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: 53
185
<< 50  51  52    54  55  56 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 30 2007 @ 12:57 AM
link   
I'm a cgi artist, and after having looked closely at the photography of "Isaac's" alien artifacts (pacl-q486-photo-4-fullsize.jpg), there is no evidence of digital rendering. That is, there are no pixels representing antialiasing on the geometric edges of the objects depicted.

Even by utilizing blur (Gaussian and grain) filters to mimic photographic imagery, the falloff from the object edges is completely different for digital synthetic rendering than what is seen in these photos.

Also note the slight luminous ringing, or halo, of background that surrounds the edge delineation of the objects photographed. This effect is from optical iris compensation for contrast thresholds (i.e. dark edges against a very light background). This effect is not easily achievable in PhotoShop or some other digital graphic manipulation application. It is exclusively seen in either optical or electronic (TV) displays. That is another way of saying that the photography is analog rather than digital. These objects were photographed with a traditional, SLR-type film camera.




posted on Jun, 30 2007 @ 12:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by mvario
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?

The time setting was determined not by the EXIF data, read 1111's post, it was determined from the sun angle and the geographic location of the picture origin.
That was the whole point of the alt/azimuth calcs...

But you bring a good point I think, that is the angle w.r.t level of the drone. This I believe can also be determined, we know the suns location, the time of day and the angles it makes from the shadow of a level object. The angle of the craft can then be determined from this information, from how the shadows fall onto the craft longitudinally.

spf33 what software is that your're using.?



posted on Jun, 30 2007 @ 12:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by mvario

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?


That's a very good point as well. However, assuming that this craft works on anti-gravity like it is claimed to by Isaac, why would it need to be pitched in any direction? It's not like there would be any downforce motion of air to propel it like a helicopter. And it wouldn't need to be pitched at any angle to move on XYZ axes.



posted on Jun, 30 2007 @ 12:59 AM
link   
It doesnt matter the angle, or the height, or the position of the Sun. All of my calculations were 98% accurate about the time and day, but that is all to prove the Sun is higher than the "drone". The only time the Sun would be lower then the "drone" is if it was later at night, the image would be darker. None of that matters anyway, because the fact still stands and the model in the image is missing a shadow....




You can't have a shadow under the arm, without casting a shadow onto the body... PERIOD.



posted on Jun, 30 2007 @ 01:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by srb2001
I'm a cgi artist, and after having looked closely at the photography of "Isaac's" alien artifacts (pacl-q486-photo-4-fullsize.jpg), there is no evidence of digital rendering. That is, there are no pixels representing antialiasing on the geometric edges of the objects depicted.

Even by utilizing blur (Gaussian and grain) filters to mimic photographic imagery, the falloff from the object edges is completely different for digital synthetic rendering than what is seen in these photos.

Also note the slight luminous ringing, or halo, of background that surrounds the edge delineation of the objects photographed. This effect is from optical iris compensation for contrast thresholds (i.e. dark edges against a very light background). This effect is not easily achievable in PhotoShop or some other digital graphic manipulation application. It is exclusively seen in either optical or electronic (TV) displays. That is another way of saying that the photography is analog rather than digital. These objects were photographed with a traditional, SLR-type film camera.


The luminous ringing is correct, and that would be from an SLR. But it makes no difference if it is digital or film, because the lens and optics are all the same. The only difference in a digital camera is the CCD board instead of the film. The type of camera and the time it was taken were all present in the EXIF data, a Minolta DiMAGE X, which I believe is an SLR camera.



posted on Jun, 30 2007 @ 01:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by LethalDose


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.


Good for you, don't bother posting anymore then unless you are going to add something to the discussion.

Personally I don't care what this guy says. If he has done some work such as spf then give me a link to it and I'll look at it and make a decision based on that.

I think it's fairly clear that a certain set of pictures of the drone are fake. Doesn't matter, it only takes one to be real.

Also for those that have said it's a hoax because they have predicted the next picture or sequence of events or that this conforms to some standard pattern of hoaxing you are probably right to a degree. The fake pics do fall into that pattern but take those out and the sequence of events is slightly different.

None of the eyewitness accounts mention an appendage hanging below the central ring, nor is anything shown by Isaac to that effect.



posted on Jun, 30 2007 @ 01:07 AM
link   
Maybe this is more understandable?




By the way, there are EXIF EDITORS avalible on the internet. Simple easy click ones...


You would think if a graphics artist was trying to hoax people, he would have thought of an EXIF EDITOR.

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



posted on Jun, 30 2007 @ 01:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by srb2001
That is another way of saying that the photography is analog rather than digital. These objects were photographed with a traditional, SLR-type film camera.



Originally posted by pjslug
The luminous ringing is correct, and that would be from an SLR. But it makes no difference if it is digital or film, because the lens and optics are all the same. The only difference in a digital camera is the CCD board instead of the film. The type of camera and the time it was taken were all present in the EXIF data, a Minolta DiMAGE X, which I believe is an SLR camera.


Err the Minolta Dimage X is a digital camera as far as I can tell. See here: www.imaging-resource.com...


[edit on 6/30/2007 by greatlakes]



posted on Jun, 30 2007 @ 01:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by chunder

Originally posted by LethalDose


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.


Good for you, don't bother posting anymore then unless you are going to add something to the discussion.

Personally I don't care what this guy says. If he has done some work such as spf then give me a link to it and I'll look at it and make a decision based on that.

I think it's fairly clear that a certain set of pictures of the drone are fake. Doesn't matter, it only takes one to be real.

Also for those that have said it's a hoax because they have predicted the next picture or sequence of events or that this conforms to some standard pattern of hoaxing you are probably right to a degree. The fake pics do fall into that pattern but take those out and the sequence of events is slightly different.
None of the eyewitness accounts mention an appendage hanging below the central ring, nor is anything shown by Isaac to that effect.


Ok king i shall do as im told wouldnt want you to spank me now...

Anyway You carry on believing because you want to and you won't accept a fact even if it came over and twatted you on the chin. Your so gullable, i feel sorry for you!



posted on Jun, 30 2007 @ 01:19 AM
link   
Show me a fact then.



posted on Jun, 30 2007 @ 01:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by 11 11
Maybe this is more understandable?




By the way, there are EXIF EDITORS avalible on the internet. Simple easy click ones...


You would think if a graphics artist was trying to hoax people, he would have thought of an EXIF EDITOR.

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


Firstly the ring you talk about is not in the same plane as the arm, so no, the light wouldn't neccessarily be as you say. The ring has a chamfered or rounded edge, the arm is flat.

Secondly, if a graphics artist can think of an EXIF EDITOR, conversely shouldn't they also have got the lighting spot on and then we wouldn't have to waste all this time.



posted on Jun, 30 2007 @ 01:29 AM
link   

Err the Minolta Dimage X is a digital camera as far as I can tell. See here: www.imaging-resource.com...


Yes, they make SLR digital cameras and have for a long time now. Sorry if you didn't understand that from my post, but obviously it would be a digital camera if it has EXIF data.

[edit on 30-6-2007 by pjslug]



posted on Jun, 30 2007 @ 01:32 AM
link   
Minolta Dimage Z1 Digital Camera
(3.3MP, 2048x1536, 10x Opt, 16MB SD Card - MPN: 2724301)
Price Range: $225.95 - $329.95 from 4 Sellers
Description: The DiMAGE Z1 is a powerful yet easy-to-use SLR-type digital camera. Designed around Minolta new 10X Mega-zoom, the DiMAGE Z1 Rapid AF so you can capture images in virtually any situation. TV quality 30fps VGA movies expand its capabiliti.... Read More



posted on Jun, 30 2007 @ 01:33 AM
link   
just a shadow comparison pic:



as you can clearly see, even at a slight tilt, the light directly hits small parts of the belly sticking out while the shadow remains right at the edge....the wings on the drone are so flat, I don't see them making much of a shadow, especially considering the sun appears to be towards the side and the drone is at an angle.

[edit on 30-6-2007 by Anciel]



posted on Jun, 30 2007 @ 01:38 AM
link   
OK, lets kill this once and for all..

I found pictures taken from a REAL Minolta Dimage X camera, from this website...

www.imaging-resource.com...

.... I then looked at the EXIF data from that image, and compared it to the CGI Drone EXIF data. What do you know, it appears the Drone EXIF data has been edited, it also shows the photo has been through several programs.


REAL Minolta Dimage X EXIF data:


Filename : DXHAWB[1].JPG
JFIF_APP1 : Exif
Main Information
ImageDescription : MINOLTA DIGITAL CAMERA
Make : MINOLTA CO.,LTD
Model : DiMAGE X
Orientation : left-hand side
XResolution : 72/1
YResolution : 72/1
ResolutionUnit : Inch
Software : V100-02
DateTime : 2002:03:31 20:52:58
YCbCrPositioning : co-sited
ExifInfoOffset : 284
Sub Information
ExposureTime : 1/194.5Sec
FNumber : F3.1
ExposureProgram : Program Normal
ISOSpeedRatings : 100
ExifVersion : 0210
DateTimeOriginal : 2002:03:31 20:52:58
DateTimeDigitized : 2002:03:31 20:52:58
ComponentConfiguration : YCbCr
CompressedBitsPerPixel : 4/1 (bit/pixel)
ExposureBiasValue : EV0.0
MaxApertureValue : F2.8
MeteringMode : Division
LightSource : Unidentified
Flash : Not fired
FocalLength : 10.90(mm)
MakerNote : Minolta Format : 632Bytes (Offset:916)
UserComment :
FlashPixVersion : 0100
ColorSpace : sRGB
ExifImageWidth : 1600
ExifImageHeight : 1200
ExifInteroperabilityOffset : 886
FileSource : DSC
SceneType : A directly photographed image
Vendor Original Information
Unknown (0000)7,4 : MLT0
Unknown (0200)4,3 : 0,0,0
Quality : FINE
Macro Mode : Off
Unknown (0203)3,1 : 0
Digital Tele : X 1.00
Unknown (020E)3,1 : 0
Unknown (020F)3,1 : 0
Unknown (0210)3,1 : 0
Unknown (0211)3,1 : 0
Unknown (0212)3,1 : 0
Unknown (0213)3,1 : 0
Unknown (0214)3,1 : 0
Unknown (0215)3,1 : 0
Unknown (0216)3,1 : 0
Unknown (0217)3,1 : 0
Unknown (0218)3,1 : 0
Unknown (0219)3,1 : 0
Unknown (021A)3,1 : 0
Unknown (021B)3,1 : 0
Unknown (021C)3,1 : 0
Manual WB : Off
Unknown (021E)3,1 : 0
Unknown (021F)3,1 : 0
PrintIM IFD : Offset:1254 (40byte)
Unknown (0F00)7,254 : Offset:1294
Print Image Matching Info
Version : 0100
Unknown (0001) : 16 00 16 00
Unknown (0002) : 01 00 00 00
Unknown (0100) : 01 00 00 00
Unknown (0101) : 00 00 00 00
ExifR98
ExifR : R98
Version : 0100
Thumbnail Information
Compression : OLDJPEG
XResolution : 72/1
YResolution : 72/1
ResolutionUnit : Inch
JPEGInterchangeFormat : 4084
JPEGInterchangeFormatLength : 4724




CGI Drone Edited EXIF data:


Filename : 6gjyo0n[1].jpg
JFIF_APP1 : Exif
JFIF_APP1 : http
JFIF_APP2 : ICC Profile (offset:18206 size:3151bytes)
JFIF_APP15 : Adobe
Main Information
Compression : OLDJPEG
ImageDescription : MINOLTA DIGITAL CAMERA
Make : MINOLTA CO.,LTD
Model : DiMAGE X
Orientation : left-hand side
XResolution : 72/1
YResolution : 72/1
ResolutionUnit : Inch
Software : Adobe Photoshop Album Starter Edition 3.0
DateTime : 2007:06:04 20:14:27
YCbCrPositioning : co-sited
ExifInfoOffset : 286
Sub Information
ExposureProgram : Program Normal
ISOSpeedRatings : 100
ExifVersion : 0220
DateTimeOriginal : 2007:05:16 17:42:58
DateTimeDigitized : 2007:05:16 17:42:58
ComponentConfiguration : YCbCr
CompressedBitsPerPixel : 4/1 (bit/pixel)
MeteringMode : Division
LightSource : Unidentified
Flash : Not fired
FlashPixVersion : 0100
ColorSpace : sRGB
ExifImageWidth : 1200
ExifImageHeight : 1600
FileSource : DSC
SceneType : A directly photographed image
Thumbnail Information
Compression : OLDJPEG
XResolution : 72/1
YResolution : 72/1
JPEGInterchangeFormat : 614
JPEGInterchangeFormatLength : 2517



Wow, look at the difference.. Hey why is the CGI Drone EXIF so short??



posted on Jun, 30 2007 @ 01:42 AM
link   
Speaking about photos, have you noticed that most of the scratches and dirt on the photographs are visible in the "original" documents?




I didn't even bother to line them up properly, but they're there. You can see them better by putting them in different layers and turning them on/off.



posted on Jun, 30 2007 @ 01:42 AM
link   
Should I continue to shred this hoax apart?



posted on Jun, 30 2007 @ 01:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by Farnswoth
Speaking about photos, have you noticed that most of the scratches and dirt on the photographs are visible in the "original" documents?




I didn't even bother to line them up properly, but they're there. You can see them better by putting them in different layers and turning them on/off.


GJ Farnswoth! So what conclusion do you come to with that info?

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



posted on Jun, 30 2007 @ 01:51 AM
link   
Is it just me or does this drone caret hoax smell just like the john titor hoax? Their presentation are very similar, both having similar looking ultra top secret government manuals....

I tossed up a page comparing the two based on the manual art-alone here is my comparison:

spacetimenews.com...

I will look more into it, possibly someone is just copying the Titor crew's style of hoaxing. Also have any of the other eye-witnesses from seperate origins been authenticated, anyone can spoof an email and claim they are in China or California or wherever.

I'm re-designing my old site and starting from scratch it will be updated and re-finished within the next few months...

spacetimenews.com...



posted on Jun, 30 2007 @ 01:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by greatlakes

Originally posted by mvario
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?

The time setting was determined not by the EXIF data, read 1111's post, it was determined from the sun angle and the geographic location of the picture origin.
That was the whole point of the alt/azimuth calcs...

But you bring a good point I think, that is the angle w.r.t level of the drone. This I believe can also be determined, we know the suns location, the time of day and the angles it makes from the shadow of a level object. The angle of the craft can then be determined from this information, from how the shadows fall onto the craft longitudinally.

spf33 what software is that your're using.?


Okay. So the time is based on the assumption the date is correct, and that the reference pole is perfectly vertical and the crosspiece perfectly horizontal.

Assuming the object is real, based on the same time of day, the angles of the shadows from the object onto itself would be able to determine the pitch and yaw.



new topics

top topics



 
185
<< 50  51  52    54  55  56 >>

log in

join