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: 50
185
<< 47  48  49    51  52  53 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 29 2007 @ 08:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lamâshtu

Originally posted by greatlakes
Also I strongly think that it could also just be one person, not affiliated to any of the above. Possibly someone in the industry, the hoax (if a hoax) is not all that elaborate and far from perfect, many errors, bad writing, holes in the story etc. One industrious person 1 week maybe 2 weeks at a minimum to produce this stuff.

which is a lot. i'm still on the fence tending to hoax, or hoax inside a hoax, but all this makes less sense to me by the minute.

A lot of time relative to what, as compared to the time it takes to write a knock-knock joke?

1-2 weeks = not a lot of time, especially for a dedicated hoaxer, one that perhaps has been successful (or even unsuccessful) in the past and now wants to try the ultimate creation of his or hers.


[edit on 6/29/2007 by greatlakes]




posted on Jun, 29 2007 @ 08:25 PM
link   

Again, I think you are either part of, or in on this Isaac fiasco.

Lex


Then I suggest you unthink. Go back and find my post where I posted information to my exact whereabouts.

Because I am not taking the position of the majority saying it's a hoax I'm responsible for it? So let's see here. The people who believe are part of it. The people who say it's a hoax are the military agents trying to shut it down. That's pretty sad.



posted on Jun, 29 2007 @ 08:30 PM
link   
Does anyone know that high resolution images are easyer to fake then low resolution images?? Low resolution images have less pixels, making it harder to edit detail in a small area. High resolution images are easyer to edit, because you have all the pixels in the world to play with, in a small area.



posted on Jun, 29 2007 @ 08:33 PM
link   
1-2 weeks being a lot as in i don't think a single person could have pulled this of - if yes, then all my hats off and congratulations for a real nice hoaxer craftmanship. i really think that some of the stuff (like the language diagrams) are very nice from an artistic viewpoint, and in general you would have needed:

people good at playing media, even if it's "just" ufo/conspiracy media
people good at 3d imaging
people good at writing
people very good with vector graphics and design
a puppetmaster
lots of spare time

i worked in an art project once that combined most of the above mentioned points (plus lawyer stuff) and it was, while on a bigger scale, basically 24/7 work over 3 -6 months for a core team of 5 people plus supports.

so, either a single person is a genius and definitely wasting his time here, or it's a team wasting its time because of the minimal impact, or it's something else from disinfo to real, about which i can't say much because i never was involved in either of them.

edit for typos and stuff.

[edit on 29-6-2007 by Lamâshtu]



posted on Jun, 29 2007 @ 08:34 PM
link   
I fixed the words, so people would understand...




posted on Jun, 29 2007 @ 08:36 PM
link   
I'm outta here till everyone stops acting like children. That's not debate. It's trying to shove your opinions down each others throats. Why not put that energy towards figuring out ways to back up your opinions instead. I think the photo part of this debate is worked out anyway until a new photo shows up.

Lex,
It's the same on every thread your on? I quit smoking (2 packs of non-filters a day) 3 days ago and I'm in more control than that.




posted on Jun, 29 2007 @ 08:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by 11 11
I fixed the words, so people would understand...


11 11, I'm certainly glad you don't do forensics. They would never solve a crime case.


Ok, it is so easy to see where the sun is coming from, and it is perfect. The sun is coming from exactly the same direction that arm is pointing towards. If you shine light on an object exactly in front of you, it isn't going to cast much of a shadow on anything, except directly behind it.



posted on Jun, 29 2007 @ 08:40 PM
link   
edit: some weird double poting going on, deleting redundant stuff.

[edit on 29-6-2007 by Lamâshtu]



posted on Jun, 29 2007 @ 08:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by 11 11
I fixed the words, so people would understand...



1111's has a good point, that by the image alone, analyzing the shadows one should be able to determine the source of the light without any doubt, then once the source location in the image is ascertained, determine if ALL of the shadows and highlights are correct for the image and objects.

Has this been done thoroughly by anyone? It *seems* that 1111 is correct, but a more rigorous study should be done, by the like of Jritzman or similar.



posted on Jun, 29 2007 @ 08:44 PM
link   
it doesn't take a genius to decide that that is fake, mega fake.



posted on Jun, 29 2007 @ 08:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by wildone106
Dont start telling them your an artist, they will wanna see your birth certificate and every school/college you went to since birth. Besides..I tried them that pages ago..they will ignor any expert opinions..


Who ever said you were an expert, judgeing from your attitude towards those you might disagree with you im betting your just a worker where ever that is.

Peace



posted on Jun, 29 2007 @ 08:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lamâshtu
1-2 weeks being a lot as in i don't think a single person could have pulled this of - if yes, then all my hats off and congratulations for a real nice hoaxer craftmanship. i really think that some of the stuff (like the language diagrams) are very nice from an artistic viewpoint, and in general you would have needed:

I think you underestimate human ingenuity and talent. The writing is pretty bad as has been shown in both the documents and MORE SO in Isaacs backstory. The CGI seems to not be all that great either, as some members have quckly whipped up similar cgi models. Then if this is a hoax, all it wold take are cgi models, a fake document and a fake backstory and some lineart.. Take some snaps of the doc the model and you have yourself a complete fake story. Coke and Hotpockets go a long way dude!



posted on Jun, 29 2007 @ 08:50 PM
link   
If you look at the high res photo of the drone over the phone pole, you can see the shadow cast by the large "paddle" diagonally across the pole...looks pretty realistic to me.



posted on Jun, 29 2007 @ 08:51 PM
link   
By the majority of light coming from the bottom quadrant of that photograph, what would lend anyone to believe that the light source was high enough above the object to cast a shadow on itself like 1111 is claiming? Again I say the sun is coming from the same direction as the arm itself, and nothing in that photograph would lend towards an otherwise decision regarding the shadows. The lighting is perfectly conducive to the relative position of the sun on the horizon.



posted on Jun, 29 2007 @ 08:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by 11 11
I fixed the words, so people would understand...



I have no skills at all regarding shadows or photography or the like so can't really comment as to whether what you say is correct or not.

However I can comment on the 100% it is false statement.

How about there is a highly reflective surface somewhere on the ground (a car windscreen) throwing light back up onto onto the probe exactly where any shadow would be. Highly unlikely, yes. Impossible, no.
Therefore you cannot be 100% sure, you have simply offered your opinion.

As I have said 20 pages back, if you have concrete proof any picture could only have been created through CGI and no other means then be happy to see it.

Also to answer your posts regarding the shadows then yes I will use the ET excuse, who knows what hapens to light when an anti gravity generator is in operation, why wouldn't I use that reasoning, after all that is exactly what is purported to be happening.



posted on Jun, 29 2007 @ 09:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by chunder
As I have said 20 pages back, if you have concrete proof any picture could only have been created through CGI and no other means then be happy to see it.


I already showed you! Look:

www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Jun, 29 2007 @ 09:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by 11 11

Originally posted by pjslug
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!"


This proves you have absolutly no clue what you are talking about. I believe in UFO's and have caught 1 or 2 on my camera. I am a firm believer in life outside of Earth.

But the ISAACCARET images are CGI! That means everything on the ISAACCARET website is a hoax. I have clearly pointed out 4+ explinations and PROOF of CGI, and you unexperianced blind people STILL dont acknowledge it..

Every proof of CGI I have put out, the only answer I have see from you people are wild guesses, and fictional explainations that "this is alien craft it could defy laws of light". You people are actually trying to tell me these renders are REAL. LOL!!!!!!!!

isaaccaret.fortunecity.com...

If you truely beleive the above image is of a real object, then God help you. You are going to believe every piece of crap that comes out from a 3D rendering software.



hear hear, i agree.

The sooner people listen the better for every ufologist.

And the story that goes with those pics too.... i cant believe anyone would fall for that. Do you really think anyone would be able to sneak out top secret classified technology?... na no chance i dont buy it for a minute its just stupid. These people would be searched, they would have to walk through metal detectors and all sorts.



posted on Jun, 29 2007 @ 09:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by greatlakes
Coke and Hotpockets go a long way dude!


hihi


i don't think it is that easy though. even on the other therad with an "acclaimed" cg guy, brought in by a mod, the stuff he did (in alleged two hours though, and i'm not denying his skills) was definitley not on par with some of the other pics.

i really went through all of that other thread, and 3 other threads on cgi forums linked there, and i can't say i'm convinced yet. i won't say i'm a cgi expert as i am not, and my expertise is in other fields, but i have some experience in that field as well as in post processing and all i can say is that there is no smoking gun yet, and again i worked with an art group who did stuff like that and i just can't believe that, despite some flaws, this was done in a good weekend by a single person. timeline, involvement of different sites, material about which you have to admit is rather wicked for a hoax, ... all this strikes me as above usual.



posted on Jun, 29 2007 @ 09:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by pjslug
By the majority of light coming from the bottom quadrant of that photograph, what would lend anyone to believe that the light source was high enough above the object to cast a shadow on itself like 1111 is claiming? Again I say the sun is coming from the same direction as the arm itself, and nothing in that photograph would lend towards an otherwise decision regarding the shadows. The lighting is perfectly conducive to the relative position of the sun on the horizon.


Its called reference. Instead of looking where the "bright spot" is coming from in the picture like you did, I actually used reference shadows... look:



The angles of these shadows tells me that the sun is not "coming from the same direction as the arm itself" like you claim. The Sun is not level with the object, it is slightly above the object, which should create a simular shadow as the shadows I point out in the image..

The arm of the "drone" doesn't have ANY shadows, AT ALL, this is 100% hoax!



posted on Jun, 29 2007 @ 09:05 PM
link   
Isaac never claimed to walk out with any pieces of the craft, he claimed he walked out with paper and I believe he did go through metal detectors. I guess you didn't read his letter in full. As far as I'm aware, metal detectors don't set off alarms for earthbound materials such as paper.



new topics

top topics



 
185
<< 47  48  49    51  52  53 >>

log in

join