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: 94
185
<< 91  92  93    95  96  97 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 12 2007 @ 01:19 AM
link   
11 11 hasn't prooven anything. To all of his evidence someone has already given a possible alternative explanation. Evidence cant be such that it can be explained by other explanations.

1) The missing highlights of the caret pictures have been explained, and furthermore he is assuming that all the parts of the drones are made of the same 'highly reflective' material than the sides are.
2) The exif data cannot proof anything to any direction.
3) The missing shadows have already been debunked and furthermore he isn't taking into account the possibility of reflective surfaces near the object. Suchs as water which could quite easily light the underside of the drone or any other number of reflections.
4) The artifacts are in my opinion one of the more compelling points, but you have to take into account that this image is assumed to have originated from a low resolution camera and saved as a compressed image which will leave artifacts too.
5) There's no link between any of the picture sets. Even if one of them would prove to be a hoax, other might not be. Copycats are pretty common online.




posted on Jul, 12 2007 @ 02:21 AM
link   
11 11

If you can't be friendly then don't post. People are trying to come to their OWN (NOT YOUR) conclusions, here.

Just because YOU believe YOU have the knowledge and experience to undestand what you're looking at doesn't give you any special rights to be an arrogant prick mate.

If you can't be MATURE, and FRIENDLY and help your fellow members along withOUT the arrogant bullying and childish "stupid" comments just don't bother posting here. It's getting pitiful.


In your second to last post, you are acting like you were the first person to "discover" all the exif, atmosphere, focal and shadow lunacy of these images.


I assure you, you were NOT.

Long before you even registered here David Biedny (google that name
) and Jeff Ritzmann tried like heck to help people see the light.

So maybe YOU should "step OFF" the phony high horse and help people in a FRIENDLY and collaborative way rather than sounding like a wannabe my man.


Springer...

[edit on 7-12-2007 by Springer]



posted on Jul, 12 2007 @ 02:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by ExquisitExamplE
This story reminds us of the one Jesus told about people who were kind and helpful to others. He said that one day the king would say to his people: "Come. Inherit the kingdom prepared for you. For when I was hungry you gave me food, When I was sick and you visited me. I was in prison and you came to me."

But the people asked, Lord, when did we see you hungry, and feed you? Or sick or in prison and come to you? and the King answered: "In as much as you have done it unto one of the least of these, my brethren, you have done it unto me"


I'm not usually much of a Bible guy, but in this instance I have to say you're spot on and 11 11 would do well to read your post.



posted on Jul, 12 2007 @ 03:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by The Little Penguin

Originally posted by ExquisitExamplE
This story reminds us of the one Jesus told about people who were kind and helpful to others. He said that one day the king would say to his people: "Come. Inherit the kingdom prepared for you. For when I was hungry you gave me food, When I was sick and you visited me. I was in prison and you came to me."

But the people asked, Lord, when did we see you hungry, and feed you? Or sick or in prison and come to you? and the King answered: "In as much as you have done it unto one of the least of these, my brethren, you have done it unto me"


I'm not usually much of a Bible guy, but in this instance I have to say you're spot on and 11 11 would do well to read your post.


Im going to have to second that, 11 11 you need to have a serious think about what you said.

-fm



posted on Jul, 12 2007 @ 03:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by Springer

David Biedny and Jeff Ritzmann tried like heck to help people see the light.

[edit on 7-12-2007 by Springer]


Hi Springer,
I would be interested in reading what these guys had to say - I don't recall seeing it in this thread - are you able to point me in the right direction ?
Thanks

Edited to add I found the search function, didn't realise until now it only searched ATS - I have some reading to do !

[edit on 12-7-2007 by chunder]



posted on Jul, 12 2007 @ 03:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by PsykoOps
11 11 hasn't prooven anything. To all of his evidence someone has already given a possible alternative explanation.


The only thing anyone has given to me about my facts, is wild guesses. It hurts for me to debate this with facts and illustrations and logical experienced explanations, only just to get really crazy off the wall wild guesses as replies.

Its like Einstein explaining E=MC2 to someone that is just now learning the ABC's, and knows nothing about math.


Originally posted by PsykoOps
Evidence cant be such that it can be explained by other explanations.


Now you are talking nonsense. Why do I even bother with replies like these? I don't know... but here is why you don't make sense....

Explanations are NOTHING. Anyone can explain anything with anything. I can make alternate explanations for absolutely ANYTHING.

Every "explanation" that I got about my facts, were wild guesses that do not hold water, and can not be verified. Like "super unknown reflective mirror like surface's that don't reflect light's but it reflects everything else, even though light is the only reason we see it!"



Originally posted by PsykoOps
1) The missing highlights of the caret pictures have been explained, and furthermore he is assuming that all the parts of the drones are made of the same 'highly reflective' material than the sides are.


No, they haven't been explained. Someone said "filters" got rid of the highlight, and then proceed to post a URL to some example. It turns out I use their very own example against them, and prove to them that even with filters you can not hide the highlights. This illustration, this resource, and this evidence that I give to you in link form (something you don't bother with) is my "explanation to your explanation of my explanation".

www.abovetopsecret.com...

ALL the surfaces on the drone are missing highlights. Yes read it, ALL. Even the "mirror like" surfaces that reflect all the light except the brightest one.



Originally posted by PsykoOps
2) The exif data cannot proof anything to any direction.


Wrong yet again. EXIF data that is not original is proof that the image has been edited in some way, either by an EXIF editor or by a photo editor, it has been edited outside of the camera. The FACT is, the image has been edited. You can not "explain" this away because there is nothing to explain. Its a fact that the EXIF data has been changed and is not original. It means the image, is not original. That leaves a HUGE possibility of being CGI. Almost like a 98% possibility. Pile on all the missing highlights and shadows, and soft dumb shadows, and zero depth perception and fake light halos around the drone, and the stupid caret day dream, and you have a hoax.

You know what? I remember you saying something and I never replied because of how ....... it was... here it is:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

"You should know that there are many programs that edit that data without ever letting the user know."-PsykoOps

Well, the EXIF data from the drone, did let us know that it was edited.

"Standard practice for photographs for internet is to make them smaller, a lot smaller than what they're out of the camera."-PsykoOps

This above pissed me off when I read it... Because, the image I tested the EXIF data on was 1600x1200 which is the maximum size the camera the hoaxer used can create. Meaning they didn't even re-size the picture.




Originally posted by PsykoOps
3) The missing shadows have already been debunked and furthermore he isn't taking into account the possibility of reflective surfaces near the object. Such as water which could quite easily light the underside of the drone or any other number of reflections.


You didn't debunk jack crap. I showed two images, and super imposed them together to show the crazy imaginary flight path of the drone, over the telephone pole. Both images are missing the same shadow, even after the drone tilted its arm to the ground... look.. more evidence...

www.abovetopsecret.com...




Originally posted by PsykoOps

4) The artifacts are in my opinion one of the more compelling points, but you have to take into account that this image is assumed to have originated from a low resolution camera and saved as a compressed image which will leave artifacts too.


Yet ANOTHER reason to want the RAW image's from the camera, besides the EXIF data reason. Because having the RAW image straight from the camera would show ZERO compression artifacts. But, we won't see a RAW image of the drone, because one doesn't exist. Its CGI.


Originally posted by PsykoOps
5) There's no link between any of the picture sets. Even if one of them would prove to be a hoax, other might not be. Copycats are pretty common online.


Seriously? No links?


You do know that these 3 photos above are taken from 3 different people right? Please tell me what they all have in common, besides the same big CGI drone in the picture..... Hmm thats right all 3 have no real depth perception or depth of field, and they all use "layering" to fake depth perception. They all have another object layered over them. This links all the photos together and explains they are all created by the same guy, with the same lack of skill...

Now, I see it, and I'm sure you still don't, even after point it out, but I must say......

....some day, it will hit you like a pile of rocks. Some day, this same type of trickery, same type of hoax, this gullibility you have, will cost you your life if you are not sharp enough to notice. Someone will trick you, and you won't come out on top. To stay alive in this world, you must see beyond the tricks and magic.

[edit on 12-7-2007 by 11 11]



posted on Jul, 12 2007 @ 04:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by Springer

In your second to last post, you are acting like you were the first person to "discover" all the exif, atmosphere, focal and shadow lunacy of these images.


I assure you, you were NOT.

Long before you even registered here David Biedny (google that name
) and Jeff Ritzmann tried like heck to help people see the light.

So maybe YOU should "step OFF" the phony high horse and help people in a FRIENDLY and collaborative way rather than sounding like a wannabe my man.





Springer, you are wrong. I am not "acting like I was the first to 'discover' it all." I am acting like the first person to PROVE IT ALL. Because I am.

[edit on 12-7-2007 by 11 11]



posted on Jul, 12 2007 @ 05:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by srb2001
I like the T shirt idea.

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


shop ahead


www.comboutique.com...

its from the other forum..

[edit on 12/7/2007 by errorist]



posted on Jul, 12 2007 @ 06:08 AM
link   
fun, i stayed out of here for a week or so, and we're still not any further


the pipe pig was a nice find though.



posted on Jul, 12 2007 @ 06:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by 11 11
The only thing anyone has given to me about my facts, is wild guesses. It hurts for me to debate this with facts and illustrations and logical experienced explanations, only just to get really crazy off the wall wild guesses as replies.

If your 'proof' leaves room for guesses and alternative explanations it's not very solid. You may have pointed out some of the most likely explanations but that doesn't exclude everything else.


Originally posted by 11 11
Explanations are NOTHING. Anyone can explain anything with anything. I can make alternate explanations for absolutely ANYTHING.

Every "explanation" that I got about my facts, were wild guesses that do not hold water, and can not be verified. Like "super unknown reflective mirror like surface's that don't reflect light's but it reflects everything else, even though light is the only reason we see it!"


You cant state something as being a fact if you cant even prove it. My guesses are other possibilities and the fact that there can be such means that your evidence is bunk.


Originally posted by 11 11
No, they haven't been explained. Someone said "filters" got rid of the highlight, and then proceed to post a URL to some example. It turns out I use their very own example against them, and prove to them that even with filters you can not hide the highlights. This illustration, this resource, and this evidence that I give to you in link form (something you don't bother with) is my "explanation to your explanation of my explanation".

www.abovetopsecret.com...

ALL the surfaces on the drone are missing highlights. Yes read it, ALL. Even the "mirror like" surfaces that reflect all the light except the brightest one.


I did check the link btw, though it wasn't one that I posted. Do you know what 'diffused' and 'polarized' mean? I engourage you to study product photography abit more.


Originally posted by 11 11
Wrong yet again. EXIF data that is not original is proof that the image has been edited in some way, either by an EXIF editor or by a photo editor, it has been edited outside of the camera. The FACT is, the image has been edited. You can not "explain" this away because there is nothing to explain. Its a fact that the EXIF data has been changed and is not original. It means the image, is not original. That leaves a HUGE possibility of being CGI. Almost like a 98% possibility. Pile on all the missing highlights and shadows, and soft dumb shadows, and zero depth perception and fake light halos around the drone, and the stupid caret day dream, and you have a hoax.


I see you dont understand what image editing means, the fact that some viewers do alter the exif data does not make the image edited. The file wont be original but the image data is the same.
What source you have for the 0 fov?
Where's those fake halo lights, source?


Originally posted by 11 11

"Standard practice for photographs for internet is to make them smaller, a lot smaller than what they're out of the camera."-PsykoOps

This above pissed me off when I read it... Because, the image I tested the EXIF data on was 1600x1200 which is the maximum size the camera the hoaxer used can create. Meaning they didn't even re-size the picture.

That comment was of the c2c images way before I even knew that there is full resolution ones availabe. I'm sorry you got pissed off for nothing.


Originally posted by 11 11
You didn't debunk jack crap. I showed two images, and super imposed them together to show the crazy imaginary flight path of the drone, over the telephone pole. Both images are missing the same shadow, even after the drone tilted its arm to the ground... look.. more evidence...

www.abovetopsecret.com...


I still dont see anything wrong with these images, infact your shadows looked more unnatural than anything in the original pictures.



Originally posted by 11 11
Yet ANOTHER reason to want the RAW image's from the camera, besides the EXIF data reason. Because having the RAW image straight from the camera would show ZERO compression artifacts. But, we won't see a RAW image of the drone, because one doesn't exist. Its CGI.


Another leap to a hasty conclusion, there is plenty of reasons why we dont have raw's from the camera. They were compressed to medium size in-camera and we dont know why, maybe he had a small memory card, maybe he didn't stop to adjust the camera to it's raw settings. Just the camera model suggests that this person isn't a photo enthusiast. This all of course if the images came from a camera in the first place



Originally posted by 11 11
Seriously? No links?


You do know that these 3 photos above are taken from 3 different people right? Please tell me what they all have in common, besides the same big CGI drone in the picture..... Hmm thats right all 3 have no real depth perception or depth of field, and they all use "layering" to fake depth perception. They all have another object layered over them. This links all the photos together and explains they are all created by the same guy, with the same lack of skill...


You haven't proven the drone is CGI. I have not seen any indication of fake dof. Even if such were there's no link between the image sources, that's a pure assumption.


Originally posted by 11 11
Now, I see it, and I'm sure you still don't, even after point it out, but I must say......
[edit on 12-7-2007 by 11 11]


I appreciate the concern, duly noted.



posted on Jul, 12 2007 @ 08:50 AM
link   
A computer engineer and a PhD in computer science give their opinions on the Issac info.


I find Isaac's writing style and the content of his narrative to be consistent with that of a knowledgeable and experienced engineer or
engineering manager. Isaac's use of jargon such as "big-O notation",
"context-sensitive languages", "style manuals", "workflow", the
distinction between software and hardware, etc., is correct, concise &
insightful. I find nothing in Isaac's narrative to indicate fiction.


link



posted on Jul, 12 2007 @ 09:01 AM
link   
the pictures are FAKE. I know CG and I know a badly done one..and all of these stink. Its a joke..



posted on Jul, 12 2007 @ 09:01 AM
link   
And no one to verify the pictures? Plenty of people have brought up errors in his grammar and writing style. I dont know where she gets these people from.




Originally posted by etshrtslr
A computer engineer and a PhD in computer science give their opinions on the Issac info.


I find Isaac's writing style and the content of his narrative to be consistent with that of a knowledgeable and experienced engineer or
engineering manager. Isaac's use of jargon such as "big-O notation",
"context-sensitive languages", "style manuals", "workflow", the
distinction between software and hardware, etc., is correct, concise &
insightful. I find nothing in Isaac's narrative to indicate fiction.


link


[edit on 12-7-2007 by wildone106]



posted on Jul, 12 2007 @ 09:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by 11 11

Yet ANOTHER reason to want the RAW image's from the camera, besides the EXIF data reason. Because having the RAW image straight from the camera would show ZERO compression artifacts. But, we won't see a RAW image of the drone, because one doesn't exist. Its CGI.



What to me is a dead give away and a point I take from 1111 statement here is, as monumental as a craft like this would be and at least 4 different people who took pictures of it and not one original uncompress photo to be had, I’m on dialup and I email songs I record (mp3's - 5 megs +) to friends all the time .How about it “Chad, Raj, Stephen” Would it kill you to upload one uncompressed photo to back up your claim?



posted on Jul, 12 2007 @ 09:26 AM
link   
it's interesting that now for the first time, some real, existing, named people with phone numbers and edu websites are stepping in to give their comments.



posted on Jul, 12 2007 @ 09:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by Lamâshtu
it's interesting that now for the first time, some real, existing, named people with phone numbers and edu websites are stepping in to give their comments.


Yes it is. But I'm sure it wont be long before their character and integrity is called into question by certain members of this site.


[edit on 12-7-2007 by etshrtslr]



posted on Jul, 12 2007 @ 09:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by etshrtslr
Yes it is. But I'm sure it wont be long before their character and integrity is called into question by certain members of this site.

[edit on 12-7-2007 by etshrtslr]


that is for sure, and in a way rightly so, as it was their own choice to expose themselves like this and be subject to public scrutiny
i certainly wouldn't stick my head out of the window like that myself, hehe



posted on Jul, 12 2007 @ 10:23 AM
link   
I have a reasonable good digital camera, an Olympus E-20. It can save pictures as RAW, TIFF and 3 levels of JPG. Most of the time the camera is set to one of the JPG modes for convenience in dealing with every day pictures. It's easy to just copy the JPGs out. These modes create smaller picture files. My wife uses the camera quite often so it is easier for her.

If I had a sighting of a fantastic object I would take a picture or two first, then maybe think about changing the setting.

Maybe some cameras don't even have an option of RAW or TIFF. I don't know about every camera myself.

There are many details and circumstances that effect what is going to happen during a sighting, especially with cameras.

I believe all or some of the pictures a fake though.

Edit add: In general, if the camera is not in RAW mode, there will not be raw data. I bet most cameras work in a similar manner.

[edit on 7/12/2007 by roadgravel]



posted on Jul, 12 2007 @ 10:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by moonking

What to me is a dead give away and a point I take from 1111 statement here is, as monumental as a craft like this would be and at least 4 different people who took pictures of it and not one original uncompress photo to be had, I’m on dialup and I email songs I record (mp3's - 5 megs +) to friends all the time .How about it “Chad, Raj, Stephen” Would it kill you to upload one uncompressed photo to back up your claim?


Yeah that would kind of be hard since the compressions are done in-camera. One set was taken apparently with a film camera, and I for one would like to get a high-res. scan of that film but doubt that they ever emerge.



posted on Jul, 12 2007 @ 11:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by etshrtslr
A computer engineer and a PhD in computer science give their opinions on the Issac info.


I find Isaac's writing style and the content of his narrative to be consistent with that of a knowledgeable and experienced engineer or
engineering manager. Isaac's use of jargon such as "big-O notation",
"context-sensitive languages", "style manuals", "workflow", the
distinction between software and hardware, etc., is correct, concise &
insightful. I find nothing in Isaac's narrative to indicate fiction.


link


WOW! "Isaac" understands the difference between software and hardware? And uses the words "workflow" and "style manual". He MUST be some bigshot engineer.

Wait, maybe I am too!




[edit on 12-7-2007 by The Little Penguin]



new topics

top topics



 
185
<< 91  92  93    95  96  97 >>

log in

join