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: 96
185
<< 93  94  95    97  98  99 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 12 2007 @ 01:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by 11 11
I'm going to put you on ingnore too, because you don't seem to be helping anybody...


you won't hear me anymore, but ... wtg putting everyone disagreeing on ignore




posted on Jul, 12 2007 @ 01:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lamâshtu

Originally posted by 11 11
I'm going to put you on ingnore too, because you don't seem to be helping anybody...


you won't hear me anymore, but ... wtg putting everyone disagreeing on ignore


I knew someone would say this... I'm not putting "everyone disagreeing" on ignore.. iM PUTTING EVERYONE THAT HAS CONTRIBUTED ABSOLUTLY NOTHING BUT RANT, on ignore...
Dont focus on how somone is saying something, focus on WHAT they are saying.

Big difference.... come on... keep derailing the thread, its what you people are good at.


Back on topic...

Someone explain the mirrored chad images please??
www.abovetopsecret.com...

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

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



posted on Jul, 12 2007 @ 01:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by 11 11


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.


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...



Im still on the fence on this issue. With that being said, 11 11 did you ever think that maybe those arms could rotate around?



posted on Jul, 12 2007 @ 01:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by etshrtslr

Im still on the fence on this issue. With that being said, 11 11 did you ever think that maybe those arms could rotate around?



Oh yes thank you for this out of the blue totaly not even relavant or accurate wild guess. Try again? The "witness" didn't say anything about rotating arms.

Anyway.... Let me try this wild guessing thing you people do..., it looks so easy!

Hey 11 11, did you ever think that maybe those arms are just holograms!!?!?

Hey 11 11 did you ever think that maybe those arms are detachable, and they attach together with velcro!?

Hey 11 11 did you ever think those arms are just super top secret alien techonology not found on this Earth, and that those arms actaully don't exist and its only a manipulation of light that makes it look like arms are there??!?

man I can go on forever.



posted on Jul, 12 2007 @ 01:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by 11 11I knew someone would say this... I'm not putting "everyone disagreeing" on ignore.. iM PUTTING EVERYONE THAT HAS CONTRIBUTED ABSOLUTLY NOTHING BUT RANT, on ignore...
[snip]
Someone explain the mirrored chad images please??


i don't think i only ranted, and i only commented on you saying putting me than another one on ignore in a few posts
no offense meant.

on topic, for the fun of it:

rotating arms? on www.coasttocoastam.com... you see on the last image the sky through the ring, maybe arms can rotate, except for the big one?



posted on Jul, 12 2007 @ 01:31 PM
link   
I have, as many others have, hopefully posted SOMETHING of use, while I didn't go into a tirade about CGI, I have hopefully helped some by my own thoughts on the issue, but ultimately, that is all anyone can do GIVE THOUGHTS, even you are not 100% correct with anything you say.

I however, am not trying to browbeat anyone into taking anything I say as 100% correct without giving them the chance of giving me their opinion, or forumating their own. I can change others opinions just as much as they can mine, you seem to be set and want this brushed under the carpet as soon as possible. If it bothers you so much, just click on another link, there are undoubtedly more like myself who want the forensic side of the investigation to continue and to get to teh bottom of it, the why, the how, the what the hell for.

I am above ignoring people, because thankfully, I just just look past your comments, if you wish to ignore me, please do so, but I'm not going to cry if you do.



posted on Jul, 12 2007 @ 01:38 PM
link   



11 11,
Can you actually reply to anyone without the vitriol filled post? Why is so difficult for you to conduct yourself in a civil manor?

[edit on 12-7-2007 by etshrtslr]



posted on Jul, 12 2007 @ 01:38 PM
link   
ok, let's try to switch topic a bit.

11 11, fine, let's agree it's cgi. i assume you can agree that no matter how crappy you consider the quality of the cgi work, you will agree that the hoax as a whole is quite some amount of work, with probably several people involved, and carefully scripted. (if you don't agree on these statements, please explain why.)

ok so, what's your take on the following:

- why would anyone putting that much effort into such a nice and entertaining hoax fail to correct such grave errors and mistakes as you claim?

- what could be the reason for putting such a hoax together, a hoax that only reaches a negligible part of the population, eg. fringe sites?



posted on Jul, 12 2007 @ 01:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lamâshtu

rotating arms? on www.coasttocoastam.com... you see on the last image the sky through the ring, maybe arms can rotate, except for the big one?


No that "sky through the ring" thing is a lighting problem caused by the hoaxer, because its CGI. I just never used that to my advantage..

You see, I have 1000 reasons why this whole thing is a hoax. I only showed you people about 20 of them.. Seriously, I have so much more inaccuracys to point out, that you people would hate me when I post them...



As always though, this entire thing is not about real or false anymore. Its about the believers and disbelievers. A disbeliever will show good evidence, and the believers get their feelings hurt because of it, and take everything personal. The believers think I am attacking their beliefs, and they take it personal, then it gets ugly from there...

I will never understand how some of you people are so pationate about something that has so much evidence against it.



posted on Jul, 12 2007 @ 01:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by 11 11

Originally posted by etshrtslr

Im still on the fence on this issue. With that being said, 11 11 did you ever think that maybe those arms could rotate around?



Oh yes thank you for this out of the blue totaly not even relavant or accurate wild guess. Try again? The "witness" didn't say anything about rotating arms.

Anyway.... Let me try this wild guessing thing you people do..., it looks so easy!

Hey 11 11, did you ever think that maybe those arms are just holograms!!?!?

Hey 11 11 did you ever think that maybe those arms are detachable, and they attach together with velcro!?

Hey 11 11 did you ever think those arms are just super top secret alien techonology not found on this Earth, and that those arms actaully don't exist and its only a manipulation of light that makes it look like arms are there??!?

man I can go on forever.


It will get a lot worse than that my man, next it will be
“Yes it’s just a CGI, but they did it to expose the top secret work the government is doing”
I must admit after seeing the new post on earth file’s of so called engineers stepping up to back “Isaac” this whole thing is starting to make me sick



posted on Jul, 12 2007 @ 01:42 PM
link   
11 11:

As much as I love your passion on this issue,when you ignore people that dont agree with your point of view is easy to see what you want to see or hear.

If you put everybody that dont agree with you, then you only going to see your side of the story, so it will be easier for you to conclude that your arguement is the only valid one.

You are a great asset in this investigation, but you can not let your arguement and knowledge blind your understanding. Theres a lot more to this issue than CGI or not.

Me personally have no clue about the CGI stuff, and your posts are hard two read for me for 2 reasons: first, because all the technicality in them and second but no less important your attitude.

Anyways good job everybody here, lets all take a deep breath and continue with the topic, but please be civil and remember that not everybody here have a degree in CG, so please dumb it down a bit.

But just a bit.

[edit on 12-7-2007 by Bunch]



posted on Jul, 12 2007 @ 01:43 PM
link   
Alrighty Then

Im going to say this once here mmmmkay


Please continue to debate this intersting topic while showing civility and respect for you fellow posters (THIS MEANS EVERYBODY)

Please stay on topic and refrain from personal sniping (lets face it, the personal sniping adds nothing to the debate at hand and furthermore its simply not allowed anyway)

Please watch the big quotes when replying to other posters.

Now back to you same bat channel

FredT



posted on Jul, 12 2007 @ 01:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by 11 11
man I can go on forever.


You've made a lot of really good points throughout this thread, but they'd come across better if you weren't so rude.

Just some constructive criticism, man... consider a different approach. Your posts are worth reading for the info, but it doesn't help the overall conversation to be uncivil.



posted on Jul, 12 2007 @ 01:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by 11 11The believers think I am attacking their beliefs, and they take it personal, then it gets ugly from there...

I will never understand how some of you people are so pationate about something that has so much evidence against it.


you're misunderstanding - most of the people i think, but definitely myself, are either on the fence or tending to hoax. for me it is a nice discussion topic, and interesting to read different opinions and takes on it, but neither am i taking it personally, nor do i think it is real just so. (just to name one reason why *i* am tending to hoax - why should those things only appear in the usa. much more interesting than the cgi angle imo.)

and it has to be said, one of the most passionate in this thread is you.



posted on Jul, 12 2007 @ 01:52 PM
link   
I have been following this thread on and off since the beginning, although I haven't posted anything yet. Main reason being, there is just not enough evidence - FOR ME - to say it is one thing or another.

That is the great thing about ATS and the internet in general. There are hundreds of thousands of opinions on what something COULD or COULD NOT be. But then again, that's just what they are - opinions. I can make my mind up about this drone being CGI. Is that the truth? Nope. Well, it POSSIBLY could be ... but unless I am the hoaxer or I physically saw it myself, there is no way I will ever KNOW FOR SURE. Seems there is ALOT of debating in this thread started by people that are dead-set on it being one thing or another. That's fine ... but the motto here is "deny ignorance". By shutting yourself off to alternate possibilities (and that's just what they are ... possibilities, NOT statements of fact) you are being ignorant in the greatest way possible. Also, your opinion is a theory of what's going on (again unless you are said hoaxer or witness). It is our job, nay, RESPONSIBILITY as ATS members to ensure that the theory is sound. No matter what said theory is.

*steps off soapbox*

I look forward to reading more input ... I just don't have anything more meaningful to say other than my little rant, so I figured I'd get it all in in one post. Keep plugging away and we'll get to the truth



posted on Jul, 12 2007 @ 02:01 PM
link   
I have been lurking on this thread and have read most of it. I have to admit that I have not contributed much of anything on this topic but I did say this on the original Chad C2C thread.



I think that its legit, Either Alien or from us but reversed engineered from Alien tech.


Since then my opinion has changed and thanks to the mounting evidence and some of the hard working members here at ATS I am now 100% convinced that this is a Hoax.

I would just like to give Props to some of the members that have really brought some good evidence to light and I am especially impressed with the "who is" investigations on the Issac websites, wish I have thought of it myself. It makes me proud to be a member of ATS when I see members working together and getting to the bottom of things.


However, I would like to point out the fact that 11 11 is taking things way to personally and is making himself look kind of suspicious. Maybe 11 11 is the Hoaxer. Think about it, he is a professional graphics artist after all.

Just my two cents



posted on Jul, 12 2007 @ 02:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Fiverz
Seems there is ALOT of debating in this thread started by people that are dead-set on it being one thing or another. That's fine ... but the motto here is "deny ignorance". By shutting yourself off to alternate possibilities (and that's just what they are ... possibilities, NOT statements of fact) you are being ignorant in the greatest way possible.


Although I agree it may seem that way now, I think it’s safe to say we all looked at this with an open mind; it’s been awhile since the first Chad images appeared, human behavior being what it is, given enough time, opinions will be formed. Then given the chance to express our opinions, a sort of natural polarization will occur

[edit on 12-7-2007 by moonking]



posted on Jul, 12 2007 @ 02:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lamâshtu
- why would anyone putting that much effort into such a nice and entertaining hoax fail to correct such grave errors and mistakes as you claim?


I already explained this, but i will do it again. I don't think this entire hoax was supposed to get so big, or to last so long. Actually it was up to the entire UFO community to decide how long this hoax would last, and since the majority ignored the EXIF data, this thing kept going. I bet it caught the hoaxer by supprize. All these mistakes some odd reason got ignored and missed..... and I'm sure the hoaxer was laughing his butt off.

I have a theory, this entire hoax is from 1 person. The story goes, someone submited a picture anonymously, and the drone looked basic. Then few days later, another drone image anonymously gets released, except this time the drone is not basic and is more detialed. Then ANOTHER anonymous picture comes out and there is MORE detial on the drone...

Its simple, when someone is making a 3D model, they start with a basic design. It takes time to get extreme detail into a model, so you over a long period of time, you just add more and more detail. The older the object, the more detail it might have....

Once you have your model done, or ready, and you have a rendering system perfected, its only a simple click of a button to produce a nice quality render. Then you paste that render onto a real photo, do some touchups, and you have your drone. He could probably release a new drone image every day if he wanted... it doesn't take as long as some people think....



Originally posted by Lamâshtu
- what could be the reason for putting such a hoax together, a hoax that only reaches a negligible part of the population, eg. fringe sites?


Practice makes perfect. This hoaxer is just simple a 3D modeler, and 2D texture artist. Just like myself. I, as a hobbie, will make 3D objects and sell them on www.turbosquid.com to make some money. This hoaxer probably was creating some realistic UFO photos for fun, or for a story book, or even a movie, or just for sale, and he decided to get some reactions from "experts" in the ufo industry.

B.t.w. "negliglbe part of the population"?? This drone was advertised on Coast 2 Coast radio station that gets more than a few million listeners....


Anyway, that said.. I think you people are miscalculating the time spent on this hoax. All we have are a few images and the isaaccaret website. Nothing more. An experianced 3D artist can easy make this stuff in a week or so. Those "primer" images on isaacaret were probably created to be used as "Decals" on another 3D model. Instead the hoaxer decided to make some phoney story about it....

That said... why does there have to be a motive or reason? Why can't this entire thing just be a "hobbie" to the guy??



posted on Jul, 12 2007 @ 02:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bunch
11 11 as much as I love your passion on this issue,when you ignore people that dont agree with your point of view is easy to see what you want to see or hear.



I already made it clear that I am not putting people on ignore that don't agree with me... I am putting poeple on ignore that are not contributing to the drone debate. All they are doing is ranting about other things.... In order to clean up this topic, and to physicaly see the opposing positions I should be debating, I have to clean up all the rant in between.

Does that make sense?

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



posted on Jul, 12 2007 @ 02:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by 11 11

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.


I sure hope you're never gonna be in jury duty
I'm sorry if my points come across as babble but I'm only human. I'm only referring to alternative explanations that are possible within the realm of reality.


Originally posted by 11 11
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.

I know what a highlight is and as a photographer I do know how to get rid of them. I've already explained that using diffused light like a tent is one of many ways not to mention dimming and using long exposures.


Originally posted by 11 11
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.


You must mean the rajman photos. I'd like to get them straight from the camera too btw. Just because they aren't that proves nothing.


Originally posted by 11 11
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.


Yeah, sorry I get those two acronyms always confused, I meant dof of course as you pointed out.
How do you know how far the drone is supposed to be in the pictures? And I suppose that those trees that are sharp are cgi too? About the halo, that does look abit odd and might indicate possible hoax in this one set of photos.


Originally posted by 11 11
I'm sorry that you didn't do your research and that you have no clue what you are talking about...

I know what I was referring to, it's you who misunderstood what I was talking about, maybe I wasn't clear enough.


Originally posted by 11 11
What shadows? I didn't make any shadows..... WTF are you talking about?

Sorry I remembered wrong, it was spf33 who did those animations from your research.


Originally posted by 11 11
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.


I was talking about jpeg compression, not resizing, and as you know a uncompressed 1600x1200 jpg is well over 1mb in size. The camera has 3 settings of jpeg compression: fine, standard and economy. When you look at the images they're are between 271kb - 536kb in size, hence they're in-camera compressed. I'm sorry if you mistook that as 'crap'



Originally posted by 11 11
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.


My guess it is that it came with the camera and he used it to load the images from the memory card. When a camera is plugged to windows it asks what task to do and my guess that when adobe album is installed it will offer to import the images from camera. If the images were resized for web in adobe album then that would explain the ICC, at least in photoshop there's a possibility to include or exclude it. There's no automatic folder pop up unless you've specified it to do so.
And you must've been talking about rajman again, dont confuse the two since there's nothing that links them except these unusual pictures.


Originally posted by 11 11
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.


That maybe the case then if you see something I dont




top topics



 
185
<< 93  94  95    97  98  99 >>

log in

join