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: 57
185
<< 54  55  56    58  59  60 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 30 2007 @ 05:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by PsykoOps
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?


EXIF is only in JPG, TIFF, and RIFF. RIFF is a type of wave audio file.

Also, if my calculations are not correct, then how did I guess the approximate time the picture was taken using the shadows only??

Using shadows only, I calculated the image was taken at 5:20pm. The EXIF data, which still hasn't been confirmed to be accurate, says the picture was taken at 5:49pm. Of course I rounded off my measurements, but I still got very very very close.. so why are people still debating the accuracy?




posted on Jun, 30 2007 @ 05:10 AM
link   

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.


So your entire motive for your posts is to make us look like fools so you can laugh and point fingers and giggle like an 8 year old? If that's your pursuit, I feel sorry for you that you have nothing better to do than spend all of your waking hours on here to fulfill that mission.

Some of us are trying to figure out the real reason for this recent discovery or farce because A) we are enchanted by it, and B) because we pursue the truth. Obviously your agenda is completely different and might be better put to use on a Barbie doll forum.



posted on Jun, 30 2007 @ 05:12 AM
link   
No that was just a though about the pole. I've seen some sad cases of those which barely stay up

And exif data is in raw files, I have a D200 and I shoot 95% raw and those files do have exif on them. In fact I believe that pretty much all cameras that shoot raw format do write exif's too. Raw isn't a standard though so it may vary between manufacturers.



posted on Jun, 30 2007 @ 05:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by 11 11
mvario, try this EXIF reader...

www.takenet.or.jp...

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


Thanks! Looks pretty good. I'll add it to my tools. Right now I mostly use IEXIF which has one nice thing, a Firefox extension so I can right-click on a image on a webpage and get exif info without downloading. But it doesn's seem to show app markers... what's that about?


Thanks again!



posted on Jun, 30 2007 @ 05:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by pjslug


So your entire motive for your posts is to make us look like fools so you can laugh and point fingers and giggle like an 8 year old? If that's your pursuit, I feel sorry for you that you have nothing better to do than spend all of your waking hours on here to fulfill that mission.

Some of us are trying to figure out the real reason for this recent discovery or farce because A) we are enchanted by it, and B) because we pursue the truth. Obviously your agenda is completely different and might be better put to use on a Barbie doll forum.


Actually pjslug, I am trying to prove this is a hoax, because it hurts the REAL UFO DISCLOSURE. People making fake UFO's and trying to pass them as real, really hurts the REAL UFO DISCLOSURE, because it fills the entire disclosure effort with fake after fake after fake, making the real stuff look even more fake. This then allows the selfish people who don't believe in life outside of Earth to use these fake UFO's against us.

I have said it once, and i'll say it again. I believe there is life outside of Earth. I believe another life form from outside of Earth has been to Earth. I actually believe the Bible is actaully talking about life forms outside of Earth when they say "Angels from Heaven". When ever someone says Heaven doesn't exist, I tell them to go outside at night, and look up, you will see The Heavens. PROOF of HEAVEN. I believe that we did not create all the technology we have today, and that it was givin to us. And I believe I have seen REAL ufo's because I am an expert with flying vehicles, and I am usualy able to identify everything, but there are many times I couldn't.

That said, will you PLEASE stop labeling me as someone who is hoaxing just for fun.... because I am not..... I just have the experiance and knowledge to know that every single picture of this drone was created with computer software. I am not going to lie and say this is real, and deny every actaul flaw in the story just because I want to believe. I am going to tell the absolute truth, and hope people wake up and see it.



posted on Jun, 30 2007 @ 05:29 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.


Is there a timeline around as to the dates when the different photos, and the Isaac stuff, were released publicly?



posted on Jun, 30 2007 @ 05:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by PsykoOps
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?


I don't see how anything conclusive can be drawn since none of the Rajman pictures show the horizon or any level reference at all. Otherwise I don't see enough info to show for certain that the pole is true vertical, or the cross beams horizontal (and one picture shows that the top and second cross beam are not parallel) or that the object is level.



posted on Jun, 30 2007 @ 05:39 AM
link   

Is there a timeline around as to the dates when the different photos, and the Isaac stuff, were released publicly?


Yes, but it's in French and I don't read or speak French.



posted on Jun, 30 2007 @ 05:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by mvario
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?


It doesn't matter, because I calculated the angle based on the shadow and the edge of the pole.



...you see, no matter if the pole is exactly 90 degrees veritcal or not, that 70* degree measurement would still be 70*. Meaning the shadow is 20* away from horizontal. This means that every single object in the picture should have its own 20* shadow under it.



posted on Jun, 30 2007 @ 05:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by pjslug

Is there a timeline around as to the dates when the different photos, and the Isaac stuff, were released publicly?


Yes, but it's in French and I don't read or speak French.



Supprized you don't know about this:

www.google.com...

...I guess researching for you stops when you can't read.



posted on Jun, 30 2007 @ 05:52 AM
link   

Supprized you don't know about this:

www.google.com...

...I guess researching for you stops when you can't read.


Have you seen how big that webpage is? Do you have any idea how many DAYS it would take to translate the whole thing? We already know about every story that is on that french site. But it's a nice collection of it all in one place.



posted on Jun, 30 2007 @ 06:01 AM
link   



posted on Jun, 30 2007 @ 06:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by 11 11

Originally posted by mvario
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?


It doesn't matter, because I calculated the angle based on the shadow and the edge of the pole.



...you see, no matter if the pole is exactly 90 degrees veritcal or not, that 70* degree measurement would still be 70*. Meaning the shadow is 20* away from horizontal. This means that every single object in the picture should have its own 20* shadow under it.


So what if, for example, the pole was listing 10 degrees? Then your 20 degrees would have to be adjusted to compensate. Think of worst-case and the pole was lying on the ground... if there were a 20 degree shadow then the sun would be in a completely different spot. The problem with the Rajman pictures is that none of them show the horizon or any other reference for horizontal. I don't see enough information in those pictures to conclusively demonstrate that the object is perfectly horizontal.



posted on Jun, 30 2007 @ 06:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by Razimus








posted on Jun, 30 2007 @ 06:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by 11 11

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.


Here, here, children play nice. Some people are going to be predisposed to believing this is real and some aren't. It is human nature: some people are born skeptics, some are made that way and some have blind faith. If you are going to try to reach a conclusion of whether or not this is real through science and technology, you should probably drop your bias one way or another before doing research. Because if you don't, your research will be jaded for you are looking at it through a skewed mind, looking at it and seeing what you want to see out of your research. Any great researcher or scientist will tell you that.

So far what do we know? Is possible that it is real? Yes. Is it possible that it is a hoax or something else? Yes. About a handful of people have come forward with seeing these craft. There are two different types of drones. Some unknown, former employer of the government produced picture, papers and a little a bit of his personal history about his work with similar technology. He says that he was a manager and computer scientist, which means he probably knows some computer code. It also means he probably wouldn't be too privy to the actual way the tech works, which is understandable. The people who saw the craft have posted pictures of it on the net. And have gone as far as putting up a craigslist listing to see if anyone in his area saw such a craft. We have not been able through through technology and science to prove them real or fake. That's about it a nut shell.

Do we have any concrete proof that this is the real thing? Inconclusive.

My best guess would be leaning on the side that these are real craft. They probably work on a magnet array for levitation and geomantic-type coding as their means of cloaking and computing. Images and sounds are probably taken though the some of the sensor tentacles. And info sent out through other sensor tentacles on the opposite side, which would make sense because the smaller object on Issac's site show some cursory antennae sensors (FM maybe?). Is this technology different then anything, we have ever seen? Most definitely.

I doubt you guys will be able to prove this with technology. We may just have to wait and see what else Issac may provide. I have a feeling that if this is real, may be the start or catalyst of the disclosure that everyone has been waiting for.

My advice to those with bent up frustrations and energies is to take a walk, play some video games, go and watch a movie or meditate whatever you feel like. Just take your mind off of this for a while, step back and see the bigger picture after all we learned. Who know you guys may be able to disprove or prove it with tech, but I doubt it for now. I think if this is a great, big impressive hoax. It is so perfectly done. you will not be able to prove anything. Welcome to the 21st Century, where you cannot prove anything you don't see firsthand!

Does God exist? I don't know I can't see him. LOL!

Being a skeptic isn't bad (actually quite good), but being completely biased towards your own way of thinking is just wrong. The blind leading the blind for we are all blind. Just something to think about.



posted on Jun, 30 2007 @ 06:17 AM
link   
LOL, here i am after a round of sleep and what do i see? STILL fighting over cgi hehe!

seriously guys. ok, let's assume the pics are fake. fine.

WHY WHY OH WHY the whole effort.

- someone doing this for kicks and a 15 minute fame on some ufo boards.

unlikely i think, WAY TOO MUCH work, several people required.

- ARG

possible, but see above.

- viral marketing

unreasonable, i don't see why one would do SO much work to promote a blockbuster game or movie in the seriously obscure scene of ufo and conspiracy forums.

- the things are real, someone seen them and maybe took a photo of it, and the easiest way to officially debunk it is to create a hoax with part truth and part lies, and again esiest to do would be to throw in some rendered images that can be proven fake (heheh not that we reched this point yet)

well, i dig conspiracies so i like this option
it could even have been produced in advance and just put on the moment something serious leaked. but then again, i don't believe it.

- art project

is the only reason i could see why a team of dedicated people would do this. if it's all a fake, i tend to this option.

in any case, if it's a hoax then hats off to whoever did it as it is most entertaining and a great piece of web performance art.

more ideas and explanations please!

and lets discuss the other stuff as well, i want to hear more about PACL and those other angles.



posted on Jun, 30 2007 @ 06:17 AM
link   
CONTINUED FROM LAST POST

Either way, real or hoax, I think this may get the world outside of ATS's attention. If there is an ET false flag op carried out, which I highly, highly doubt. Wouldn't it be funny if a ship like this owned and controlled by the government blew up one of it's own buildings or landmarks? Hmmmm, NO!

Maybe, you guys should actually have a discussion and not an argument. It is much more productive.

[edit on 30-6-2007 by frailty]



posted on Jun, 30 2007 @ 06:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by Razimus








posted on Jun, 30 2007 @ 06:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by blowfishdl
*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).


eh what? any decent scan software you just click a point on the prescan you want to define as white point and set the white point to FFFFFF (not that you would do this if you wanted to offset print it usually as you would want the white still have 2-3%, but in any case most simple to do)



posted on Jun, 30 2007 @ 06:39 AM
link   
Sorry, 11 11, but I have an honest question for you.

What, in your experience of CGI, makes you think that it would be possible to cock up a render so that the only single shadow that is out of place, because the shadows on the open circular part do seem quite correct, is the one which you think should be under the long arm/paddle?

Which software have you used, that needed each shadow put in seperately? With CGI, either ALL the shadows will be off, because the light-source has been placed differently to the original scene, or NONE are. If this is the only area that you are suspicious about, then there must be another explanation.



new topics

top topics



 
185
<< 54  55  56    58  59  60 >>

log in

join