlap between these two categories. What about the huge UFO that was supposed to appear over Alabama. But you can still buy her book. And many still do.



And here is another example of what seems to dominate the MUFON Board and several others as well, no wonder this stuff goes on and on. It’s a symbiosis. One group has the need to tell a story, another group has a need to believe a story. And the truth is actually irrelevant.


Copied from the MUFON board! How’s this for HOOKERS anonymous?
( : Mod edit - no cite found)


“It is for sure up to you what you want to believe. As for me I know who taught me and whom I have believed. As I had mentioned in a previous post life is short and a twinkle of the eye. When I traveled around the world I met many people that believe in many different things. This then was their faith and if they died in that faith and they were wrong there is no turning back. So I think it is a prudent thing to make sure of what it is you believe and why you believe it.


====
Mod Edit: Added 'ex' tags, no citation found in search. Large quote snipped, lurid recount snipped.
Mod Note: How to Quote– Please Review This Link.
Mod Edit: Big Quote – Please Review This Link.






[edit on 1/4/2009 by Badge01]



posted on Jan, 4 2009 @ 05:35 PM
link   
Sorry, I got a little bit tired of all this.

But I just asked myself, what kind of trial programs were around in April/May 2007...

They probably only worked for 30 days.



posted on Jan, 4 2009 @ 06:38 PM
link   
reply to post by Siddharta
 


No need to apologize for having the good sense to stay in the real world for a while. Good to see ya! Sounds like a good idea you have there.



posted on Jan, 4 2009 @ 11:57 PM
link   
Sidd..brother I am glad you got rest..but we missed you dearly
what trial programs? Software, TV, ..Now Double and I can take a rest, and leave you here..hahahaha..Jk
The only things running campaign at same time of drones from finish to start was Fox/warner just filming announcements all coinciding..and Alien.
This is rough outline..
C2 started it all..talked to Warners first..wiki
Nov 2006 Warners Fox and C2(terminator movie) agree on TV spinoff want ways to promote each other..say article wiki.
Jan 2007 Warners Josh Starts filming NM and Palmdale dulce airport.
March 2007 They finish pilot.
april Dones appear
may Fox announces show May12
May Drones appear may 16
June Ty drones
June 20 Josh Warners scc Announces new component skynet added
June 26 Isaac comes Out Linda has kept up.
June 26, site for isaac up Attorney in charge.
July 09, Fox announces SCC at comic con
July 23 Linda cancels major interview mysteriously changes to crop circles and later look of drones. No new like Isaac drones ever seen again.
July 26 Comic Con SCC cast introduced
October Alienware contest and letters seen
Ocober AW says no tie in..borrowed out of air
November..Alienware announces m15x
November Writers Strike
November AW lcd shortage delays..
Jan 2008 ist aw laps out to consumer Manuals done in October 2007
Feb 2008 Strike ends
Feb Fox Episodes run.
except last..12
May 2008 Drones Pis appear on Fox
October 2008 last episode shot remodified to change isaac to abraham and letters changed..still recognizable clearly.
October 24 2008 show renewed staff very nervous earlier it would not.
November 2008 AW admits intellectual ownership rights stonewalls stops all answers questions by ATS posters.
December 2008 we see Isaac material in show.no credits or acknowledgements. and same drone craft..at end..the terminator tie in.
December 2008 No news from Isaac ..Site still up.
All drones from same area in along Santa Cruz hwy.CA..
JFeb New SCC show fox feb 2009
December 2009 T4 comes out..T5 in progress also.

all coincidence, or are they synchronized, or both. We have to sort out the blur ..
Its a little hard because..
Both whitley and Linda have past and current associations with warners, fox, and Sci Fi.networks and other media. AW has extensive Marketing and development with Warners and cross licensing .
Then we have..Funded by unknown third party(s) Pis appearing on fox, and a forum Adm, helping PIs, Live in same area within 30 minutes from drone spot location,
all promoting the Drones one way or another..at the waterhole at the same time.









[edit on 5-1-2009 by Sys_Config]

[edit on 5-1-2009 by Sys_Config]

[edit on 5-1-2009 by Sys_Config]



posted on Jan, 5 2009 @ 03:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by Siddharta
Sorry, I got a little bit tired of all this.

But I just asked myself, what kind of trial programs were around in April/May 2007...

They probably only worked for 30 days.


Both Autodesk Maya and 3D Max had new versions in beta at the time. With max having some (then) new features than made the lighting for models such as the drone images a lot easier. All autodesk beta versions for those taking part in the beta are time limited.

Wayne...



posted on Jan, 5 2009 @ 11:07 AM
link   
Sorry for my format errors I will comply.

My only point being that the drone saga with only a handful of believers is a small segment of the UFO community.

The bigger issue at hand is how the mainstream public perceives the UFO community. If a reporter were to log on to the Mufon bulletin board looking for a representative sample they would clearly come away with a view that the UFO community clearly resides within the minds of challenged individuals. (Trying to be politically correct here). This growing UFO community encompasses the drone saga and apparently at an exponential rate those with an overwhelming need to tell a story and those with an overwhelming need to believe a story. So while you may piss on a burning ember your chances of putting out a fire in California are pretty slim.

Photographs are just icing on the cake.

And if you don't believe me just log onto the Mufon board.

Sorry to sound so disparaging.



posted on Jan, 5 2009 @ 11:22 AM
link   
reply to post by Sys_Config
 


Debth of field isn't wrong in the picture. The trees are closer to the camera than the drone and are blurry. It's just the the whole drone is within the sharp area of the focus. It means nothing for this has been proven to be hoax but I thought for future reference to point that out. Usually debth of focus is split 1/3 in front of the focus point and 2/3 behind.


[Edit] Forgot to say that it's impossible to say how long the sharp are of the focus is. Depending on the aperature of the lens it could be hundreds of meters


[edit on 5/1/2009 by PsykoOps]



posted on Jan, 5 2009 @ 12:38 PM
link   
corel x came out back then also..thats what Android uses and many others use too.. as for beta, simple trips to piratesbay can get cracks for time locks. they usually come out not long after release.



posted on Jan, 5 2009 @ 01:09 PM
link   
reply to post by PsykoOps
 


You are wrong. The largest arm of the drone reaches behind the trees, and that largest arm is in focus, and the tree isn't. It's pretty common sense they should both be in the same range of focus, as they are both at the same distance from the camera.

[edit on 5-1-2009 by ALLis0NE]



posted on Jan, 5 2009 @ 01:17 PM
link   
How is behind and above the trees the same distance? Geez.



posted on Jan, 5 2009 @ 01:32 PM
link   
Happy Holidays Sys_ !

Nice to see you've come to find some answers, and some very tangible evidence.

You've come a long way!

I've only been able to catch up and skim through the last, oh I dunno how many pages. But I went back to the first posts in Dec. 2008, it seems alot of new findings like you getting an AlienWare "LAP" top
and of course the more answers you find, the more questions come with them- unfortunately. But hey it gives you something to think on.

Sheesh finding the locations of two of the pictures, pretty astonishing! Did you find more? I just saw the two. But if you can do that, I would imagine finding the "Raj77" pole shouldn't be an improbable task. But I would definitely understand if you are exausted with it by now. Man, you've been working this for so long, you deserve a nice rest.

So...., in closing.

I wish you and all the members of ARC, I believe it's ARC? yes? Hmmm either way, I wish you all a Happy Holidays and a Fantastic Year to come!

**OH, By the way who is responsible for the "Drone Hoax . com" page? What are your thoughts on that site?

Be well friend!



posted on Jan, 5 2009 @ 03:45 PM
link   
reply to post by PsykoOps
 


Think about it.

The tip of the large arm on the drone is directly above the tree. Draw a line from the arm through the tree and to the ground and you have a spot marked on the ground. The distance between that spot on the ground and the camera man is important. The distance from line at the arm to the camera, and the distance from the line at the tree to the camera, is slightly different, but not by much. If anything the drone arm is further away, and would make the arm even more blury.

Since the arm is above the tree, and slightly further back, the arm should be showing SOME type of blur that is similar to the tree. The edges of the drone arm are perfectly sharp, showing no signs of being out of focus when it should.

It's even showing no signs of being truly back-lit, the light is not illuminating the edges of the arm, which would be even more obvious if they had real depth of field, because then the bright edges would have had an out of focused look as well. All this is missing from the image... it's horrible.

The drone in the Chad image even looks almost "3D" like it is jumping out at you, and has no true relation to anything else in the photograph. This is what most CGI hobbyist and experts notice first. The drone almost looks like it is sitting on top of everything else, it stands out way too much and doesn't look like it is in the same world space as the trees and the sky. It should have more depth of field, but doesn't. It's so wrong and out of place.



[edit on 5-1-2009 by ALLis0NE]



posted on Jan, 5 2009 @ 03:58 PM
link   
reply to post by ALLis0NE
 


I think this is an example of why it is important to have these things examined by people who do CGI all the time. I look at that photo and think it just doesn't look right, but I don't know what's wrong with it. It looks to me like the scale is off, or there is too much detail visible for the supposed distance, it's hard to put my finger on, but yes, it does look like the drone is just stuck in there. CGI artists notice the problems the way I can spot a misused apostrophe from across the room. (I really hate it when the apostrophe was put there by me, but that's another problem.)



posted on Jan, 5 2009 @ 04:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nola213
Happy Holidays Sys_ !

Nice to see you've come to find some answers, and some very tangible evidence.

You've come a long way!

I've only been able to catch up and skim through the last, oh I dunno how many pages. But I went back to the first posts in Dec. 2008, it seems alot of new findings like you getting an AlienWare "LAP" top
and of course the more answers you find, the more questions come with them- unfortunately. But hey it gives you something to think on.

Sheesh finding the locations of two of the pictures, pretty astonishing! Did you find more? I just saw the two. But if you can do that, I would imagine finding the "Raj77" pole shouldn't be an improbable task. But I would definitely understand if you are exausted with it by now. Man, you've been working this for so long, you deserve a nice rest.

So...., in closing.

I wish you and all the members of ARC, I believe it's ARC? yes? Hmmm either way, I wish you all a Happy Holidays and a Fantastic Year to come!

**OH, By the way who is responsible for the "Drone Hoax . com" page? What are your thoughts on that site?

Be well friend!


Hey Nola..You are an ARC member ..Inducted quite a while back..Dig that Watchmen Icon you have..Did you know Fox waited till Warners did the movie then before it could be released..Sued them for rights violation and won!!
Movie may be delayed...they have heir fingers, all of them in everything we see and hear..whether news or entertainments..now almost indistinguishable. and its a Jungle!
DroneHoax.com was created by Dr.Dil for ARC, he is one of founding fathers along with Me Sid , Klatu and others.
Its not a real organization you know..just an affiliated group of for REAL people. started as a gag..then turned real..Ironic isn't it..took a life of its own...interested in exposing the facts and looking for the hoaxters.











[edit on 5-1-2009 by Sys_Config]



posted on Jan, 5 2009 @ 05:16 PM
link   
reply to post by ALLis0NE
 


The drone is above the trees and far further back. Some leaves are in front of it actually. For debth of field only the distance makes a difference.



posted on Jan, 5 2009 @ 06:28 PM
link   
If the craft was at same height..whether behind or in front..as it was guestimated about 200 feet in air by another photographer..how would that affect the shadows and highlighting problem on the craft.? and why does chad pic look washed out unlike that crystal clear look in the second ones, yet same scene. Both had good cameras, and chads brother, cousin or whatever experienced had been taking the pix, it was His camera..the ones directly underneth were by Chad..because partner was too scared to take it if I remember correctly.


[edit on 5-1-2009 by Sys_Config]

[edit on 5-1-2009 by Sys_Config]

[edit on 5-1-2009 by Sys_Config]



posted on Jan, 5 2009 @ 07:07 PM
link   

Both Autodesk Maya and 3D Max had new versions in beta at the time. With max having some (then) new features than made the lighting for models such as the drone images a lot easier. All autodesk beta versions for those taking part in the beta are time limited.

Wayne...


Thanks Wayne,

I found the Autodesk Maya Personal Learning Edition already for 2006 and tried to download something. Somehow it did not work. After they had my data they did not give me anything and any other link sent me back to that first one...

I will try later again.

Sidd



posted on Jan, 6 2009 @ 12:00 AM
link   
reply to post by Double_Nought_Spy
 


Exactly my feelings too, Doubles...Sys has also articulated it.

I think that the 'something's off with the photograph' feeling comes from the very nature of the Chad submission:

i.e. Trying to mix a real photo of an 'analog' subject (the bushes/trees in this case) with something created as purely 'digital' (such as the drone).

There is a visual disconnect that is subtle for some and profound for others that cannot be denied.

And yes, the CGI experts are invaluable at getting to the heart of the matter, for sure.

Tis a shame that the dronies don't believe them.



new topics

top topics



 
185
<< 400  401  402    404  405  406 >>

log in

join