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: 92
185
<< 89  90  91    93  94  95 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 10 2007 @ 05:46 PM
link   
Karilla and fellow seamen...

My advice would be to consult an intellectual property rights attorney before embarking on such an escapade. Doing so could save you a lot of trouble.

On the other hand if you are the brave, devil-may-care sort and have few tangible assets that are recoverable in a potential lawsuit (i.e., you have little to lose), then I'd be inclined to suggest you just "go for it" and let the chips fall where they may.

If you conduct the latter exercise, we'll thank you mightily for flushing out any claiimants as the case may be and if intercepted by MIB (or green) we'll instantly disavow any knowledge of your person or your mission.

Good luck - and may the force be with you...




posted on Jul, 10 2007 @ 06:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Springer
Dr. Keith Edwards has replied:

I have his permission to post this here.


email from Dr. Keith Edwards:

Hello all,

First off, apologies for the delay in getting back to the many mails I've received over the last few days; I've been on vacation and am just catching up with my email.

I have to say, the rash of email I've received has caught me somewhat off-guard. I want to let you all know that I'm not the "Isaac" many of you have asked me about. The comments on my website about "using alien technology" were meant to be something of a joke. Xerox PARC, where I used to work, had a reputation for working on advanced technology projects; that, coupled with my interest in Roswell lore, led me to post that comment on my page.

I'm sorry for any confusion this caused. I wish you all the best of luck in your search!

Sincerely,
Keith Edwards
Associate Professor
Georgia Tech


I absolutely believe him and take him at his word. This appears to be a dead end.

Springer...


Springer, good work and apologies for quoting the whole lot above but I didn't want any one line to be taken out of context. Whilst I don't disbelieve Dr Edwards at all and it was good of him to respond, I think the comment about advanced technology projects and the fact that he linked them to Roswell, albeit as a joke, was interesting.
"Many a true word said in jest".
I wonder if he would respond to the question as to whether this was an ongoing inside joke for XPARC employees and/or if he, or anyone he knew who worked at XPARC, actually believed there was or could be any truth either to that joke, or Isaac's claims in general.
If you think there would be any point or relevance in asking that question, and I can understand if you don't, it would be better coming from yourself seeing as though Dr Edwards has already responded to you.



posted on Jul, 10 2007 @ 06:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by pjslug
Others, as you can see, would like more chances to attempt to debunk its validity and authenticity (although from a majority of the pages here, in my opinion has been futile).
[edit on 7/10/2007 by pjslug]


Hi pjslug,

Not sure whether you were referring to me or not regarding debunking, your post did follow mine, but just to say that the chances of proving anything real are extremely remote, especially without access to Isaac.

In those circumstances perhaps the best way to point to something being real is to do your utmost to try and prove it false and fail.

Further documentation or explanation would be good I agree, may help to get to the truth, whichever side of the fence that falls.



posted on Jul, 10 2007 @ 07:35 PM
link   
Chunder,
No, it wasn't anything directed at you but to all in general. Regardless, I can't tell which side of the fence you seem to be on because you seem to find this Isaac thing both true and false. If you could clarify for the record, that would be good since your posts seem to be bidrectional.



posted on Jul, 10 2007 @ 08:55 PM
link   
Hi pjslug,

In relation to this specific topic I am completely on the fence leaning neither one way or the other. You could say I'm in the air on this one.

Any opinion offered is based on getting to the truth and from that position I believe I can argue hoax and real on different aspects. I am probably pre-disposed to give the benefit of doubt to the claims as made, rather than cry hoax, but am willing to be persuaded by logic and reason that it is a fake claim, or vice verca.

It is a subject that I have had an interest in for many years, that is the unexplained, so can understand the gravity of this disclosure, if that is what it is.

I hope that explains my position, please excuse my silly puns !



posted on Jul, 11 2007 @ 09:20 AM
link   
I like the T shirt idea.

The diagrams are cool graphic art, if nothing else ...



posted on Jul, 11 2007 @ 09:26 AM
link   
If anyone could have faked the drones perfectly..Neil Blomkamp could do it..talk about photorealistic CG...

ia300227.us.archive.org...



posted on Jul, 11 2007 @ 01:16 PM
link   
Now I'm glad I never vouched for the authenticity of the drone photos


However, I stand with the others in the sense, what about the documents/the photos in the documents/the stories, etc.

I live near Palo Alto, CA and could say from driving through it countless times (as well as having my family members work there) there really are just a bunch of buildings with some logo on the front, and a whole bunch of shaded windows. They're usually tech or biochem companies, so nobody would question them and it would be possible to build an underground thing of sorts there.

I know CGI is getting ridiculously good, so I wouldn't be surprised (just really impressed) if the photos in Isaac's documents are CGI.



posted on Jul, 11 2007 @ 01:22 PM
link   

email from Dr. Keith Edwards:
The comments on my website about "using alien technology" were meant to be something of a joke. Xerox PARC, where I used to work, had a reputation for working on advanced technology projects; that, coupled with my interest in Roswell lore, led me to post that comment on my page.


"something of a joke"... I find the linguistics of this statement to be very salient. This is akin to saying "kind of a joke". These statements both show a large measure of ambiguity. People like Dr. Edwards generally do not mince words. I think perhaps that had he really been joking, the statement would have read like this:

"The comments on my website about "using alien technology" were meant to be a joke."



[edit on 7-11-2007 by Springer]



posted on Jul, 11 2007 @ 02:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by ExquisitExamplE

email from Dr. Keith Edwards:
The comments on my website about "using alien technology" were meant to be something of a joke. Xerox PARC, where I used to work, had a reputation for working on advanced technology projects; that, coupled with my interest in Roswell lore, led me to post that comment on my page.


"something of a joke"... I find the linguistics of this statement to be very salient. This is akin to saying "kind of a joke". These statements both show a large measure of ambiguity. People like Dr. Edwards generally do not mince words. I think perhaps that had he really been joking, the statement would have read like this:

"The comments on my website about "using alien technology" were meant to be a joke."

admin edit: There is no reason to use derogatory names.

[edit on 7-11-2007 by Springer]


I think you may be reading into this too much. I tend to be a little overly verbose in my everyday speech, and often throw words terms like "something of a" in front of things I'm talking about when I'm trying to say that it isn't EXACTLY one thing or the other.

In other words, yes, his comment about alien technology was a joke, but it wasn't a blonde joke, or a knock-knock joke, or a joke about preists and rabbis walking into a bar. He's not trying to imply there's anything serious about comment, but he also doesn't want to reduce it to the level of a "joke" in the stand-up comedy sense.

I think that's all it meant.



posted on Jul, 11 2007 @ 02:13 PM
link   
I just read a large amount of pages from this thread (I originally psoted somewhere back in the 40's i think, then in the 60's...so I had to read a bunch) Anyway, about 3D Max's cost...

I have it, 3ds max 6, I also have Maya 5 and Maya 6, all on CD. (Old versions I know, but regardless they costed the same back then). I have no job, I bought these when I took a trip to Russia, because they sell each of these for roughly $2 each. Also you can of course pirate any one of these, so if anyone was considering that nobody would spend $3,000 for a hoax, you don't have to!

About the book idea: This is going to be one awesome book.
And then years down the road ATS can release something along the lines of "The Drones: The True Story" and post all the debates in this thread. But I think that'll be more than likely win an award for comedy.

Etc: Nobody should be debating the POSSIBIlITY of this being CGI, for it's FULLY possible. The debate on whether it IS CGI is a different one
. Also,
wouldn't anybody perhaps be able to edit the EXIF data afterwards? Certainly someone who knows how to uitlise all of the software used?



posted on Jul, 11 2007 @ 02:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by alevar

I think you may be reading into this too much. I tend to be a little overly verbose in my everyday speech, and often throw words terms like "something of a" in front of things I'm talking about when I'm trying to say that it isn't EXACTLY one thing or the other.


Precisely, its not exactly a joke.



Originally posted by alevar
He's not trying to imply there's anything serious about comment, but he also doesn't want to reduce it to the level of a "joke" in the stand-up comedy sense.


Hmmm... a joke is a joke. He doesn't want to come off as serious because he knows he is being closely scrutinized, yet he's not exactly kidding either.

Meh, you're probably right, perhaps I'm looking too deep.



posted on Jul, 11 2007 @ 02:41 PM
link   
While we are on the subject of graphics and endering and all that good stuff. Mufon did a field investigation, and had expert analyst study the photos..and found them to be fake., They id'd the software and recognized immediately the use of radiosity, that helps with the daylight, and has its own particular signature when rendering. Read the report you decide.

here are the results and how and why the conclusions

www.virtuallystrange.net...

posthumanblues.blogspot.com...

As for the Keith Edward, Dr. Keith Edwards W., All I can say Is I take His Word for it, like Springer did. I say that because I have read his auto bio..and he does use colorful language thru out . The man is is to involved with a host of projects, writing programming books ( JINN ) and other cross platform languages, visual and human centered systems, that left me stunned. He has written dozens of white papers and things I cannot even pronounce. The man has money. This kind of thing would not help him, it would hurt him. All his stuff is out in the open. It could be someone who knows him at the school with access to all the stuff they do from concept to design, not just computers systems, but gov funded UAV projects, and myriads of spinoffs. Yes Georgia tech is heavy heavy heavy, not just palo alto. As I said..I doubt he is directly involved, but he has so much of his personal and professional bio and work on the net anyone could have put it together using him as a model. so we have to be careful on that and not email him..you get all your answers
if you just google his name..you will get tons of stuff. I am glad he works for us and not the ET's or Chinese.
I do not recommend anyoner email him further He does not need this. He used a form letter because he prop rcvd hundreds already. The man is too smart to be fired, but college peers politics can, especially when they have gov funding on special projects. (even thats a possibility we like to call a setup)

Sys




[edit on 11-7-2007 by Sys_Config]



posted on Jul, 11 2007 @ 02:45 PM
link   
I'm listening to the Earthfiles podcasts and i recommend you do the same just to get a feel for the audio witness testimonies on this whole thing, interesting listening. True or not these people are seeing something i would imagine.

On a side note i loved the ATS MIX podcast, brilliant to listen to, bring them on!



posted on Jul, 11 2007 @ 03:27 PM
link   
They spot rendering artifacts from highly compressed images? Njah, I dont buy that.



posted on Jul, 11 2007 @ 04:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by PsykoOps
They spot rendering artifacts from highly compressed images? Njah, I dont buy that.


I don't either. While it's a compelling argument from MUFON and certainly well thought out and examined, it doesn't add any more proof that it's fake than any other CGI person on ATS could have claimed. How can they spot rendering artifacts from compressed JPEG images? JPEGs by themselves will leave image artifacts, and have multiple compression levels. Many of these artifacts can look like rendering artifacts. People seem to forget about the audio testimonies of these witnesses, and I suggest they listen to them before playing the hoax card.



posted on Jul, 11 2007 @ 04:42 PM
link   
Dude, its a hoax, drop it already. OMG.

MUFON was correct 100% not only by the artifacts, but by the lack of atmospheric effects as well. Some of the drone images are to clear. No atmosphere distortions, and not depth of field, not even imperfections in the camera lens like dust and lint.

Not only that but there are 100's and 100's of signs of CGI, and expert after expert agreeing.

It would be stupid to believe this is real, just plain stupid.

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



posted on Jul, 11 2007 @ 05:10 PM
link   
Thank you 11 11, I'm really ready to let the string to my little red baloon loose too. It was fun. As for psy not buying , i was never selling and neither was mufon , but caret is. I don't think Caret has a refund/return policy. As for psi,audio credibility alone, convincing speakers or wow witness, is not the quality evidence i would bet the farm on. ..

And hey, if we are ever proven wrong, great..power to them, i'll be the first to say..good going..a job well done.


you can fool all of the people some of the time, some of the people all the time, but never all the people all of the time..(pt barnum?)


SyS
^i^

[edit on 11-7-2007 by Sys_Config]

[edit on 11-7-2007 by Sys_Config]



posted on Jul, 11 2007 @ 05:36 PM
link   
Hi October..i read your signature and Ihe dream may be connected to everything going on here..It could mean that we are close to the truth,,and that truth or shape is someone desperately trying to give us all a good shave and a haircut..



posted on Jul, 11 2007 @ 06:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by 11 11
Dude, its a hoax, drop it already. OMG.

MUFON was correct 100% not only by the artifacts, but by the lack of atmospheric effects as well. Some of the drone images are to clear. No atmosphere distortions, and not depth of field, not even imperfections in the camera lens like dust and lint.

Not only that but there are 100's and 100's of signs of CGI, and expert after expert agreeing.

It would be stupid to believe this is real, just plain stupid.

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


... and it would be just as stupid to call it a hoax without any solid evidence.

Personally I find nearly all of your posts insulting, not because I don't think it's a hoax, just because of the language you use and the fact you try and foist your opinions on others by calling anyone who disagrees with your tenuous opinions stupid. Take a look in the mirror pal.

As to any actual content of your post, which isn't very much at all as usual, you are now claiming some of the drone images are too clear. Would you care to elaborate on that ?

Now please bear in mind that I don't really want you to but last time I took your bait it did result in someone else actually providing some real evidence.



new topics

top topics



 
185
<< 89  90  91    93  94  95 >>

log in

join