It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Thank you.

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

# [HOAX] Isaac CARET - Drones [HOAX]

page: 52
185
share:

posted on Jun, 30 2007 @ 12:11 AM
11 11, excellent work, well done.

I'm trying to follow and this may be a stupid question but where do you get the azimuth from ?

Edited to add: I get it I think, you calculate 20 degrees and then pick it from the table - the options for May 16th at 20 degrees being either 06:50 or 17:20. So the angle of the sun and all this data helps to determine the time the picture was taken.

Then you say that at that time the sun was slightly above the drone. The sun, as you have already calculated, was at 20 degrees altitude.

If you draw a horizontal perspective picture, showing the camera location at say 5ft height, the drone in relation to that say 25ft high and maybe 6ft to the right, I actually get an almost exact 20 degree angle for the drone compared to ground level.

Therefore the sun was almost exactly parallel to the arm of the drone and would not be casting a shadow.

In fact it would look exactly as the picture does.

[edit on 30-6-2007 by chunder]

posted on Jun, 30 2007 @ 12:14 AM

Originally posted by chunder
11 11, excellent work, well done.

I'm trying to follow and this may be a stupid question but where do you get the azimuth from ?

We all know the Sun sets in the West, or slightly West. Azimuth for West is exactly 270 degrees. According to the US Navy calculations, the Sun actually set 279.4 degrees on the day this picture was taken.

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

posted on Jun, 30 2007 @ 12:21 AM
You went through a lot of effort, and that is commendable. Good job. That is how a hoax should be disproved, if it is going to be busted. I still disagree respectively with your findings though.

But in windows vista, if you click on the digital picture file, get properties, then click on the detail tab it reveals information. It gives the data about the photo. It says the created date is the date I loaded it on my computer which is today. But the modified date, the last time this file was accessed, was on 6/4/2007 at 4:44 p.m.

But more importantly it shows the date the photo was taken as 5/16/2007 at 5:42 p.m. by a Minolta DiMAGE X camera, 1600x1200 dpi, 24 bit, sRGB, compression JPEG, Metering mode: pattern, No flash, EXIF version 0220.

It was taken with a digital camera, unequivocally unless someone went into a HEX editor and modified it, which I'm not sure leaves itself untraceable. Either way, this states that it was taken for real and the object, even if it was fake, is above the power lines and is not a CGI image. Now you can find the position of the sun at 5:42 p.m. on May 16, 2007 and calculate the sun's angle.

This information tells me that the photo is most likely a genuine article.

posted on Jun, 30 2007 @ 12:25 AM
Let me add for clarification that would place the sun at about 3 - 4 degrees lower than where you mentioned.

posted on Jun, 30 2007 @ 12:26 AM
Face facts dude its proven fake. Just like the rest of them.

posted on Jun, 30 2007 @ 12:29 AM

posted on Jun, 30 2007 @ 12:29 AM
EXIF Editors:

...and wow, I was 20 minutes off then huh? Then instead of a perfect 20 degrees, its only 16.2 degrees. Meaning the sun is still above the horizon, meaning the sun is still above the "cgi drone".

posted on Jun, 30 2007 @ 12:31 AM
In the details data of the file properties, the file has nothing entered under Resolution unit. The moment I added anything to it and saved over it, it changed that resolution unit number to 2. If the file was modified to place an image inside of it after he took it, this field would contain data. And you cannot modify this tab, it is locked.

posted on Jun, 30 2007 @ 12:32 AM

Originally posted by LethalDose
Nice work dude! THats it now people game over this picture is officially fake, wats next?

Are you some kind of an official then ?

What's next should be a rational discussion of the very good points 11 11 has made, which incidentally I disagree with and which I will try and show why I disagree with it, without claiming to speak for the rest of the world.

posted on Jun, 30 2007 @ 12:32 AM
i dont understand the exciutement about the diagrams.. is there some secret to be uncovered? is there a message? will we see a report on the tv news? i dont know what im supposed to see in these drawings.. it seems to me to be a case of interpretation.. if you support the story, you see something astounding; if you are uncertain about what it is, you might not see anything.. i see circles and lines.. maybe they looki like crop circles? whats the most exciting thing that they could be?

posted on Jun, 30 2007 @ 12:34 AM
Great job, I think...Can someone verify his work...?

This work though was done concerning the Chad drones... not however the Isaac information...So yes it seems if the 1111's info is correct, that photo is a hoax...

Now how bout the Isaac stuff, lets apply the same logical thinking to it...

posted on Jun, 30 2007 @ 12:36 AM
spf,

That's the best work I've seen yet. Excellent job!

I'd like to see how 11 11 is going to refute it now.

Whoever made the craft in CGI there should have put the tabs on the bottom to show better that they would be illuminated, just like there is a trace of it on the craft.

[edit on 30-6-2007 by pjslug]

posted on Jun, 30 2007 @ 12:37 AM
spf33 - thanks, that was what I was trying to draw, with a pencil and a scrap of paper and no compass - your version being a bit better than that.

It's not clear to me what conclusion you draw, would the sun cause the arm to throw a shadow on the body or not ?

posted on Jun, 30 2007 @ 12:39 AM

The man that literally wrote the book on photoshop, David Biedny (google him), has declared all the sets of images fake, and that is enough for me.

posted on Jun, 30 2007 @ 12:39 AM
And how is the height of the drone determined?
Is it best guess, or is it known with an uncertainty factor or what?

posted on Jun, 30 2007 @ 12:40 AM

Originally posted by chunder
the sun cause the arm to throw a shadow on the body or not ?

no, not in that sim.
i'm fairly sure that even within the error tolerances it still wouldn't.

@greatlakes-most likely estimate.

[edit on 30-6-2007 by spf33]

posted on Jun, 30 2007 @ 12:46 AM

Originally posted by greatlakes
And how is the height of the drone determined?
Is it best guess, or is it known with an uncertainty factor or what?

We know its higher than the telephone pole.......

...it still doesn't matter, the Sun is STILL higher than the drone, meaning the arm should cast a shadow right on the body.

posted on Jun, 30 2007 @ 12:47 AM
So can we get some limits to the discussion then. It seems that the angle measurement has some degree of uncertainty to it, which can translate to large time differences, if I understand it correctly. So the limits I'm talking about are at what sun angle (alt) does the drone shadow makes sense?

Can it make sense at all feasible considering the angle of the shadows and with tolerances included?

What effect does the drone altitude have with the calcs?

Whats the best guess, with tolerance of the drones altitude or height above ground level?

Any others? I think we need to clarify this if we're making conclusions that I'm sure would ripple to every other podunk forum boards around lol

Originally posted by 11 11

Originally posted by greatlakes
And how is the height of the drone determined?
Is it best guess, or is it known with an uncertainty factor or what?

We know its higher than the telephone pole.......
...it still doesn't matter, the Sun is STILL higher than the drone, meaning the arm should cast a shadow right on the body.

I understand, but what effect does say a translation of 20 feet higher of the drones altitude have on the shadow, coupled with the worst case sun angle (later in the day) as determined by the uncertainty in the shadow angle...?

At what height would we say is the drone limited to? 20feet above the pole, 30 feet? Catch my drift? We need to be comprehensive in the analysis.

[edit on 6/30/2007 by greatlakes]

posted on Jun, 30 2007 @ 12:52 AM

Originally posted by 11 11

Originally posted by greatlakes
And how is the height of the drone determined?
Is it best guess, or is it known with an uncertainty factor or what?

We know its higher than the telephone pole.......

...it still doesn't matter, the Sun is STILL higher than the drone, meaning the arm should cast a shadow right on the body.

You are unbelievable. He just did extreme forensics work on this that shows that the image is 100% real, combined with all that I said about the file description data. The problem with CGI'ers like you is that you know very little if nothing about real world photography applications in lighting and shadow. This was all the proof I needed. Job very well done, spf. You should send that image to C2C and LMH. But before you do you should add the little tabs below the craft to better illustrate that the sun would in fact hit them.

[edit on 30-6-2007 by pjslug]

posted on Jun, 30 2007 @ 12:53 AM

Originally posted by 11 11

Originally posted by greatlakes
And how is the height of the drone determined?
Is it best guess, or is it known with an uncertainty factor or what?

We know its higher than the telephone pole.......

...it still doesn't matter, the Sun is STILL higher than the drone, meaning the arm should cast a shadow right on the body.

Is there a reason everyone is assuming that the object in question is level? A slight degree of pitch would alter where the shadows fall on itself, and without horizon visible in the picture I don't see how that can be determined.

Also, even assuming that exif information hasn't been tampered with is there any reason that the time setting is accurate?

new topics

top topics

185