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: 56
185
<< 53  54  55    57  58  59 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 30 2007 @ 04:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by greatlakes
Err theres only one option in the file menu, its called "Get Photos...from files or folders...". Thats what I used. Then I doubleclicke d the image in the album (only one image in the album) and renamed it. Then uploaded it.

Ill post the new rotate and rename next.

EDIT:

Ok, the rotated image and renamed here: s141.photobucket.com...

Let us know what you find...

[edit on 6/30/2007 by greatlakes]


Well both your pictures are a longer list of exif info. I'm using this IEXIF plugin so it's in a slightly different format than the info 11 11 posted,

This is from your first image:



[Image]
Image Description = MINOLTA DIGITAL CAMERA
Make = MINOLTA CO.,LTD
Model = DiMAGE X
Orientation = top/left
X Resolution = 72
Y Resolution = 72
Resolution Unit = inch
Software = V100-02
Date Time = 2002-02-14 15:27:00
YCbCr Positioning = co-sited
Exif IFD Pointer = Offset: 284

[Camera]
Exposure Time = 1/289"
F Number = F2.9
Exposure Program = Normal program
ISO Speed Ratings = 100
Exif Version = Version 2.1
Date Time Original = 2002-02-14 15:27:00
Date Time Digitized = 2002-02-14 15:27:00
Components Configuration = YCbcr
Compressed Bits Per Pixel = 4
Exposure Bias Value = ±0EV
Max Aperture Value = F2.83
Metering Mode = Pattern
Light Source = unknown
Flash = Off
Focal Length = 7.4mm
Maker Note = 632 Byte
User Comment =
Flashpix Version = Version 1.0
Color Space = sRGB
Exif Image Width = 1600
Exif Image Height = 1200
Interoperability IFD Pointer = Offset: 886
File Source = DSC
Scene Type = A directly photographed image

[Interoperability]
Interoperability Index = ExifR98
Interoperability Version = Version 1.0

[Thumbnail Info]
Compression = JPEG Compressed (Thumbnail)
X Resolution = 72
Y Resolution = 72
Resolution Unit = inch
JPEG Interchange Format = Offset: 4084
JPEG Interchange Format Length = Length: 5072

[Thumbnail]
Thumbnail = 160 x 120

[MakerNote (Minolta)]
Makernote Version = MLT0
0200 = 0, 0, 0
0201 = 3
0202 = 0
0203 = 0
0204 = 0/100
020E = 0
020F = 0
0210 = 0
0211 = 0
0212 = 0
0213 = 0
0214 = 0
0215 = 0
0216 = 0
0217 = 0
0218 = 0
0219 = 0
021A = 0
021B = 0
021C = 0
021D = 0
021E = 0
021F = 0
PIM IFD = 50, 72, 69, 6E, 74, 49, 4D, 00, 30, 31, 30, 30, 00, 00, 04, 00, 01, 00, 16, 00, 16, 00, 02, 00, 01, 00, 00, 00, 00, 01, 01, 00, 00, 00, 01, 01, 00, 00, 00, 00
0F00 = 00, E5, 00, 80, 01, 26, 00, 00, 00, 00, FF, 00, 00, 00, 00, 00, 0D, 36, 25, 78, 00, 00, 00, 00, 0D, 6B, 00, 00, 29, DD, 00, 00, 0D, 6B, 00, 00, 29, DD, 00, 00, 00, 00, 08, 05, 00, 00, 0C, 39, 00, 1D, 00, 00, 00, 00, 0F, 04, 11, 3D, 11, F4, 10, EE, A5, 21, 00, D9, 00, 00, 00, 00, 29, 22, 11, 00, 00, 00, 50, 00, 00, 00, 00, 00, 00, 00, 00, 00, 38, 68, 00, 00, 47, 03, 14, 6E, 00, 00, 00, 00, 00, 00, 00, 00, 00, 00, 00, 00, 00, 00, 00, 00, 00, 00, 0D, 89, FF, F0, 30, 03, 00, 00, 0A, 00, 00, D9, 11, 39, 00, 00, 00, 00, 99, 99, 99, 99, 19, 61, 12, 31, 75, 78, 89, 8A, 0E, 13, 18, 14, 12, 10, 16, 12, 00, 00, 00, 85, 00, 0C, 00, 06, 01, 00, 80, 53, 00, 01, 03, 84, 00, 00, 00, 0F, 6A, D6, FF, 67, 0B, 71, 31, 4F, 0E, 51, 26, 67, 00, 64, 00, D9, 0D, 16, 0C, 06, FF, FF, FF, FF, 01, 02, 10, 40, 00, 02, 00, FF, 00, 40, 00, 40, 00, 00, 00, 10, 00, 00, 00, 00, 11, 11, 11, 11, 0A, 37, 21, 0E, 01, 5C, 01, 00, 13, 14, 14, 09, 00, 00, 00, 00, 00, 00, 32, 29, 0B, 61, 37, 00, 11, 09, 05, 0E, 0C, 12, 11, 0F, 87, 65, 43, 21





[edit on 30-6-2007 by mvario]




posted on Jun, 30 2007 @ 04:25 AM
link   
This is from your second, rotated test image (note software changed to Adobe):



[Image]
Image Description = MINOLTA DIGITAL CAMERA
Make = MINOLTA CO.,LTD
Model = DiMAGE X
Orientation = top/left
X Resolution = 72
Y Resolution = 72
Resolution Unit = inch
Software = Adobe Photoshop Album Starter Edition 3.0
Date Time = 2007-06-30 01:55:38
YCbCr Positioning = co-sited
Exif IFD Pointer = Offset: 282

[Camera]
Exposure Time = 1/289"
F Number = F2.9
Exposure Program = Normal program
ISO Speed Ratings = 100
Exif Version = Version 2.1
Date Time Original = 2002-02-14 15:27:00
Date Time Digitized = 2002-02-14 15:27:00
Components Configuration = YCbcr
Compressed Bits Per Pixel = 4
Exposure Bias Value = ±0EV
Max Aperture Value = F2.83
Metering Mode = Pattern
Light Source = unknown
Flash = Off
Focal Length = 7.4mm
Maker Note = 632 Byte
Flashpix Version = Version 1.0
Color Space = sRGB
Exif Image Width = 1200
Exif Image Height = 1600
Interoperability IFD Pointer = Offset: 1284
File Source = DSC
Scene Type = A directly photographed image

[Interoperability]
Interoperability Index = ExifR98
Interoperability Version = Version 1.0

[Thumbnail Info]
Compression = JPEG Compressed (Thumbnail)
X Resolution = 72
Y Resolution = 72
Resolution Unit = inch
JPEG Interchange Format = Offset: 1408
JPEG Interchange Format Length = Length: 4754

[Thumbnail]
Thumbnail = 120 x 160

[MakerNote (Minolta)]
Makernote Version = MLT0
0200 = 0, 0, 0
0201 = 3
0202 = 0
0203 = 0
0204 = 0/100
020E = 0
020F = 0
0210 = 0
0211 = 0
0212 = 0
0213 = 0
0214 = 0
0215 = 0
0216 = 0
0217 = 0
0218 = 0
0219 = 0
021A = 0
021B = 0
021C = 0
021D = 0
021E = 0
021F = 0
PIM IFD = 50, 72, 69, 6E, 74, 49, 4D, 00, 30, 31, 30, 30, 00, 00, 04, 00, 01, 00, 16, 00, 16, 00, 02, 00, 01, 00, 00, 00, 00, 01, 01, 00, 00, 00, 01, 01, 00, 00, 00, 00
0F00 = 00, E5, 00, 80, 01, 26, 00, 00, 00, 00, FF, 00, 00, 00, 00, 00, 0D, 36, 25, 78, 00, 00, 00, 00, 0D, 6B, 00, 00, 29, DD, 00, 00, 0D, 6B, 00, 00, 29, DD, 00, 00, 00, 00, 08, 05, 00, 00, 0C, 39, 00, 1D, 00, 00, 00, 00, 0F, 04, 11, 3D, 11, F4, 10, EE, A5, 21, 00, D9, 00, 00, 00, 00, 29, 22, 11, 00, 00, 00, 50, 00, 00, 00, 00, 00, 00, 00, 00, 00, 38, 68, 00, 00, 47, 03, 14, 6E, 00, 00, 00, 00, 00, 00, 00, 00, 00, 00, 00, 00, 00, 00, 00, 00, 00, 00, 0D, 89, FF, F0, 30, 03, 00, 00, 0A, 00, 00, D9, 11, 39, 00, 00, 00, 00, 99, 99, 99, 99, 19, 61, 12, 31, 75, 78, 89, 8A, 0E, 13, 18, 14, 12, 10, 16, 12, 00, 00, 00, 85, 00, 0C, 00, 06, 01, 00, 80, 53, 00, 01, 03, 84, 00, 00, 00, 0F, 6A, D6, FF, 67, 0B, 71, 31, 4F, 0E, 51, 26, 67, 00, 64, 00, D9, 0D, 16, 0C, 06, FF, FF, FF, FF, 01, 02, 10, 40, 00, 02, 00, FF, 00, 40, 00, 40, 00, 00, 00, 10, 00, 00, 00, 00, 11, 11, 11, 11, 0A, 37, 21, 0E, 01, 5C, 01, 00, 13, 14, 14, 09, 00, 00, 00, 00, 00, 00, 32, 29, 0B, 61, 37, 00, 11, 09, 05, 0E, 0C, 12, 11, 0F, 87, 65, 43, 21



posted on Jun, 30 2007 @ 04:27 AM
link   
mvario, this proves without a doubt that the images of the drone have been processed through multiple programs other than Adobe Album. Good Work, thanks Greatlakes for the test.



posted on Jun, 30 2007 @ 04:31 AM
link   

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.


Minolta DiMAGE X Just to clarify, not a SLR



posted on Jun, 30 2007 @ 04:35 AM
link   
Here is the exif info from one of the hi-def Rajman pics I downloaded (PICT0014 .jpg)



[Image]
Compression = JPEG Compressed (Thumbnail)
Image Description = MINOLTA DIGITAL CAMERA
Make = MINOLTA CO.,LTD
Model = DiMAGE X
Orientation = top/left
X Resolution = 72
Y Resolution = 72
Resolution Unit = inch
Software = V100-02
Date Time = 2007-05-16 17:41:34
YCbCr Positioning = co-sited
Exif IFD Pointer = Offset: 250

[Camera]
Exposure Program = Normal program
ISO Speed Ratings = 100
Exif Version = Version 2.2
Date Time Original = 2007-05-16 17:41:34
Date Time Digitized = 2007-05-16 17:41:34
Components Configuration = YCbcr
Compressed Bits Per Pixel = 4
Metering Mode = Pattern
Light Source = unknown
Flash = Off
Flashpix Version = Version 1.0
Color Space = sRGB
Exif Image Width = 1600
Exif Image Height = 1200
File Source = DSC
Scene Type = A directly photographed image

[Thumbnail Info]
Compression = JPEG Compressed (Thumbnail)
X Resolution = 72
Y Resolution = 72
JPEG Interchange Format = Offset: 578
JPEG Interchange Format Length = Length: 2002

[Thumbnail]
Thumbnail = 160 x 120



There does appear to be some difference in the camera software as the test images say Exif version 2.1 while the Rajman images say Exif version 2.2.

So either there is a difference with what info the camera saves as exif info between these version, or the images were processed in some way by some other software that altered the exif info, or the exif info was deliberately altered. Without knowing why the exif version numbers differ (perhaps they indicate different camera firmware), or what other software was used, I don't think a conclusive determination can be made.



posted on Jun, 30 2007 @ 04:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by 11 11
Ok, so, give me an image with unedited EXIF data, straight from the camera.

Because the EXIF data does not match that of a real raw image from the same camera, the image should be classified as photoshoped/edited, untill a REAL RAW image with the original EXIF data appears.

The above is standard practice for images on the internet.


You should know that there are many programs that edit that data without ever letting the user know. Even with RAW images there might be edited exif data, there's no way of knowing unless you're using a image authentication kit.
Standard practice for photograps for internet is to make them smaller, alot smaller than what they're out of the camera.



posted on Jun, 30 2007 @ 04:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by Anciel

Originally posted by 11 11
Sorry but your helicopter exmaple has zero reference to the angle at which the chopper is flying.. With the drone example, we can pretty much tell that it is level by referencing it with the telephone pole...

Your example was irrelivent. Please find another.


Actually, the fact that you don't know for sure whether the drone is tilting or not renders your basis on the telephone pole for complete certainty of the alignment of the shadows flawed.



Actually there was nothing wrong with my calculations of the angle of the shadow. In fact, I was 98% accurate, which was proven by the EXIF data.

I suggest you re-read these:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Jun, 30 2007 @ 04:43 AM
link   
mvario, try this EXIF reader...

www.takenet.or.jp...

This will show the APP Markers, which are very important.



posted on Jun, 30 2007 @ 04:44 AM
link   
What ever the exif says you cant use it to prove anything. It can be so easily edited and working with alot of cameras I know for sure that many people dont keep their date/time in the camera correct.



posted on Jun, 30 2007 @ 04:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by PsykoOps

You should know that there are many programs that edit that data without ever letting the user know. Even with RAW images there might be edited exif data, there's no way of knowing unless you're using a image authentication kit.
Standard practice for photograps for internet is to make them smaller, alot smaller than what they're out of the camera.


Actually, I know that most digital cameras can be directly plugged into Windows XP via USB, and a Explorer window will pop up with the entire directory of images visible. All you have to do is drag and drop the files from the memory in the camera, onto your desktop. This is raw access, which most cameras have these days...

Also, standard practice on a conspiracy forum where digital images are the prime content, is to have the raw image jpg file straight from the camera, with the original EXIF data intact.



posted on Jun, 30 2007 @ 04:46 AM
link   
That french site is great. I wish I could read it. I've been looking over the entire thing and they have put together an entire history since this thing unfolded. I think it is becoming an international curiosity now, and within 1 to 2 weeks I'm betting it will be on the main news programs. It's spread all over the internet. More people are seeing the drones and putting them on camera. I can only imagine how the military will eventually respond to this. The french site has a great collection of images such as this:



Those of you doubting the Capitola claims may want to contact this person directly. His e-mail address is right there on the top of the image.



posted on Jun, 30 2007 @ 04:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by 11 11

Also, standard practice on a conspiracy forum where digital images are the prime content, is to have the raw image jpg file straight from the camera, with the original EXIF data intact.


Yeah true, but the bloke who took these photographs probably isn't a regular here

Btw, raw image and jpg are not the same, in best case scenario a jpg is about 80% of the data of a raw image.



posted on Jun, 30 2007 @ 04:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by pjslug
That french site is great. I wish I could read it. I've been looking over the entire thing and they have put together an entire history since this thing unfolded. I think it is becoming an international curiosity now, and within 1 to 2 weeks I'm betting it will be on the main news programs. It's spread all over the internet. More people are seeing the drones and putting them on camera. I can only imagine how the military will eventually respond to this. The french site has a great collection of images such as this:



Those of you doubting the Capitola claims may want to contact this person directly. His e-mail address is right there on the top of the image.


God help this gullible one...

You know how easy it is for someone to go to multiple websites with different names, and claim they saw this CGI Drone? To easy...

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



posted on Jun, 30 2007 @ 04:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by 11 11
...we can pretty much tell that it is level by referencing it with the telephone pole...


Dude, make your mind up. In several posts you're all for working out the angle of the drone and saying we don't even know its flat and in this post you're saying you know its straight and level.

Please PLEASE just stop posting the same arguments, we can read back, let someone else throw something into the mix or let the discussion get back to Isaac and CARET.



posted on Jun, 30 2007 @ 04:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by PsykoOps

Yeah true, but the bloke who took these photographs probably isn't a regular here

Btw, raw image and jpg are not the same, in best case scenario a jpg is about 80% of the data of a raw image.


EXIF data only resides in a JPG, TIFF, and RIFF images. When I mean RAW I meant the JPG, straight from the camera, and not edited in any other program. Nothing else.



posted on Jun, 30 2007 @ 04:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by ejsaunders


Dude, make your mind up. In several posts you're all for working out the angle of the drone and saying we don't even know its flat and in this post you're saying you know its straight and level.

Please PLEASE just stop posting the same arguments, we can read back, let someone else throw something into the mix or let the discussion get back to Isaac and CARET.


WTF are you talking about. Are you reading the same forum as me?? I never once EVER tried to work out the angle of the drone.... so WTF are you talking about??

The only time I mentioned "not knowing if its level" is when I was refering to spf33's render he showed us with the 3D Studio Max shadow example..

Someone told ME that I don't know the angle of the drone and that my calculations would depend on that.. then later someone tried to prove me wrong with their example, and their drone was level also.. So I used their own arguement against them...

So learn to read.... Maybe back up your words with some PROOF of what I said....



posted on Jun, 30 2007 @ 04:59 AM
link   

God help this gullible one...


You are the most immature person I have ever seen on this forum. If you can't be more useful here than throwing petty childish insults at people, do what I said earlier and take yourself to another thread.



posted on Jun, 30 2007 @ 05:01 AM
link   
Its funny, people keep claiming they proved me wrong, and that I said this and I said that... yet they NEVER show proof, or reference URLs.


Man, If I were like them, I would probably believe this hoax too!



posted on Jun, 30 2007 @ 05:01 AM
link   
That's not true, raw files and some audio files have exif data too.
Btw, did you take into account in your shadow calculation that the telephone pole might not be exactly 90 degrees, I know it's supposed to be but isn't there a possibility of few degree tilt?



posted on Jun, 30 2007 @ 05:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by pjslug

God help this gullible one...


You are the most immature person I have ever seen on this forum. If you can't be more useful here than throwing petty childish insults at people, do what I said earlier and take yourself to another thread.


LOL, what a hypocrit. Earlyer you call me names, and tell me to leave the forum. I never once called you a name before that, ever.

Now you are here again, calling ME immature, because you are gullible? Why don't you look in the mirror, you will find the true immature one.

This is going to be extremely great when everyone finds out about this hoax... I will look back on this thread and smile with so much joy.



new topics

top topics



 
185
<< 53  54  55    57  58  59 >>

log in

join