[HOAX] Isaac CARET - Drones [HOAX]

Originally posted by PsykoOps
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.

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.

So according to your logic, LIFE is BUNK, because it has multiple explinations? Get real. Anyone and anybody, true or false, could make alternate explinations, no matter how stupid they are. Thats pretty much what you do... These two quotes above equal this: blah blah blah blah distraction distraction derail derail.

Originally posted by PsykoOps
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.

I am a professional graphic artist, I thought I was clear about that? I even showed some of my work, I will even show you my tutorials I write for 3DSM.... answer this.... do you know what a highlight is? I don't think you do.

Originally posted by PsykoOps
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.

I don't think you understand what anything means. Seriously, its this damn simple.... The camera used to take the "Chad" photos, is capable of uploading images RAW and JPG straight from the camera without going through image programs. Thats all we want. We want the original picture from the camera. We don't want it resized, we don't want the color edited, we just want it straight from the camera. Untill then, this is a proven fake by EXIF.

Originally posted by PsykoOps
What source you have for the 0 fov?
Where's those fake halo lights, source?

0 FOV?!?!?! I said absolutly nothing about "feild of view". I said "depth of field". Do you know the difference??

en.wikipedia.org...

Fake halo lights....are you telling me you didn't see the "big basin" pictures? They show both impossible depth of field, and fake halo lights.
Just look at this image.



Notice the flowers in front are blurry and the moutain way far back is clear? Yet at the same time the drone is clear? This is impossible depth of field. Now look at the white halo around the drone. Where is this light coming from? Not the Sun. And please dont say "its the alien anitgravity waves making that light", because thats just childish.

Originally posted by PsykoOps
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.

I'm sorry that you didn't do your research and that you have no clue what you are talking about...

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

What shadows? I didn't make any shadows..... WTF are you talking about?

Originally posted by PsykoOps
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.

Now you are talking crap again. "Compressed to medium size in-camera"????? The picture whos EXIF data I checked was a 1600x1200 image, which is the max size the camera can capture. It was NOT resized. The reason you forget to mention why we dont have RAW's is because this enitre thing is a CGI hoax, and giving away the RAW's is fatal to this hoax.

Originally posted by PsykoOps
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

If he isn't a photo enthusiast, then why did he load an ICC Profile on the image, AND used Adobe Album 3.0?? The camera used to take the photos, once plugged into a Windows OS will pop up a folder will all the unaltered images in it. He could easly copy and paste that, and we will have a RAW image. Its so simple. There is no reason for this Chad guy to load it in Adobe Image.... When I saw RAW image, I do not mean the actual "RAW FORMAT", I am talking about a RAW JPG file straight from the camera.

Originally posted by PsykoOps
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.

No its not "assumption" its called subconsious communication. The creator of all the images accidently left subconsious information that only few can see.... All the pictures say something.. they do... you just have to listen to them. Not assumption, all facts.

Originally posted by roadgravel
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.

We don't need the actual "RAW FORMAT" images. We just need the JPG that is RAW meaning, unaltered, straight from the camera.

You know like "RAW MEAT", meat that is straight from the animal. We need a "RAW JPG" that hasn't touched Adobe Album, or any other image editor....

Since absolutly none of the photos are unaltered, then they are fake untill proven innocent.

Little Penguin, very educated observation of yours, IMO.
In general, I just would like to say,..all these 'text executing itself' written or spoken, resembles a centuries old plot episodes found in fairy-tails or legends throughtout the globe and cultures. Sort of as, loudly speaking out sequence of words, often in unknown language, does an act of magic...Nothing new to me here, sorry. And, of course, 'the book pages' have to be lined up in certain order for the 'words' to work. He-he..You know what I'm saying?

Anyone to object?

This post by Springer makes me mad:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

So thats that? Thats all you need? What did you expect if he was the hoaxer??

"OH yes I AM THE HOAXER! I DID IT!" LOL.

Vacation LOL. Springer, what do you think the chances are that he e-mailed you out of the 1000's of e-mails he probably got? I think the hoaxer is in this very thread... no doubt. He knew you were going to e-mail him.




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

Well, 11 11, maybe people should not use the term Raw Data or Format as most people understand that to be 'camera raw data'. Unaltered JPG might apply. But then the debate continues as the EXIF data could be changed and a software person could actually change and rewrite the JPG to make it look unchanged.

At some point a photographer's word will have to be accepted as to the condition of the image.

Not every picture taker is hoaxing the world but then not every picture taker knows what they were photographing either. It's always going to be a can of worms.

If you are so sure of all your 'proof' 11 11, why don't you create a thread where you present your case?

11 11's complete theory of Caret and the Drones. If I agree, I will flag you and give you a star....

But whining that know one is listening to you and your theories amongst 95 odd pages of this particular thread, when some of us have come to our own conclusions based on 'proof' that was presented hundreds of posts ago in one of the many C2C drone threads is ridiculous. I honestly have lost interest in this topic because of posters like yourself.

It has nothing to do with the message after a while, but the way the messenger brings the message. I hope that you don't think this is a personal attack, because it is not meant as one. It is a call for all members to act civil to each other. It is a plea that we all take a step back and realize that fighting each other over points that for the most part have been proven over and over again only feed the hoax.

I personally have discussed this hoax with certain members that float around the dod/doe and military aircraft type threads and are they informed me that the military does have modern Coanda effect drones. I also have heard from these sources that the 'flow chart' graphics from the Caret files resemble something that they had seen in the past, but without any of the glyphs. Almost like some of the Caret report is real, or written by someone who has written 'real' reports in the past. What this tells me is that this is definately something big aimed at the UFO community and us here at ATS because we seem to be at the forfront of the possibilities. That this probably isn't a couple cgi wanabees trying to get famous, but a concerted disinfo campaign. I would invite these people in on the conversation if the atmosphere in this thread wasn't so much about argument and hype, and more about finding whatever truth that we can.

I wish you all, the very best in all your endeavors, but for me, until I see a drone with my own eyes, this is a hoax, perpetrated by a hidden hand to manipulate you and me, and possibly even draw us out of the cracks so that we can be known. So that enemies of truth can analyze how disinfo spreads, and the process the modern collective mind takes to get to the root of the "lie".

DocMoreau

(edit spelling)

[edit on 12/7/2007 by DocMoreau]

Originally posted by roadgravel
But then the debate continues as the EXIF data could be changed and a software person could actually change and rewrite the JPG to make it look unchanged.

This is the part that everyone is confused about, and I don't know why....

Of course it is possible to edit the EXIF data... everyone knows this. BUT THE IMAGES TESTED ARE NOT CHANGED. Heck I would shut up about this entire EXIF data thing, if they actually edited the EXIF to look unchanged. But they didn't, the EXIF is changed, and was never edited back to normal...


Here is my analogy for this.... A kid doesn't want to go to school, so he tells his mom he is feeling sick when he isn't. Although it is 100% possible for him to act like he is sick, and to change his appearance to look like he is sick, the kid didn't do any of that. He just told his mom, without acting or changing or faking, that he is sick. Do you think the mom believed him? No.

If the kid acted and faked like he was sick (edited the exif data), the mom might believe him more, even though its possible he is faking, at least he has the appearance of being sick.

In the case of Chad's drone images, they aren't even "faking the sickness", because they didn't even edit their EXIF data to appear unchanged.

If chad actually used an EXIF editor to change the EXIF data, then I wouldn't be talking about this...But the EXIF data is altered, meaning, its FAKE.

Originally posted by DocMoreau
If you are so sure of all your 'proof' 11 11, why don't you create a thread where you present your case?

I tired to make a thread and Springer closed it and told me to talk in this one. So that all my information could get lost in the pages and nobody would notice. This in turn will create more posts, and more ad revenue from google adsense for ATS. Its a scam.

Originally posted by DocMoreau
11 11's complete theory of Caret and the Drones. If I agree, I will flag you and give you a star....

But whining that know one is listening to you and your theories amongst 95 odd pages of this particular thread, when some of us have come to our own conclusions based on 'proof' that was presented hundreds of posts ago in one of the many C2C drone threads is ridiculous. I honestly have lost interest in this topic because of posters like yourself.

I made it simple for everyone a few posts ago... I will do it again....

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.

img528.imageshack.us... ***S.G.



All the links above is evidence, with illustrations, calculations, and experiments all created by me, except for that last image, which was created by SPF33 that supports my facts.

I go through the trouble of creating these illustrations, and all I get in return is rant that people call "alternate explanations". I have yet to see any calculations, experiments, or evidence that proves me wrong..








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

11 11, I was also stating that the actual JPG image could be rewritten to remove traces of editing. Photoshop edits image so a programmer could also make a program to fix the traces. Even raw CCD data could be faked.

The image could have passed through a program with no image changes but some headers get modified.

Basically then, all digital photographs then would be suspect. So in the big picture a photo is only as good as the word and reputation of the person taking the picture.

Doc M makes sense. Maybe it is a mix of real documents that have been modified. If that is the case I still feel it is purely a hoax by someone.

Guys, let's move on, please! There are no true (detectable) alien activity found ever! You have nothing better to rant about? It's like 'Star Gate'..really.

Trust your own eyes only. You've seen something strange -- fine! Post it here for us to wonder and say 'wow'. If extraterrestrials here to be, they are here to be totally invisible..Really! Monkeys, any anymal we study, can too scent the foot steps of researchers but never realize researches presents if researcher doesn't want to be revealed, which is most of the time case, according to 'Discovery channel'. The distance between us and supposed 'aliens' is somewhat similar, IMO

Pardon my ignorance, but I'm a little confused on the whole EXIF (officially Exif not EXIF, but I'm just being picky).

Anyway, I understand the principles of EXIF, what it does. I also understand and accept that the EXIF data on these photos hasn't been 'edited' to appear authentic. But my question is simple:

What can this tell us?

I'm not asking personally what you think it says. I'm saying, in terms of cold, solid evidence, what can it say about the photos?

I mean, ok suspicious EXIF data is indeed a big problem, but can you determine from the EXIF data that these are hoaxes? Not just assume it, but actually determine it?

Originally posted by roadgravel
11 11, I was also stating that the actual JPG image could be rewritten to remove traces of editing. Photoshop edits image so a programmer could also make a program to fix the traces. Even raw CCD data could be faked.

The image could have passed through a program with no image changes but some headers get modified.

Basically then, all digital photographs then would be suspect. So in the big picture a photo is only as good as the word and reputation of the person taking the picture.

Doc M makes sense. Maybe it is a mix of real documents that have been modified. If that is the case I still feel it is purely a hoax by someone.

You STILL don't get it. All you say is the image could do this, could do that. The fact is the image and hoaxer didn't do any of thi and that..

How hard is it to understand that the JPG's EXIF data does not change for no reason? The camera used to take the pictures is capable of uploading the images straight to the computer without going through a 3rd party application. How many times must I say that?

All I wan't is a picture that is straight from the camera. Nothing else... untill then, this image is FAKE.

11 11, why still grinding that photo/cgi topic? *you have data pointing in a direction, but no 100% proof beyond reasonable doubt.* repeating the same things over and over again doesn't make it more 100%, and your slightly agressive tone doesn't help much either, neither for convincing, not for making your posts more attractive to read.

imho, every aspect of this whole topic is more interesting than the cgi aspect, unless someone uploads the project data files, as i have said a few 100 posts ago already.

we have two real life alleged scientists to dissect, check their backgrounds, ring them up, analyze their works and whatnot, much more fun than the dead horse we're still beating since day one. exif, shadows, dov, highlights, sun angle, whatever, all of this is NOT conclusive.

i was sitting on the fence since the beginning, tending to hoax, and still am, but i have NOT seen any evidence to prove either way. evidence, not hints in either direction!

this implying that everyone not sharing your opinion being stupid/ignorant/clueless is getting on my nerves tbh. i already hear the pro-cgi people triumphing the day this is *proven* a hoax by whatever means, no matter that *they* haven't been able to prove it up to that, yet to come, day.

anyway, chill a bit all of you, the cgi road is a dead end so far, let's dissect other aspects, there are plenty.

Originally posted by corda
Anyway, I understand the principles of EXIF, what it does. I also understand and accept that the EXIF data on these photos hasn't been 'edited' to appear authentic. But my question is simple:

What can this tell us?

It tells us the JPG that we are looking at, is not straight from the camera. If the EXIF was changed in any way, it is no longer authentic, and it means it passed through some type of editing program.

So simple to understand....

The camera used to take the Chad drone images was a Minolta Dimage X. I found real unaltered images from that camera. Yes, straight from the camera, because when you plug this camera into a computer, a window folder pops up, and has all the pictures waiting right there to be given out. Some reason our hoaxer decided to load these images in Adboe Album when he didn't need to. It also shows he edited the color of the image because there is an ICC Profile loaded, and it says that in the EXIF. I'm sorry but the Minolta Dimage X camera does not load ICC Profiles.

Its simple... the entire drone hoax should not have passed the EXIF data inaccuracys, it should have stopped there. Untill we get an image that hasn't been passed through Adobe Album or any programs, then we can debate if its real or not.

Originally posted by Lamâshtu
11 11, why still grinding that photo/cgi topic? *you have data pointing in a direction, but no 100% proof beyond reasonable doubt.*

You are going on ignore. Sorry.

I have 100% proof that the lighting on the drone is not accurate, and that the lighting on the isaaccaret website is also not accurate. The only way for this to be possible is CGI. Its 100% proof. Sorry...goodbye.

You know when you put the people who aren't contributing to this drone hoax on ignore, you can clearly see that its a hoax, because noone has come forward with any proof that this is "real".

So much evidence it is fake, ZERO evidence it is real....

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

Originally posted by 11 11
I go through the trouble of creating these illustrations, and all I get in return is rant that people call "alternate explanations". I have yet to see any calculations, experiments, or evidence that proves me wrong..

this is commendable, and i appreciate it, although i'd appreciate a lot more if you wouldn't be as dogmatic as you sound.

there have been other calculations and experiments iirc (sun angle etc), and other people came to different conclusions, but *neither* side could prove the other side wrong so far, because between real/studio/cg there are too many variables involved, and as it has been said time and again, EVEN if someone arrives at creating a similarly good replica rendering (which so far was NOT the case), it won't prove nothing because it doesn't mean that there was no real life equivalent - it really astounds me that the most vocal cgi defenders, by claiming that *everything* irl can be reproduced 1:1 in cgi, don't see the flaw in this argument. proof won't be that it can be done by rendering, proof will be to show that it was NOT photographed, and this will not happen before the original author of all those pics will upload the project data as proof, so that we all can render his project and see the results.

edit for typos, and cheers for the ignore.

p.s. edit: if it is a hoax, i still haven't heard a remotely convincing explanation for all the damn work going into this. disinfo and attacking ufo sites comes closest, but the whole project - images, witnesses, carefully laid out time line, artwork, rendering, scans of faked research docs and whatnot - just doesn't sound realistic for a pure prank, unless someone with #loads of time and money, good friends well versed in various fields and a fetish for hoaxing fringe sites is pulling this stunt

[edit on 12-7-2007 by Lamâshtu]

[edit on 12-7-2007 by Lamâshtu]

Just for fun, im going to point out more inaccuracies, in the Chad CGI photos....

Look at these:

www.coasttocoastam.com...

Study them.... you see something wrong? I do...

The "drone" has 5 arms sticking out. 1 large, and 4 smaller ones. On all but 1 of those images, 4 of those arms are at the 12, 3, 6, and 9 o'clock positions, and the 5th arm is at the 2 o'clock position.

Now look at this picture:

"The cell phone" shot...
www.coasttocoastam.com...

The arm that is at the 2 o'clock position on all the other photos, is actually in the 10 o'clock position on the image above..

Either the image was mirrored or the CGI drone was mirrored. Either way, the photo is not consistent with the others...

thats proof someone edited the photo....and yet another large mistake not noticed by others... and yet another thing to hurt the credibility of this hoax.

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

Lamashtu, Springer, et al...

Precisely. It's like a hospital intern that keeps entering the poor patient's room and screaming into her face that a test has indicated terminal cancer.

Okay, that's fine. Thank you for your analysis. Why keep coming back into the room to shout that everyone else in the hospital is stupid and the patient is going to die?
Then after being politely reminded of some rather crude, ill-mannered behavior, to then charge right back in to scream at the patient and other professionals around the ward at how smart you are and how ignorant everyone is that the patient is STILL DYING!

Here's a tip: The world does not revolve around you and what you think. We are interested in MANY facets of this topic in addition to the CGI. We accept the drone images are in all likelihood computer generated. Now please step aside so that we can explore many other components and interesting nuances of this case.

You're like the witness who refuses to get off the stand once you've presented your opinion. Ok, we get it. It's CGI. Thank you. PLEASE STAND DOWN.

What are you, like five years old?? Get a grip already. You're embarrassing yourself...


[edit on 7/12/2007 by Outrageo]

Originally posted by 11 11
... I think the hoaxer is in this very thread... no doubt. He knew you were going to e-mail him.

To be honest, I'm more considering the plot twist YOU are the origin of these pictures than anyone else, to show off your ULTIMATE knowledge of everything. I know Springer that threats to people are against the terms of ATS, but I just want to say, that your (11 11) ego is bigger than your ability to cloud other people's judgement. I agree these are likely CGI, and I agree its a hoax, but I WANT to find out who and why - why are you so concerned that we shouldn't press it any further now you have given us the ultimate in your knowledge that its a hoax? Concerned for some reason?

The Springster is only voicing the concern of the MANY here that feel you have overstepped yourself one too many times and you are almost threatening people with your vindictive, over-ego'd threats of 'stupid' to everyone who disagrees that you are the one true bountiful master of CGI.

Grow up or shut up and let someone else post something.

Originally posted by ejsaunders
Grow up or shut up and let someone else post something.

So you don't have anything to bring to this thread like always?? Man I keep showing all you people evidence, and it goes ignored. I'm going to put you on ingnore too, because you don't seem to be helping anybody...


For the record, I didn't have an attitude untill people started calling "alternat explianations".. proof. You would get an attitude too if you spent all this time to help people see the truth, and all they do is rant and speculate.
For the record, I didn't call anyone stupid, I called their "atlernate explainations" stupid.. Get it right.

Back on topic...

some explain this: www.abovetopsecret.com...

Come on, let me here your "alternate explianations".



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