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: 51
185
<< 48  49  50    52  53  54 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 29 2007 @ 09:08 PM
link   
11 11,

You aren't making any sense at all. The shadows you are pointing out are being cast from the sun in exactly the position I said it was in. If it was higher up, the shadow would be at a much steeper angle below the objects on the pole.




posted on Jun, 29 2007 @ 09:12 PM
link   
this cgi vs non cgi discussion is driving me crazy indeed.

as it has been mentioned numerous times, neither pro nor contra says much. please debunk me the photos by showing it could ONLY have been created by rendering. everything else is basically moot.



posted on Jun, 29 2007 @ 09:15 PM
link   

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



Acually, looked again at your shadow photo and i am not saying the photo is real, just dont agree with your shadow analysis. If you look at the shadow on the pole it is wide and straight across the pole. if the sun was in the position you state over the end of the top piece of wood the shadow would be diagonal across the main pole not straight across. if the sun is straight to the right of the drone at dusk which the amount of light to the right shows the sun very low afternoon, then I say the shadow on the main pole is casued by the base (circular body) of the drone itself not the top cross member of the pole. if this is the case then there would be no shadow on that part of the drone as the sun is shineing right on it. Now ill say again i am not a picture person. but i can tell where the sun is in the picture. just try and see my point thats all.



posted on Jun, 29 2007 @ 09:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by pjslug
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.



I did read his paper in full and he explains in his letter how he managed to bring items out. He said that he was frisked everyday until he became familiar so he was able to bring classified items out... rubbish.



posted on Jun, 29 2007 @ 09:44 PM
link   


This is the last time I want to have the discussion about this, 11 11.
Look at the arrows that I illustrated for you. They are in the direction of the sun. Look at the nodules between the round part of the craft. If the sun was not where I say it is, those areas would not be lit up below the craft. End of discussion.

[edit on 29-6-2007 by pjslug]



posted on Jun, 29 2007 @ 09:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by LethalDose
I did read his paper in full and he explains in his letter how he managed to bring items out. He said that he was frisked everyday until he became familiar so he was able to bring classified items out... rubbish.


Isaac is trying to hide his identity, looking at his grammar maybe he has done that very well, maybe he was the one doing the frisking.

Then again maybe the grammar was deliberate.

The point is we can't take anything at face value other than what has been reproduced in it's original format.

I am ex MOD (UK Ministry of Defence) and have first hand knowledge of military procedure in respect of classified material and installations in the era in question. I also have first hand experience of USAF procedures, albeit bases in the UK although I would have though procedures would be similar whatever the country.
Nothing Isaac states in respect to armed guards in the room or being frisked at first only in any way falls outside the boundaries of what I know to have been standard practice.



posted on Jun, 29 2007 @ 10:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by pjslug
Look at the arrows that I illustrated for you. They are in the direction of the sun. Look at the nodules between the round part of the craft. If the sun was not where I say it is, those areas would not be lit up below the craft.

[edit on 29-6-2007 by pjslug]


I will agree with your light directions Pjslug, but I wont say this craft is real yet...... i will say the other pictures though are fixed up, the gravity device you can clearly tell its fake lighting and the white back ground is never ending, like it was in a catalog maybe.

In this pic, how could you get the object to look so real with respect to the power lines being perfect the way it looks. I contend that if this is a real pic then the issac stuff the raven stuff was all disinfo to draw attention to thier listake in letting it get seen like this. also LMH and C2C are still running away with this stuff so could they be involved?

Anyway this pic looks real and I havent seen anything to debunk it casue the sun and the shadows to me match perfect on the pole.

Peace



posted on Jun, 29 2007 @ 10:22 PM
link   
11 11 seems to be the only one that makes sense here. I've only been modeling for 4 months, and I can easily tell that the drone pics are fake. Regarding the direction of the light on that high res pic, you guys need to think 3d.



1: the round discs on the underside of the wing are receiving direct light.


2: One "flap" is casting a shadow on the one at the opposite side.

Those 2 things tell me that even though the "fake" sun might be consistent in the X and Z axis, it's placed too low in the Y axis.


The most important thing is the light itself. The light affecting the object is "cooler" than the light affecting everything else, which is warmer.


Also, the "flaps" on the underside of the object are casting a shadow on the object itself, as if it was lit from below.


-As I said, I'm not an expert. But I can see a lot of my rookie mistakes in those photos. Sorry about my crappy English.



posted on Jun, 29 2007 @ 10:27 PM
link   
Ok, pjslug, ty for pointing out that you have no clue were the Sun is in the picture...


You see, the telephone pole is round. If you shine a light on this round object from one direction, exactly 180 degrees of the object will be lit, and the other 180 degrees will be dark. Exactly half and half, like the Earth.

As you can see with the image below, the shadow line on the telephone pole lines up directly with the bolt that holds the two pieces of wood on top...



....this means the other non visible shadow line is exactly 180 degrees, and is lined up with the other side of the bolt, that holds the wood up (which we cant see). This means, with out a doubt, that the direction of the Sun is exactly the direction the wood pieces on top are pointing....

This make sense, because I believe when they set down telephone poles, default position is to be parrellel with a compass. North and South, or East and West....



...next we will explain the height of the Sun.... (time of day).






[edit on 29-6-2007 by 11 11]

[edit on 29-6-2007 by 11 11]



posted on Jun, 29 2007 @ 10:34 PM
link   
I think we basically agree. I have seen hundreds of scratch built models and this object is far to clean for that. If a pattern maker built the model from scratch he must be insane to have taken the time for such an effort. If I commisioned this and had it rendered, then built using stereo lithography or 3D printing as one piece with all its angles and odd shapes I would make the service provider dance all the way to the bank. Keep in mind there are not all that many service providers for this kind of modeling. Its not likely that a non- functioning gizmo would be accepted as a build without a serious price tag. Prototype companies just don't have a sense of humor and individuals with ideas are often ignored because these companies make the big bucks from design firms that work for major corporations. I understand that someone might go to great expense to pull off a hoax but I have to lean toward it not being a product of a rapid prototype industry venture or a design firms promotional, ain't it cool piece. I have seen the .....look at this pieces in shows and none of them come close to this thing. So CGI guys keep fighting it out. Also...I am new and appreciate the chance to share here.... thanks everyone



posted on Jun, 29 2007 @ 10:37 PM
link   
The sun is coming from that direction, yes. There is no way to know the precise position of the sun, exact degree in the sky, but the general direction as I said was towards the horizon and coming from a point anywhere from where the arm is pointing to where your wood beam is pointing. And that is the lower right hand quadrant of the photo, as I said.

With respect to the comment of the light being cooler, look at the wire hanging down from the pole that is completely illuminated. It is a metalic surface just like the craft is, and has a very similar color temperature.

Well, at least we are talking about this now in a civil manner.


Whatever the outcome of this, we will get to the bottom of it one way or the other. I was watching some videos from Michio Kaku, a brilliant physicist. I've seen much of his work before. Seeing as how he is a member on this forum (unless someone is impersonating him with his picture and using his name in a signature), I would like to ask what his take is on this story.



posted on Jun, 29 2007 @ 10:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lamâshtu
...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.


interesting to hear "art group" brought up. I haven't seen it mentioned yet, but summer art/independent study has come up in my mind more than once.

cgi student, lit/writing student, - soc/psych student.....TEAM

It's a great project, regardless of ethics



posted on Jun, 29 2007 @ 10:49 PM
link   
His shadow analysis seem's spot on to me and good job identifying this give away.

Another point goes to the 'con' for this shot too..


Originally posted by geemony

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



Acually, looked again at your shadow photo and i am not saying the photo is real, just dont agree with your shadow analysis. If you look at the shadow on the pole it is wide and straight across the pole. if the sun was in the position you state over the end of the top piece of wood the shadow would be diagonal across the main pole not straight across. if the sun is straight to the right of the drone at dusk which the amount of light to the right shows the sun very low afternoon, then I say the shadow on the main pole is casued by the base (circular body) of the drone itself not the top cross member of the pole. if this is the case then there would be no shadow on that part of the drone as the sun is shineing right on it. Now ill say again i am not a picture person. but i can tell where the sun is in the picture. just try and see my point thats all.



posted on Jun, 29 2007 @ 11:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by pjslug
The sun is coming from that direction, yes. There is no way to know the precise position of the sun, exact degree in the sky, but the general direction as I said was towards the horizon and coming from a point anywhere from where the arm is pointing to where your wood beam is pointing. And that is the lower right hand quadrant of the photo, as I said.



As you said? You were WAY off...



....so you really think "there is no way to know the precise position of the sun"?? Don't be to sure about that.... because we already know the exact direction the sun is. Now we only need to figure out the height of the sun... this is easy.... brb with illustrations....



posted on Jun, 29 2007 @ 11:10 PM
link   
I agree, with all of the information on that image, the light and shadows, we should be able to tell EXACTLY where the sun (or the light source) is coming from, direction and height.

[edit on 6/29/2007 by greatlakes]



posted on Jun, 29 2007 @ 11:16 PM
link   
Here is an interesting observation (from UFO Updates) by a Bob Soetebier who wrote to Linda Howe on this subject:

To Linda Howe On 'Issac' & CARET 'Parts'
From: Bob Soetebier
Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2007 10:43:55 -0500
Fwd Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2007 11:57:56 -0400
Subject: To Linda Howe On 'Issac' & CARET 'Parts'


This e-mail, I sent to Linda Moulton Howe, is in regard to her
recent 'Earthfiles' report, which is found at this URL:

earthfiles.com...

-----

Linda,

With regard to some of the Part 2: Documentation (allegedly
taken from the "Palo Alto Caret Laboratory") provided by 'Isaac'
in the 'Q4-86 Research Report'...

Some the 'parts' images looking strikingly similar to bicycle
parts and components; albeit, either modified and/or
'sectioned'. Now I'm not saying (for sure) they are such, just
that the similarity is there. For instance:

The (possibly) 'sectioned' and modified bicycle wheel rims stand
out on their own.

The 'parts' labeled thusly, 13, 14a, 14b, and, 16, all look like
ball-bearing races. Possibly from a bicycle frame's '"headset'.

Even the 'graphics' depicted (on the reproduced "photocopied"
pages 119 thru 123) are reminiscent of bicycle derailleur idler-
arm gear wheels.

I'm no engineer, just an experienced (many thousands of miles)
on-road bicyclist. Therefore, I'm familiar with bicycle
componentry. The "coincidental" (?) similarity kind of jumps
out to my eye.

Good luck with sorting it all out.


-----

See you ON the road!

'Bicycle Bob' Soetebier
St. Louis County, Missouri



posted on Jun, 29 2007 @ 11:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by LethalDose

Originally posted by pjslug
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.



I did read his paper in full and he explains in his letter how he managed to bring items out. He said that he was frisked everyday until he became familiar so he was able to bring classified items out... rubbish.


Absolutely. No matter how familiar you are with the security, they won't stop their security routine. Trust me, I know.



posted on Jun, 29 2007 @ 11:43 PM
link   
This is turning into a Photoshop off apparently.. so let me show you newbs how its done...


This page has 3-ring binder holes:


But this scan seems to be out of a booklet:
isaaccaret.fortunecity.com...

if you look at the top "A2 or A3" gun magazine lookin thingamajig. you can see it is casting a shadow onto the 3-d artist's false ground. You can see that the angle at which the "floor" (as its supposed to be) is at an extremely sharp angle.
--EDIT Insert URL:
isaaccaret.fortunecity.com...

*Also, it is almost impossible to scan in an image with white and get pure monitor white. I have an ultra bright LCD and the white on that "photograph" matches HEX #FFFFFF (pure white).

*As I have stated before, these images appear in two places, one with a high resolution full colored, real to life model. And one really #ty looking picture of the same exact picture in the apparent scanned documents. Isn't that a little strange? How did he obtain both copies of the picture? and nobody found out about it??

The fact that the document scan resolutions differ as shown -
760x983
783x982
775x983
771x782
As well as teh availability of not only the full res picture but the smaller picture is proof that this dude has access to photo shop and has opened these pics in it for one reason or another.

* He has also resized the pictures of the so called "flying drone" because the original pictures would be much much larger. Why aren't these pics available anywhere else if people actually saw this thing flying? Wouldn't it be all over the internet???

* When your scanning multiple documents that are the same size you don't do a preview scan every time. You do it once, select the area you want to keep scanning and simply replace the picture and scan the new one. This is why all the resolutions probably should be the same.

The following statement does 2 things: (below the 2 things)
1.) Lies to you. (addresses the witnesses by first name but also says he has never talked to them)
2.) Sounds like a government official trying to find out information about the witnesses because they could pose a potential danger to the confidential technology, and must be eliminated.

"I am also trying to get in touch with the witnesses so far, such as Chad, Rajman, Jenna, Ty, and the Lake Tahoe witness (especially Chad). I have advice for them that may be somewhat helpful in dealing with what they've seen and what I would recommend they do with what they know."

[edit on 29-6-2007 by blowfishdl]



posted on Jun, 29 2007 @ 11:58 PM
link   
Ok, here it is:



By focusing on the shadow created by this other wood piece, we can find the angle of the Sun. If you mark the exact start of the shadow, and the exact end of the shadow (like I did with a yellow circle/red center) we get our angle. The shadow line created is a straight line even though it appears to be curving because of the round shape to the pole. Anyway, this gives us our angle of the Sun. Now, compare that with the virtical angle of the telephone pole, and you can calculate a 70* degree angle. This means that the Sun is 90 - 70 = 20 degrees above the horizon.

That means:

Altitude = 20*
Azimuth = 270*

The picture is documented to be taken May 16th 2007, according to EarthFiles.com, so using this information I can look at the US Navy's Altitude/Azimuth calculator specs:

Astronomical Applications Dept.
U.S. Naval Observatory
CAPITOLA, CALIFORNIA
W121 58, N36 58
Altitude and Azimuth of the Sun
May 16, 2007

aa.usno.navy.mil...


h m o o
04:00 -11.1 55.6
04:10 -9.5 57.3
04:20 -7.8 59.0
04:30 -6.0 60.6
04:40 -4.3 62.2
04:50 -2.5 63.7
05:00 -0.1 65.3
05:10 1.5 66.8
05:20 3.2 68.2
05:30 5.0 69.7
05:40 6.9 71.1
05:50 8.7 72.5
06:00 10.6 74.0
06:10 12.5 75.3
06:20 14.5 76.7
06:30 16.4 78.1
06:40 18.4 79.5
06:50 20.3 80.9
07:00 22.3 82.3
07:10 24.3 83.7
07:20 26.3 85.1
07:30 28.3 86.5
07:40 30.3 87.9
07:50 32.2 89.4
08:00 34.2 90.9
08:10 36.2 92.5
08:20 38.2 94.1
08:30 40.2 95.7
08:40 42.2 97.4
08:50 44.2 99.2
09:00 46.1 101.0
09:10 48.1 103.0
09:20 50.0 105.0
09:30 52.0 107.2
09:40 53.9 109.6
09:50 55.7 112.1
10:00 57.6 114.8
10:10 59.3 117.7
10:20 61.1 120.9
10:30 62.8 124.4
10:40 64.4 128.3
10:50 65.9 132.6
11:00 67.3 137.4
11:10 68.6 142.7
11:20 69.7 148.5
11:30 70.7 154.9
11:40 71.4 161.8
11:50 71.9 169.1
12:00 72.2 176.8
12:10 72.1 184.5
12:20 71.9 192.1
12:30 71.3 199.3
12:40 70.5 206.2
12:50 69.6 212.5
13:00 68.4 218.2
13:10 67.1 223.4
13:20 65.7 228.1
13:30 64.1 232.4
13:40 62.5 236.2
13:50 60.8 239.7
14:00 59.1 242.8
14:10 57.3 245.7
14:20 55.4 248.4
14:30 53.6 250.9
14:40 51.7 253.2
14:50 49.8 255.4
15:00 47.8 257.4
15:10 45.9 259.3
15:20 43.9 261.2
15:30 41.9 262.9
15:40 39.9 264.6
15:50 38.0 266.3
16:00 36.0 267.9
16:10 34.0 269.4
16:20 32.0 270.9
16:30 30.0 272.4
16:40 28.0 273.8
16:50 26.0 275.2
17:00 24.0 276.6
17:10 22.0 278.0
17:20 20.1 279.4 ********
17:30 18.1 280.8
17:40 16.2 282.2
17:50 14.2 283.6
18:00 12.3 285.0
18:10 10.4 286.4
18:20 8.5 287.8
18:30 6.6 289.2
18:40 4.8 290.6
18:50 3.0 292.1
19:00 1.3 293.6
19:10 -0.9 295.1
19:20 -2.7 296.6
19:30 -4.5 298.2
19:40 -6.2 299.8
19:50 -7.9 301.4
20:00 -9.6 303.1
20:10 -11.3 304.8


...we can now see, this picture was taken on May 16th 2007, and about 5:20pm. This means the sun is slightly above the "drone". If that is true, then this entire images is CGI, because that would mean a shadow is missing....




...have a nice hoax.



[edit on 30-6-2007 by 11 11]



posted on Jun, 30 2007 @ 12:04 AM
link   
Nice work dude! THats it now people game over this picture is officially fake, wats next?



new topics

top topics



 
185
<< 48  49  50    52  53  54 >>

log in

join