[HOAX] Isaac CARET - Drones [HOAX]

Originally posted by Lamâshtu

sorry, was a bit sloppy making that circle - i mean the purple, slightly bent thing off the left side of the "arm", looking like one of the cables.

that is part of the drone...

Is it me, or has the thread derailed..

[edit on 29-6-2007 by XPhiles]

The thing you have circled in the picture is most likely the wire/railing you can plainly see on top in this picture.

img266.imageshack.us...

Originally posted by ejsaunders
Some metal finishes tend to gleam 'horizon colours' when the sunlight hits them, which is what I think is causing that. The probability is that the piece is made from fiberglass if its real and then has been vacuum metallised coated in chrome finish.

sorry if this is a stupid question, i know nothing about this effect, but ... that strong, and with sky between the effect and the device?

also, strikes me that it looks exactly like the cable joining the pole at the intersection.

See, oddone posted a good image comparison. If it is a real object, there would be an effect on the metal. In the link oddone posted there is a slight turquoise edge around the metal, commonly from sunlight reflecting the sky colour off the metal, or just sloppy outline cutting, you decide.

Its strange though that the Isaac documents suggest its made from an inert black material, but these things look to me made from metal.

Its not highly reflective..BS

Originally posted by ejsaunders
Some metal finishes tend to gleam 'horizon colours' when the sunlight hits them, which is what I think is causing that. The probability is that the piece is made from fiberglass if its real and then has been vacuum metallised coated in chrome finish.

Hey All....

I am not trying to discourage you all from analyzing to your heart's content, but you may want to consider reading through the Chadsquito thread: www.abovetopsecret.com...

It has links to the various threads that discuss things like discrepancies in the Raj photos, like you are all doing now. Out of respect to all of us who have been following this 'story' for a while, a little more reasearch might help all of us from having to repreat ourselves over and over.

That way we can try to stay focused here, and discuss the implications of CARET and 'Issac's' addition to the story at large.

Not trying to be a jerk, but I am tired of being disappointed when I check the new posts, and all it is repeats of things people said a month ago.

DocMoreau

It's commonly used by prop makers to produce real metal looking equipment from wood, fiberglass or butyl rubber props so people don't have the weight or danger of metal objects. The best probably most likely thing you've seen it in is Star Wars - C3PO was metal coated fiberglass GRP.

Here's a suitable link if you want more: www.immnet.com...

About the photo with the circle asking "whats this?" look at the drone from another angle and you will see that the arm has another piece that extends upward slightly and back to the center of the drone. You are seeing this piece of the arm from another angle.

Question: Why have I not seen the newest drone pic from the other forum torn apart here yet? Just wondering.

Originally posted by wildone106
Its not highly reflective..BS

I didn't say it was ALL reflective, just the side is reflecting the light at an angle that usually makes that sort of effect. It could be something else, I'm giving my OPINION, whether you or anyone else believes it, is up to you, but they asked what it was, I was trying to give a suitable answer, which your reply did not.

EDIT: Actually not sure what sex you are so if you aren't female, sorry for my original 'she'.

[edit on 29-6-2007 by ejsaunders]

Originally posted by spf33

Originally posted by 11 11
Pictures are worth 1000 words.

so, i've been kicking back, watching your posts, considering what you have to say, in my head mostly disagreeing...but this post is enough for me to ignore anything you have to say from here on out.

look at the high res image, and realize this was addressed weeks ago;

i14.tinypic.com...




Mod Edit: to turn image to link and restore thread format





[edit on 6/29/2007 by kinglizard]

Good job on bringing that up! I like your sarcasm. If this is real, maybe the drone hit the power line and that was why it was exposed. Perhaps, the power lines were type of "technology" that could disrupt the cloaking mechanism of the drone. Power lines pack a lot of punch in current. As "Issac" said:

"That ability can be controlled both on board the craft, and remotely. However, what's important in this case is that this invisibility can also be disrupted by other technology. Think of it like radar jamming. I would bet my life savings (since I know this has happened before) that these craft are becoming visible and then returning to invisibility arbitrarily, probably unintentionally, and undoubtedly for only short periods, due to the activity of a kind of disrupting technology being set off elsewhere, but nearby. I'm especially sure of this in the case of the Big Basin sightings, were the witnesses themselves reported seeing the craft just appear and disappear."

I do not know. I am beginning to suspect this might be the real deal. This guy certainly writes like an old codger. He even reminisces about the old days of working like someone retired. He write in a matter-of-fact style like an old person does as well. It will be interesting to see if he produces any more material like he says he has in his possession. By the way, I'm not a linguist, but I'm trained in advertising copywriting, so I know a little about the written word and the different voices you can use as a writer.

Let me post another theory, which may be right or may be wrong. Maybe this guy and this website are the governments reaction to having their invisible drones being seen. Maybe they are just giving us enough info to make us divided on whether this is real or not, the old divide and conquer technique. This could actually be real technology that they have in their possession that they don't want people to think is real. So, they throw up a website, supposedly from a guy who worked on the project. They actually expose some of their tech, but throw up a website that is completely inconclusive to most skeptical, cynical individual couldn't say that it is definitively real. Just something to chew on.

[edit on 29-6-2007 by frailty]

Originally posted by spf33
Pictures are worth 1000 words.

so, i've been kicking back, watching your posts, considering what you have to say, in my head mostly disagreeing...but this post is enough for me to ignore anything you have to say from here on out.

look at the high res image, and realize this was addressed weeks ago;

i14.tinypic.com...

That's amazing. I have never seen the high-res version of that pic. Truly incredible and removed any doubt I had that that photo was a forgery. It is a real photograph, digital or film. Whether or not the object is really flying, that's another question, but as you know by now I obviously believe they are.

With regards to the one in the field standing up with no shadow,
I only glanced at the previous picture with the object standing upright in the field that was just posted a little bit back. At first glance, it looked okay. After examining more closely, both of the objects in there are fake. That drone is one used on a CGI movie by saladfingers. You can clearly see the small ring on the other side of the craft looks nothing like the two small rings on the real photos.

[edit on 29-6-2007 by pjslug]

See, someone else posted on ATS in a related thread (TrentReznor):

"You can tell by the Colour Temprature and "Natural Film grain" Amongst other things like Lens Effects like the Purple & orange Hue on the side of Objects, allong with Dust and other "Film" induced prosesses.
The "UFO" also bares these Artifacts assoiciated with somthing took with a Film Camera, and matches the Backgrounds Artifacts".

Purple hazing can also occur with a digital camera (and is one of the worst culprits when a well defined edge is in the sky, see places like DPReview for pictures of it, Fuji digi cams are notorious for it outdoors) as an effect of the sky against the object, but that colour looks like violet to me, which is commonly seen when a metal (noteably chrome) has light hit it when the metal is 'sideways'. I doubt something that big could be rested on or attached to things if it is real and was made of metal, hence my opinion its made from GRP and has been metallically coated in parts.

EDIT: Found a great example www.prime-junta.net...

[edit on 29-6-2007 by ejsaunders]

Originally posted by XPhiles
The picture spf33 posted is clearly a HOAX as the shadows don't match with the telephone poles... I think that's been brought up before..

What is it with everyone and shadows and lighting? It's absurd. The shadows on that picture are fine, and they are real. And if the refraction was somehow off, I will again say for the 500th time, how do you know how alien materials would refract light?

Umm can we talk NOT about the chad drone (theres another thread for that). Lets talk about the Isaac information eh! Seems this thread is going off the rails like a crazy train

I can't wait to see this one go down like ghost raven's thread, Im gonna come back and post all the name's of the people that swore on their eye ball's its real..I just cant wait..

Maybe not..they are both fakes, both using the same rendering techniques and likely the same people who created both objects.

Originally posted by greatlakes
Umm can we talk NOT about the chad drone (theres another thread for that). Lets talk about the Isaac information eh! Seems this thread is going off the rails like a crazy train

Originally posted by pjslug
What is it with everyone and shadows and lighting? It's absurd. The shadows on that picture are fine, and they are real. And if the refraction was somehow off, I will again say for the 500th time, how do you know how alien materials would refract light?

The object reflects light in other normal ways pjs, why should we think differently with only certain aspects of it? No need to get all excitable like either, discussing shadows and light is not absurd, its analyzing the evidence we have, namely the images, the documents, the backstory as provided by our friend Isaac. Why would analyzing the data be *absurd* to you? Should we just *believe* that its real - or should we take an unbiased look at the thing?

[edit on 6/29/2007 by greatlakes]

Originally posted by 11 11

...can someone give me a link to ALL the high res images for this drone? I would reallly like to look them over and find the flaws...

rajman1977_1600x1200.zip

chad_hirez.zip

Originally posted by 11 11
Drone = Hoax. No doubt about it....

Can yourself and wildone kindly remove yourself from this thread? Everything you have said over the entire course of this thread is childish, arrogant, and extremely annoying.

We are all totally thrilled that you think it's a hoax. But unless you can substantiate some hard core evidence, can you kindly stop posting as you have been?

I love these CGI people. If they saw a flying saucer 20 feet above their heads, they would still scream "Hoax! Hoax! It's a Hoax!"

Originally posted by ejsaunders
Some metal finishes tend to gleam 'horizon colours' when the sunlight hits them, which is what I think is causing that. The probability is that the piece is made from fiberglass if its real and then has been vacuum metallised coated in chrome finish.

I don't think so, ejsaunders. If it was the horizon, it would have been consistent over the whole length of the appendage/arm. I think it explains why the witnesses heard static noises. It looks like that one piece of the electrical cable came into very close contact with the craft and had some kind of strange reaction. Perhaps that is what uncloaked it in the first place. To me, this is all excellent, because it is just reinforcing the story even more that is 100% truthful. There have been way too many perfect scenarios of this Isaac thing so far, and none of them have been debunked, only proven to be more genuine.