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: 85
185
<< 82  83  84    86  87  88 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 6 2007 @ 04:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by 11 11
He was impersonating a law inforcement officer. Thats a felony. TY Come again.


Oooh, you again. I thought you'd moved on?

You already know everything, so shouldn't you be on to the next crusade?

When did Isaac impersonate a law Enforcement officer? Or did I miss something?




posted on Jul, 6 2007 @ 04:15 PM
link   
11 11, you haven't proofed anything. I'd have to say that you've only reinforced my opinion that the images are not cgi. And when it comes to 'exif impurities' what you mean by those? Those pics had exif that shoved that the images had been resized for web.



posted on Jul, 6 2007 @ 04:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Karilla

When did Isaac impersonate a law Enforcement officer? Or did I miss something?


I think they were talking about that hoax thread about a false flag operation involving alien abductions and the original author of that.



posted on Jul, 6 2007 @ 04:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by PsykoOps
11 11, you haven't proofed anything. I'd have to say that you've only reinforced my opinion that the images are not cgi. And when it comes to 'exif impurities' what you mean by those? Those pics had exif that shoved that the images had been re-sized for web.


I'm going to prepare my links, that have proven this was CGI. Nobody till this point has proven me wrong, the only thing people did was make up wild alternate explanations to my findings, and no real data, or experiments to back it up...

I will brb, with links... just give me a few minutes.


---edit---

here you go, review and have fun denying ignorance...

S.G. = Smoking Gun

www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com... *** S.G.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com... *** S.G.

www.abovetopsecret.com... *** S.G.

www.abovetopsecret.com... *** S.G.

I really suggest reviewing the very last link, this is the EXIF data smoking gun. Where I compared a real photo from the hoaxers camera, and compared it with a drone picture.

You will notice that the real photo says:
JFIF_APP1 : Exif


..and the drone photo says:

JFIF_APP1 : Exif
JFIF_APP1 : http
JFIF_APP2 : ICC Profile (offset:18206 size:3151bytes)
JFIF_APP15 : Adobe

Meaning the photo was put through multiple applications. Including an image editor. That is why there is an "ICC Profile" installed, to help keep the colors the same from program to program.

While you guys deny all that, I'll be laughing at this entire hoax. Then wonder why it even got past the EXIF data.



[edit on 6-7-2007 by 11 11]



posted on Jul, 6 2007 @ 05:19 PM
link   
Yarrgh you be getting a star from me.

Though I also thought it to be CGI, I lacked the knowledge to explain it to the mass on ats. (I just ''saw'' it was CGI
).

In any case, your explanation seems pretty much valid to me.

My idea on the adobe in the EXIF data.
He might've used it to apply the (HDR?) lighting that he used?
It sure as hell looks like hdr to me.

[edit on 6/7/07 by -0mega-]

Reason I ask (or rather, suggest) this is because I remember when HDR ''just came into the light'' there were a few do it yourself tutorials which showed how to use Adobe to apply the HDR lighting. (I think.. O.o)

[edit on 6/7/07 by -0mega-]

Positive now lol, it involved a metal reflecting globe to capture the reflection from all directions.

[edit on 6/7/07 by -0mega-]



posted on Jul, 6 2007 @ 05:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by -0mega-
Yarrgh you be getting a star from me.


Hey thanks buddie!


Originally posted by -0mega-
Though I also thought it to be CGI, I lacked the knowledge to explain it to the mass on ats. (I just ''saw'' it was CGI
).


Yes, I was the exact same. When I first saw the drone pictures, "depth perception, and depth of field, were just crazy inaccurate. Thats why I posted this:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

I could get more into detail about the inaccuracys with the focus and depth, but I'll just leave that for later when I really need to prove this thing is CGI.


Originally posted by -0mega-
My idea on the adobe in the EXIF data.
He might've used it to apply the (HDR?) lighting that he used?
It sure as hell looks like hdr to me.


Naa he just used simple Mental Ray. At first I thought it was lighwave, but I can see the false reflections. Then, whatever program loaded the ICC Profile is what he used to do the fake depth perception and layering, much like these videos:

media.putfile.com...

media.putfile.com...

I'm sure he only used Adobe last, for final touch-ups.










[edit on 6-7-2007 by 11 11]



posted on Jul, 6 2007 @ 05:47 PM
link   
Not just the depth perception, but the whole lighting on that object, it has that cgi textury feel to it, unless there's a material in real life that looks like CGI >_> (Like in next gen video game trailers)


Originally posted by 11 11
Naa he just used simple Mental Ray. At first I thought it was lighwave, but I can see the false reflections.
[edit on 6-7-2007 by 11 11]


bleh I thought that Mental Ray came included with almost every animation package these days.

Just read that Lightwave doesn't have it integrated though.
Not that it's that relevant.


Ah well, at least this is the only plausible evidence that can be shown to disprove the validity of the drones.

All the other posts i've seen have just summed up everything that has been shown to us and then declared it possibly true or untrue based on those ''classified documents'' by Mister Isaac.

[edit on 6/7/07 by -0mega-]



posted on Jul, 6 2007 @ 05:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by PsykoOps
And when it comes to 'exif impurities' what you mean by those? Those pics had exif that shoved that the images had been resized for web.


Actually the image I tested was not resized for web, and it still was edited by multiple programs. The picture I tested was 1600x1200 pixels, and that is the max the camera used could produce.

www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Jul, 6 2007 @ 05:51 PM
link   
Very nice summary, I find the flipped text very damning, it was unbelievable how many people resorted to quoting the very 'babble' from Isaac's story to try and make excuses for this, its truly amazing how easy it is to manipulate the general public who are pretty much ignorant of computer modelling & rendering methods. Its not an insult just a fact? Nice work..



posted on Jul, 6 2007 @ 05:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by -0mega-
bleh I thought that Mental Ray came included with almost every animation package these days.


It does, which is why I am almost certain he used it.



posted on Jul, 6 2007 @ 05:54 PM
link   
Did you see this one I posted way back..

img182.imageshack.us...

IGNOR the alien logo/palo alto- I added that myself, but look at the rendering..the same hightlight-less sheen and feel as Isaac's..same renderer most likely (Mental ray-Alias Maya)





Originally posted by 11 11

Originally posted by -0mega-
bleh I thought that Mental Ray came included with almost every animation package these days.


It does, which is why I am almost certain he used it.


[edit on 6-7-2007 by wildone106]

[edit on 6-7-2007 by wildone106]



posted on Jul, 6 2007 @ 06:20 PM
link   
New on this thread, but have been lurking for a while...

I just have to say - These are renders, clear as day. I want to believe they are real, but seriously just look at them.

Edit: Insulting image removed.

[edit on 6-7-2007 by intrepid]



posted on Jul, 6 2007 @ 06:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Karilla....Dr. Edwards, as a student working at PARC, did figure out the real use of certain things he'd been asked to work on.


The problem there is Keith Edwards went to PARC after post-graduating from Georgia Tech in 1995.

The documents are allegedly chronicled at 1986, when Keith was 20 years old, and perhaps still in his undergraduate studies.

His California internships were at Olivetti and Sun Microsystems, not at Xerox.



posted on Jul, 6 2007 @ 06:45 PM
link   
Sorrry for the randomness here. This thread is very hard to follow for this newbie. So many directions.

I always thought spf guy was the hoaxer, but 11 11, you seem really involved in this... did you do the originals?
That would make for a convoluted story line.

And you did mention the word "primer"


Sorry if this has been addressed.



posted on Jul, 6 2007 @ 07:38 PM
link   
Um, 11 11.

Just like to point out that I use a digital camera, but my brother does any prints, and he's a pro, so he demands that I use the Photoshop plugin "Bridge" to process the files from RAW. This allows much more tweaking of colour, exposure, etc. than Photoshop and ALSO creates an ICC profile for the image that is embedded once it has been processed from RAW.

ICC stands for International Colour Consortium and has more to do with images that are going to be output somehow, NOT for screen use specifically, and it's presence in the EXIF data of an image proves absolutely NOTHING. Sorry.



posted on Jul, 6 2007 @ 11:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by 11 11
I still can't even believe this entire thing went past the "EXIF" data part. Since when does anyone believe a picture is real when the EXIF shows the image is not raw, and changed? Its a joke, Ive seen way better CGI get called a hoax simply because of the EXIF data impurities. But this one kept going... geee, what has this UFO community come too?

[edit on 6-7-2007 by 11 11]


While I happen to agree with you about this being a hoax, it is VERY EASY to edit exif data, thus exif data is worthless one way or the other.

I would also like to add that this IS a discussion forum and people discussing the "possibilities" is a fun thing to do, it exercises the imagination.

The following is not directed at "11 11" specifically but at EVERYONE who can't seem to act like a grown up:

This is also a FRIENDLY, POLITE and CIVIL discussion forum, people who cant be civil, are letting their petty frustrations or psychological NEED to believe, etc... overpower their maturity will be subject a denial of posting privileges from here forward.


Springer...

[edit on 7-6-2007 by Springer]



posted on Jul, 6 2007 @ 11:16 PM
link   
I'm not really sure how to do it but can someone start a new thread for the CGI / not CGI posts.

Couple of random thoughts folowing some recent posts.

Maybe within the environment that someone like Dr Edwards works it's a bit of an inside joke i.e. that we work developing applications based on ET technology. You know the kind of thing, everyone is aware of it but no-one says anything because it's so far fetched and they would be ridiculed, although occasionally they come across something that makes them think maybe there's some truth to that old joke.

In this day and age of electronic thingy's it's easy to forget what the level of technology was in terms of security in the mid 80's . The Q4 86 report would probably have been compiled as a requirement for the military, not for internal dissemination, everyone internally who needed to know any of the contents already knew them.
No email, all hard copy and there wouldn't have been many copies. For Isaac to have a copy he would needed to have been at the top of the pyramid, so having originals of the pics is possible, maybe Isaac was responsible for producing the report.
If wanting to "get the truth out" aside from trying to get a camera in to the place the only option is to remove documents. In 84 the military used manpower rather than any electronic security and it is feasible to carry 20 sheets out under a shirt and jacket, especially if you are a fairly fit person. If you don't believe me just try it. It is also plausible that although checkpoint guards may be supposed to frisk, after a year or two with the same people familiarity occurs (the guards are not neccessarily changed regularly to avoid this, especially at non-operational military sites) and I can imagine how frisking may not happen especially with the top managers. Security was based as much on deterrent as actual ability to detect. The people in charge of military security at that time had pretty old fashioned viewpoints. The fact that caught with anything then at best you faced many years in jail, at worse - you can imagine, was probably deemed to be enough.
If you don't believe that let me give you an example from personal experience. Driving home one night from the base I was working on at the time I was overtaken in a dangerous manner at high speed. Couple of miles and a few bends later I come across a car upside down in some trees, wheels still spinning, guy climbing out, shaken but not hurt. The guy had obviously been drinking and spun me and my mate a story about his son who was in danger of having a medical attack of some kind if he didn't get medicine to him quickly. He could see me and my mate didn't believe him and we were toying with the idea of calling the police and he was really pleading with us, he would lose his job etc etc. In the end we just gave him a lift to his house.
Next morning I had to go and do some work in the armoury, quick check going in, much longer check when coming out. You can guess who the guy was who just let me walk straight out without checking. It can and does happen.



posted on Jul, 6 2007 @ 11:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by chunder
I'm not really sure how to do it but can someone start a new thread for the CGI / not CGI posts.

\


NO, there are already TOO dam many "drone" threads on ATS.
Seriously...

S...



posted on Jul, 7 2007 @ 12:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by Karilla
Um, 11 11.

Just like to point out that I use a digital camera, but my brother does any prints, and he's a pro, so he demands that I use the Photoshop plugin "Bridge" to process the files from RAW. This allows much more tweaking of colour, exposure, etc. than Photoshop and ALSO creates an ICC profile for the image that is embedded once it has been processed from RAW.

ICC stands for International Colour Consortium and has more to do with images that are going to be output somehow, NOT for screen use specifically, and it's presence in the EXIF data of an image proves absolutely NOTHING. Sorry.


You are trying to teach ME?

Listen, this is how simple this is. If your image does not have pure EXIF data, your pictures can not be used as evidence. They have zero credibility. I don't care if the only way to get the pictures on the computer is to put them in a editing program, if you have impurities in your EXIF, you have no case. We don't want edited images, we want straight from camera images.

As for ICC, I suggest you read about it, because you don't understand what it is for...

www.color.org...

To sum it up, its a color management system that allows you to import the image to multiple editing programs, and keep the colors the same through each program. Since there are trillions of different colors, its hard for each program to import the image with the correct colors, so they use an ICC Profile to tell the programs what colors to use.


Also, Karilla, I don't think you understand that I have pictures from the exact same camera. I know how the EXIF is supposed to look. I want the drone EXIF to look simular. If they can't do that, its a hoax untill they can.


For reference, this is the image with bad EXIF data:

i14.tinypic.com...



[edit on 7-7-2007 by 11 11]

[edit on 7-7-2007 by 11 11]



posted on Jul, 7 2007 @ 12:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by Springer
it is VERY EASY to edit exif data, thus exif data is worthless one way or the other.


I disagree. When I first heard about this hoax, everyone was saying the EXIF was fine, so I trusted it, I figured that was the first thing everyone checked, so I didn't bother. I just told everyone that EXIF data could be edited, I even posted links on this thread to editors.

But, it wasn't until a couple days later I actually tested the EXIF data for myself, and it turns out to be all wacko. The hoaxer didn't even use an EXIF editor, the proof of a hoax is still in the EXIF. It just been over looked, or the believers did a good job convincing people it didn't matter.

[edit on 7-7-2007 by 11 11]



new topics

top topics



 
185
<< 82  83  84    86  87  88 >>

log in

join