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: 43
185
<< 40  41  42    44  45  46 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 29 2007 @ 02:33 PM
link   
Well since we're going in circles......here's another new DRONE pic!

hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

lucianarchy.proboards21.com...

Becker




posted on Jun, 29 2007 @ 02:40 PM
link   
I do so hope this is not another hoax, if it is, I'm gonna find it very hard to trust anything anymore!
The report was really interesting to read, and i enjoyed it!
Lets cross our fingers.


Peace.



posted on Jun, 29 2007 @ 02:41 PM
link   
Becker, give us the domain name again please. Put a space between the letters or something, otherwise that link goes nowhere.



posted on Jun, 29 2007 @ 02:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by 11 11
I don't think you guys understand that "hightlights" are the actual reflections of the light source itself. Unless you get rid of the light, you will ALWAYS have a highlight. Always!


You dont seem to understand that polarisation filters eliminate specifically aligned light waves, you can easily eliminate them.
I dont know though when these filters came available to photographers, might be that they didn't exist when it's claimed these images were taken. That would then suggest another method, like a very large light source diffused and/or long exposure etc.



posted on Jun, 29 2007 @ 02:42 PM
link   
We are not going in circles, I am sill proving you wrong using your own source. Highlights are a reality, and there are zero highlights in the object renders.

Look here:




posted on Jun, 29 2007 @ 02:43 PM
link   
Sorry my bad here you go.

ufocasebook.conforums.com...



posted on Jun, 29 2007 @ 02:45 PM
link   
I undersatnd your point 11 11.

the diffuse is taking place you must agree. Further steps can be taken without computer manipulation to remove the highlight completely. I'll dig for a picture for you. Not trying to argue with you I just know a little something about what is now called primative photography LOL!

Becker



posted on Jun, 29 2007 @ 02:49 PM
link   
So everyone should read this because its a pretty logical point...

All of the scanned "official" documents are very rough looking. Included in these documents is a picture that is exactly the same as this.
Document:
isaaccaret.fortunecity.com...

Photograph:
isaaccaret.fortunecity.com...

I doubt he was able to steal an original photograph of this! If he did, and it was not sized down at all to be in the documents, the scanned in image would NOT be able to appear that huge and that sharp without some distortion!

[edit on 29-6-2007 by blowfishdl]



posted on Jun, 29 2007 @ 02:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by 11 11
We are not going in circles, I am sill proving you wrong using your own source. Highlights are a reality, and there are zero highlights in the object renders.


Not my source, though I support that it's one way of doing product photography, not repro photography though. Highlights are a reality untill you choose to get rid of them in your photographs



posted on Jun, 29 2007 @ 02:49 PM
link   
11 11, that is such a poor example in your post above that I wonder if you aren't being disingenuous.

That highlight was obviously intentional, because, as can be seen from the lighting angle on the knife's handle, the light-source is on the side that the blade is angled towards. If this had been lit from the other side you wouldn't have the blade reflecting the light source, regardless of which filters they used.



posted on Jun, 29 2007 @ 02:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by pjslug
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.


That comment is so naive, sorry, especially since there has already been a pertinent discussion in that regard. Just a handful of us on this thread seem to understand how people, right now, are making money hand over fist on this. Isaac said he would be communicating directly with C2C only. There's a hint for you. How do you make a bunch of money off ufos? A whopper of a hoax, that's how. UFOs are big business, believe it or not.

I don't know whether it's true, but I once read that, besides sex, there are more websites about UFOs than any other subject.



posted on Jun, 29 2007 @ 02:52 PM
link   
Has anybody stopped to think...

"WOW ITS NOT HOSTED BY COAST 2 COAST AM EVEN THOUGH THEY OWN AN FTP WHERE THEY POST ALIEN STUFF AND HE SUPPOSSEDLY GAVE THE DOCUMENTS TO THEM?"



posted on Jun, 29 2007 @ 02:54 PM
link   
This photograph has no pointy thing on the rear end:
isaaccaret.fortunecity.com...

Yet this one does:
isaaccaret.fortunecity.com...



posted on Jun, 29 2007 @ 03:01 PM
link   
a question of highlights ?

this is supposed to be a scientific report , NOT a photo spread for a glossy mag or sales brochure

why would the photographer attached to a govt research lab use such techniques - gelling the light sources ? come one !

unless a highlight obscured a critical feature - they would IMHO be ignored

i have pointed this out before , and it was ignored

but scale is far more important in a report than artistic reduction of highlights

why do these photos not have a single reference dimension ?



posted on Jun, 29 2007 @ 03:02 PM
link   
He wants to control the flow of information, he said it himself "I want to go slow" so Art Bell would probably want all the info up front, and would therefore perhaps leak too much too soon.

Or, he already had the site available beforehand. Anyone tried it in Wayback Machine?



posted on Jun, 29 2007 @ 03:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by ejsaunders Anyone tried it in Wayback Machine?



0 pages found for isaaccaret.fortunecity.com...


Sorry, no matches.


source: web.archive.org...



posted on Jun, 29 2007 @ 03:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by ignorant_ape

why would the photographer attached to a govt research lab use such techniques - gelling the light sources ? come one !

unless a highlight obscured a critical feature - they would IMHO be ignored

i have pointed this out before , and it was ignored


I dont know why, but if I'd be assigned to do a job I'd figure since it's not much of an effort I'd make it perfect. I'm starting to think that if these are photos then it might be possible that the setup is standard, only fine tuned to specific objects. A tent setup maybe... or very good cgi copying such



posted on Jun, 29 2007 @ 03:08 PM
link   
I am not going to start with PART 16 now, that will come later this evening and have a lot more interesting aspects to add to the discussion. If you haven't read all of PARTS 1 - 16, you may choose to do so before reading any of my posts to follow.

Anyway,
That new photo of the drone is great. It makes me wonder just how many people have these pictures and will start showing them on the net.

There are many tie ins that I have noticed between Cymatics, crop circles, drones, and messages that are perhaps being given to us from ET. I will touch on that more later, as well.

The CGI camp is beating a dead horse with this still, I see. You are talking about highlights and shadows, and yes it is true that all "earthly" objects would reflect light in some fashion. But we do not know what the substrate on these components are made of. They could be doing very bizarre things with light, especially if they are holographic materials. The "pad" could be a different material than the rest of the component and may not reflect light in the same way. To give you an idea about light refraction, take a prism and shine a light source into it. See what happens. You can't conclude that you definatively know how these materials will bend or even break light wavelengths. I mentioned much more about this in my earlier posts, PARTS 1 - 16.

Much more to come later.



posted on Jun, 29 2007 @ 03:16 PM
link   
Whatever happened to the dude who was going to RV the sukka? Did he accidentally predict something horrific (today's letter brought to you by P for Probe) for himself and therefore stopped?



posted on Jun, 29 2007 @ 03:16 PM
link   
Cha-chimin in here...

Looking at the big picture, I think it would be safe to assume one of a few things.

1) The player(s) in this drama are going for making a name for themselves in the video game, CGI, movie industry etc, and have spent months planning this.

2) Someone knows of this or similar technology and is trying to stir the pot and possibly trick someone into spilling some kind of beans by mistake.

3) It's completely real, and we will continue further down the drone road into a government admission that, "uh, yah, we forgot to tell everyone we talk to aliens".

I'm giving the guy(s) props for this upfront. Isaac's letter was awesome. I can't imagine the time it would take me to come up with all that stuff he wrote. However, there are many writers, artists, dreamers, etc, that could. Look at Star Wars, Star Trek, The Matrix, the list goes on. The "Language" part was where he really got me. As someone who has studied Alchemy, it completely makes sense.

I'm watching on the sideline until the fat lady sings on this one. The last one, the False Flag Guy, I pegged on page 2 of his thread. This one, hell, it's too good to thrash on, no matter what the outcome ;-)



new topics

top topics



 
185
<< 40  41  42    44  45  46 >>

log in

join