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: 58
185
<< 55  56  57    59  60  61 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 30 2007 @ 07:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by Lamâshtu
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.


Good morning! Man, we are on the same wavelength! Great Post, probably the best one I've read so far on the issue. That wasn't written by me. I kid! I kid! _javascript:icon('
')

Just a funny ego play joke for your and my early morning wake up.

Seriously, these guys one this board are just way too much. I always have a smile reading there back and forth about CGI and this and that. Wow, glad I'm not that wound up, I'd probably start hearing thing, joke on EJSaunders "psychological break" post about hearing stuff while trying to go to sleep. Very funny, because it is a symptom of your brain trying to tell you to take a break and higher quantum energy frequencies.

Anyway, I agree with you about maybe it is a conspiracy to try to make the real thing look like a hoax. Or perhaps the whole thing was staged by someone so we would have would not know either way. Let's see, who has unlimited resources and possible the technological know-how to pull a conspiracy like this off...the government (or perhaps God). Or maybe the government is, in a way, through the Freemasons, controlled by God. You know they do use the Rosacruician Method of astral projection. It does say in our pledge that we are one nation under God. Here's a link if you are interested:

en.wikipedia.org...

I love this picture, because it's such a great, symbolic interpretation of astral projection:

upload.wikimedia.org...

I don't know if you know any of this, just thought you may be interested. And no, I am not a Mason, but merely only a Catholic. And if I join the Masons, I hear I'll be excommunicated. You want to know a secret?

The Masons and the Catholic church may be linked. That's why U.S. presidents occasionally drop by the Vatican, even though almost all U.S. presidents are non-Catholic and Masonic.

Hmmm, just something to think about. But, you may already know or have heard about this stuff. I don't know.

Well, anyway, have good day! And yeah, if this is straight up hoax or fake or whatever, it is probably the best I have ever seen, period. If this an art project. I think some people will be getting A's. XD

Sorry for being off-topic, but just I think many things in this world are inter-connected.

[edit on 30-6-2007 by frailty]




posted on Jun, 30 2007 @ 07:19 AM
link   
What is the web address for the French site?
You could try to use the translate function with the Alta Vista web page search engine to do a rough translation.



posted on Jun, 30 2007 @ 07:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by Karilla
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.


Complex objects such as the drone are not modeled as one piece, they are multiple pieces sitting next to each other as elements. Usualy a model starts out really basic and gets more complex over time as you add more and more parts and detail to it (much like this hoaxer did). When you are almost complete with the model, you Attach all those add-on parts you created to the main body to make it into one piece. When you go to render the scene to make the final image, the program usualy pops up a loading progress bar, while it calculates the scene's shadows...

Sometimes if you dont attach your parts together correctly before the render, the program will make an error when calculating, and the pieces that were not attach correctly, or at all, would not cast shadows onto other pieces. It will display shadows on itself, but the shadows they cast would not appear on other objects that it isnt attached to.

Its a bug or error, but there is also a setting that will allow this to happen on purpose if you wanted...

3D Studio Max and GMAX usualy have these types of problems...



posted on Jun, 30 2007 @ 07:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by Lamâshtu
WHY WHY OH WHY the whole effort.


The answer is... "Why Not?"



posted on Jun, 30 2007 @ 07:55 AM
link   
EJSaunders "psychological break" post about hearing stuff while trying to go to sleep. Very funny, because it is a symptom of your brain trying to tell you to take a break and higher quantum energy frequencies.


Hell, it certainly scared the crap outta me, and then, having not slept most of the night because of that, I pop into a thread, where this guys kid is having 'issues' with floating witches and that freaks me out.

Man, I need some Prozac with this beer...



posted on Jun, 30 2007 @ 08:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by Cyber_Wasp
What is the web address for the French site?
You could try to use the translate function with the Alta Vista web page search engine to do a rough translation.



I tried that, it made about as much sense as bicycle clips on a whale.



posted on Jun, 30 2007 @ 08:26 AM
link   
Hi folks,

Been away for a while so i'll need to catch up!

I sent an email to Nick Pope a few days ago and this is what he had to say:


Nick,

The consensus on this seems to be that it's a hoax - albeit a fairly sophisticated one that may be part of a viral marketing campaign. Because of the pressure of other commitments I haven't followed this story in any great detail, but I've seen nothing so far that convinces me this is genuine.

Best wishes,

Nick Pope

Going down the viral marketing route as well but he hasn't really had time to look at it properly.



posted on Jun, 30 2007 @ 08:53 AM
link   
A lot of people seem to be backing the "Viral Marketing" idea, suggesting either "Halo 3" or the "Transformers" movie.

I have yet to see what the whole drone thing has to do with either of them.
How can a viral campaign boost sales when no-one knows what is being advertised? It's not like the drone is towing a banner that says "Be sure to watch the Transformers at your local theater".

I'm thinking it's just a hoax, and I'm kinda surprised there's still so much discussion about it.

If it were real, why wouldn't Issac post all his material on his site, and not just bits and pieces?



posted on Jun, 30 2007 @ 08:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by 11 11

Originally posted by Karilla
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.


Complex objects such as the drone are not modeled as one piece, they are multiple pieces sitting next to each other as elements. Usualy a model starts out really basic and gets more complex over time as you add more and more parts and detail to it (much like this hoaxer did). When you are almost complete with the model, you Attach all those add-on parts you created to the main body to make it into one piece. When you go to render the scene to make the final image, the program usualy pops up a loading progress bar, while it calculates the scene's shadows...

Sometimes if you dont attach your parts together correctly before the render, the program will make an error when calculating, and the pieces that were not attach correctly, or at all, would not cast shadows onto other pieces. It will display shadows on itself, but the shadows they cast would not appear on other objects that it isnt attached to.

Its a bug or error, but there is also a setting that will allow this to happen on purpose if you wanted...

3D Studio Max and GMAX usualy have these types of problems...


I really liked that question posed, it's a great one.
I wasn't completely satisfied with 11 11s answer, it goes on the assumption that these parts were not attached together correctly which is
-conjecture
-hard to believe. If i were making these images i'd be paying attention to those shadowing details on the underside.

It seems more likely this shadow is making a mountain out of a molehill and may be just our ignorance of how light would play in those circumstances.

Hang in there PJ, we need the counterbalance.
Claims that you're the hoaxer are stupid and happens often in these forums when the debate gets too heated.

Unless there's good reason for those claims ( There isn't in this instance ), the accuser always loses credibility in my eyes as it means they're thinking more with emotion than logic.

For the record, I still sit on the fence on this one.



posted on Jun, 30 2007 @ 09:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by ejsaunders
EJSaunders "psychological break" post about hearing stuff while trying to go to sleep. Very funny, because it is a symptom of your brain trying to tell you to take a break and higher quantum energy frequencies.


Hell, it certainly scared the crap outta me, and then, having not slept most of the night because of that, I pop into a thread, where this guys kid is having 'issues' with floating witches and that freaks me out.

Man, I need some Prozac with this beer...


I thought you would find it funny.

Psychological breaks are only temporary and not permanent (and usually funny). I should know my brother, who has a personality disorder and suffers from unipolar depression, had one on March 1st and walked into a guy's house, took a leak in his bowl and took some vitamin and a coffee mug. I called my friend's Dad who is a lawyer and very intelligent thought it was one of most funny things he ever heard. Even though my brother got arrested and now goes to counseling once a month or so, It is pretty funny, when you think about it. Who breaks into a house, takes a piss and then takes vitamins and a mug. It's quite funny, and I'm sure he will see it like that one day.

My brother is fine though, his hippie shrink knows what's going on. He says that he will be fine once he overcomes the depression. I think he should be able to get over his personality disorder, but it is really hard to change your basic tendencies and personality.

Some metaphysical types would say that the more you think, the higher of a vibrational frequency your mind works at. And the higher your brains vibrational frequency, the easier it will be when this mysterious 2012 event roles around. I guess some people would call psychological evolution, or evolution of the mind.

Some people, respected and otherwise, would call these higher brain frequencies, higher you quantum energy frequencies, because your brain too is based on quantum mechanics just like everything. I guess you could say that we are all in the same quantum field?

And I wouldn't take Prozac, because all psyche drugs have some very nasty rebound effects. I know friends and family who have taken them, and had bad, reverse effects from them. They say that from there experience they don't work in the long run. I have never been on any psyche drugs, and neither am I scientologist (what's they're deal?). Thought you may want to know what is happening to you and get some background info on my initial posting.

Take care and remember that it's all in your head.

Also, good luck in proving the existence of spaceships (jk).

Edited, because I can't get these Javascipt icons to work, with out them ending up like this: _javascript:icon('
')
_javascript:icon('
')

HELP! LOL

[edit on 30-6-2007 by frailty]



posted on Jun, 30 2007 @ 10:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by T0by

Originally posted by 11 11

Originally posted by Karilla
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.


Complex objects such as the drone are not modeled as one piece, they are multiple pieces sitting next to each other as elements. Usualy a model starts out really basic and gets more complex over time as you add more and more parts and detail to it (much like this hoaxer did). When you are almost complete with the model, you Attach all those add-on parts you created to the main body to make it into one piece. When you go to render the scene to make the final image, the program usualy pops up a loading progress bar, while it calculates the scene's shadows...

Sometimes if you dont attach your parts together correctly before the render, the program will make an error when calculating, and the pieces that were not attach correctly, or at all, would not cast shadows onto other pieces. It will display shadows on itself, but the shadows they cast would not appear on other objects that it isnt attached to.

Its a bug or error, but there is also a setting that will allow this to happen on purpose if you wanted...

3D Studio Max and GMAX usualy have these types of problems...


I really liked that question posed, it's a great one.
I wasn't completely satisfied with 11 11s answer, it goes on the assumption that these parts were not attached together correctly which is
-conjecture
-hard to believe. If i were making these images i'd be paying attention to those shadowing details on the underside.

It seems more likely this shadow is making a mountain out of a molehill and may be just our ignorance of how light would play in those circumstances.

Hang in there PJ, we need the counterbalance.
Claims that you're the hoaxer are stupid and happens often in these forums when the debate gets too heated.

Unless there's good reason for those claims ( There isn't in this instance ), the accuser always loses credibility in my eyes as it means they're thinking more with emotion than logic.

For the record, I still sit on the fence on this one.


Sitting on the fence is good. There just isn't enough info to prove anything. I have a question. Is this a conspiracy forum or CGI and model rendering forum? Because I am confused.

Just kidding, guys. Keep up the good work, even though you may be running a fool's errand. Whose knows, you may actually find something useful if you spend more of your time on it.

I really can't help you with CGI and advance model rendering. Too my untrained/somewhat trained eye, they don't look fake, but they could be. They look suspicious or unbelievable, but not fake. Too me, that device looks like it is made with ceramic-coated metalloid of some sorts. It could be a be a non-computer model or mock-up, but that looks way too much like a living, breathing real device. If it is a model/mock-up it's very, very well done. If I could take a guess, I would have to say that it is made of a ceramic-coated metalloid, if real.



posted on Jun, 30 2007 @ 11:01 AM
link   
Thats the problem here exactly.
Many of us DO have a trained eye and calling bogus on this. The Isaac object especially.


Too my untrained/somewhat trained eye, they don't look fake, but they could be. They look suspicious or unbelievable, but not fake.



posted on Jun, 30 2007 @ 11:04 AM
link   
11 11,

I'm sorry but your post about the modeler not creating the object as a whole after creating the pieces is lunacy.

Let me ask you this question:

If you're trying to trick people into believing your hoax, would you leave any room for error? What you're saying is this guy, who can obviously do amazing CGI work, would just toss all of his pieces onto this image, not even thinking to meld them as a single object? Alright, that's just grabbing for the last stem at this point.

The EXIF data which you claim to be proof has an immense amount of flaws. Here are some common problems with EXIF:

* Photo manipulation software sometimes fails to update the embedded thumbnail after an editing operation, possibly causing the user to inadvertently publish compromising information

* The derivation of Exif from the TIFF file structure using offset pointers in the files means that data can be spread anywhere within a file, which means that software is likely to corrupt any pointers or corresponding data that it doesn't decode/encode. This is why most image editors damage or remove the Exif metadata (particularly the MakerNote) to some extent upon saving.

* The standard only allows TIFF or JPEG files — there is no provision for a "raw" file type which would be a direct data dump from the sensor device. This has caused camera manufacturers to invent many proprietary, incompatible "raw" file formats. To solve this problem, Adobe developed the DNG format (a TIFF-based raw file format), in hopes that manufacturers would standardize on a single, raw file format

While somebody could easily edit the files they could also have become corrupt after ROUTINE ACTIVITY. Nobody would EVER consider this as proof either way - hoax or not. So, this is a dead end.

The shadow analysis clearly shows that your analysis was incorrect.

I'm going to post a few pictures which can be looked at as possible comparisons:








posted on Jun, 30 2007 @ 11:16 AM
link   
look mom!!! i find a mouse


www.coasttocoastam.com..." target='_blank' class='tabOff'/>


sorry if this was found before... i m not yet wake up and i falling asleep counting drones popping up in the sky... one drone, two drones,three drones,4 drones, five drones,zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz



posted on Jun, 30 2007 @ 11:41 AM
link   
Has anybody given any thought that this might be some sort of belief experiment? It could be carried out by a government agency, a university, a private agency, or citizens of a private organization. The objective would be to see what happens when the general public is presented with questionable material that is distributed through popular paranormal outlets such as C2C. The objective would be to find out how elaborate a story can grow before it reaches a certain critical mass of believability or unbelievability. After a certain amount of time data would be collected from websites such as ATS and other sites like it in an attempt to ascertain what the prevailing opinions and consensus are among those who believe, those who do not believe, those who are undecided, and those who are skeptical one way or the other.

If I had to choose - I'd say it was a private organization that's behind this. There's lots of money to be made in the spin and propaganda game. The only thing that would be needed to push a case like this over the top or over the edge would be a Presidential official confirmation or denial. Then mass media and the general public would go along. After that happened all of the spooks associated with this case would either materialize into real people (i.e. agents under cover as real people), or they and the story would disappear altogether, carried on only through paranormal and conspiracy literature and outlets. The thing is at that point, after the President's confirmation or denial, no proof would be needed because when the President of the U.S. says it's true or not true, the media will generally support his view and the general public will generally go along with whatever the media and the President says.

To me it seems we are being manipulated. First we receive photos of a relatively simple looking craft with a simple story by an apparent everyday Joe named "Chad". Then we get more photos of the relatively simple craft along with slightly more complex stories attached. Then we get more photos of more complex and detailed craft and stories that are much more complex and difficult to vet than the original "Chad" tales told by people who have more complicated backgrounds. Now we're up to photos that are supposed to represent the complex technology and components used in the construction the complex craft we've been informed of backed up by a story and documents that are ridiculously complex and vague that's told by a person who also has a complicated history, who also chooses to remain anonymous.

If some agency is toying with us, they must be pleased at the results.



posted on Jun, 30 2007 @ 12:17 PM
link   
The whole shadow argument is not really valid, one way or the other. You're looking at a photo of an object from an awkward angle, without any reference for the sun, other objects, other potential light sources, or even the material the object is made out of.

It's nigh on impossible to understand precisely how and in what way the light would be working in this photography. Without understanding the context of the whole scene, pointing to all the angles of shadows and so forth is pointless.

I for one agree this is probably CGI. However, the ghost has to be given up - you cannot prove this is CGI by these sorts of means. Even if you know it. Even if you're laughing at us all for how stupid we are not to be able to see it. If your ambition is to definitively prove, beyond all reasonable doubt, then you're attempting the impossible.

11 11, I don't think you've proved anything. I don't doubt your knowledge on the subject, but you've become so dedicated to proving this a fake that you're throwing out a lot of very good counter arguments, and even evidence to the contrary. I personally believe that you're probably right with a lot of what you say. With that in mind, however, you cannot prove your point with the evidence you have. The argument cannot be validated either way, the tools just aren't available.



posted on Jun, 30 2007 @ 12:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by corda[/] The argument cannot be validated either way, the tools just aren't available.


Exactly. I have followed this thing for a while now, read all the posts for and against, mulled over each side's arguments. There just isn't enough data to reach any real conclusion.

Even motive, which for a while seemed the most likely path to reaching a conclusion, has petered out, because possible motives are open to a lot of people/organizations.

It would appear that fence setting is going to be my new hobby.



posted on Jun, 30 2007 @ 12:35 PM
link   
At this point I'm going to say I believe this is a hoax. I was skeptical from the start but VERY much interested. While I don't believe that the Isaac photo is CGI (it looks very much like a simple built prop) I do think we're being fooled. It's simply my gut instinct telling me this. This isn't the disclosure we're looking for, but, it's still a very interesting bit of fiction.

Who could it be?

1. Single hoaxer
2. Multiple hoaxers
3. Company
4. University project
5. Military/Government

I think the most realistic answer is it being multiple hoaxers working together. The secondary one would be *A* company viral marketing campaign. I don't think it's Halo 3 or Transformers, though.

Hopefully this topic will fade away. The only way it can be proven conclusively either way is by having one of the hoaxers come out and claim it to be just that, or, something amazing - like a video (not 3 shaky seconds) but a whole 10+ seconds of this object in action. Anybody can tell fake from real when it comes to video.



posted on Jun, 30 2007 @ 12:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Farnswoth
I've found an inconsistency in the linguist analysis primer that is not CGI related. If you look at the pages 119-123, the irregularities of the 3 punched out holes do not match in any of them. 119 and 120 are not the same page, neither is 120 and 121. That would mean that the original document had 2 pages with info, followed by 2 blank pages. That makes no sense. Even if it was isaac who punched the holes, he would have made them all on the left side of the pages.
Sorry for quoting myself, but this might have gotten overlooked in the CGI war.

I flipped 120 and 122 horizontally to have them all facing the correct side. It's impossible for a double sided page to have different holes on each side.

-Does anyone have an explanation for this?



posted on Jun, 30 2007 @ 12:49 PM
link   
The pages could be separate if one side was not numbered.

This could be due to a drawing there, that was not text.

It could also be the end of a section or chapter.

It is odd, but still not definitive.



new topics

top topics



 
185
<< 55  56  57    59  60  61 >>

log in

join