Originally posted by NGC2736

I'm slowly weeding through stories and reports that happened just prior to the release of the first drone pictures. Let us say that as a contingency, some group had this Isaac story on the ready, and used it to divert attention away from something else.

I think thats an excellent place to start.

Another thought is this could be some sort of experiment focused on a specific target audience to see how quickly or to what extent certain information can be vetted out by said target audience.

Bravo Outrageo. "Filling the void", once that "void" is defined and identified, would seem to be a quality working hypothesis. Many have no "clue" and I fear aren't cognizant of the scale of this - blades of grass VS John Deere lawntractor. Net-wise, it's HUGE and spreading... I count 54 countries with articles.

I hope "Isaac" turns out to be Canadian or a resident of Canada... I'll pay that "sacrifice" a "wee visit" in the real-world... Do you hear me "Isaac"? - I want you to suffer unspeakably - then I'm gonna get seriously 21C on your fraudulent-scheme-butt. I want your digital-guts on a plate while you watch. You'll never know when... not "if", but when "Isaac". Tick, tick, tick.

Vic

[edit on 26-7-2007 by V Kaminski]

oops posted in wrong forum

[edit on 26-7-2007 by wildone106]

Thats the most sensible post on the subject I've read. What a joke it is. I cant wait for the ego's of chad & issac to come out with how clever they where in fooling almost everyone. Well not me thats for sure.

Originally posted by schuyler
W

Black-Ops DARPA? Come! On!! Down!!!!

[edit on 26-7-2007 by wildone106]

Am I the only one who's not impressed by this article ?

It appears that he is simply totally fascinated by these drones and didn't do his homework properly. I mean even I (I'm not researching too much on this), know much better on the subject than the author.

So why does he calls Issac as "Issac Caret" as if caret is his surname? And why he thinks the videos on youtube are those of the drones? Whats with the huge canvas sizes, has he never heard of vector fonts?

I must say that I found his article very ordinary.

Wildone106, could you answer me a personal question?

Why is it so important to you that everyone step away from this story? You seem like a person on a mission. You sound as if you would rather we didn't even bother trying to find out who or what is behind all of this.

I mean, right now, from what I can gather from these threads, the belief in these things being true are lower than GW Bush's approval rating. Mostly. we're just trying to find out who did what and why.

So why is so important to squash this whole thing once and for all?

Originally posted by NGC2736

And as a side note, did you read the part where the poster opines that the "artist" used a 15foot by 10 foot canvas to create the original drawings, and then shrunk them to fit? Meaning that the hoaxer purposely created some "art" that couldn't be appreciated, just for his/her own amusement.

Rather than a side note, this should be considered a window into the validity of the authors judgment. What he describes as being the equivalent of a Masterpiece; is in fact simple vector art that a reasonably intelligent person could create in Illustrator in the first week relying on just the included help files.

Another interesting assumption is that people of high IQ frequent C2C. A transparent attempt to lure such people into making his observation a reality. This adds insult to injury by the authors assumption that intellect equals naiveté. He rubs salt in the wound by intimating that the most intelligent among us are incapable of enjoying simple pleasures like the escapism offered up on the "TV" and are subjugated to the "Cyber" World. A clear attempt to say an Intellectual can be more easily manipulated than the Average Joe due to their intellect. I find that as specious an argument as thinking someone who has bad spelling and grammar could not possibly have a high IQ or anything to add to a discussion.

He clearly has followed the rule; "If you can't dazzle them with your brilliance, baffle them with bull-#" instead.

Originally posted by NGC2736

What's the old saying, "If you can't blind them with brilliance, baffle them with BS". And if you do it fast enough, with good acting, by the time they figure out they've been had, the train has left the station.

Just an idea.

[edit on 26-7-2007 by NGC2736]

I should have known. Take more than a few minutes to post a reply and someone else will have said the same thing.

Good call Blaine. I know little about what can and cannot be done with the images, but common sense says that if someone went to a 10' by 15' canvas, and then reduced it beyond being noticeable, we can't be talking about the same person who has put this stuff out.

And yes, I also agree about the overall attitude.

This sounds like just another attempt to make this event more than it is. The most mundane explanation- guy(s) with too much free time making some really good pictures. The hardcore UFO believers are such that it's either gotta be real, or some deep plot. It can't just be that someone's trying to trick them (maybe because, at first, most of us at least accepted these could be legit).

The claim that this is targetted at and everyone "studying" the pictures are the intellectual elite of the world is just hilarious. It's people with some imaging experience and (maybe too much) free time. Just like whoever is probably perpetrating this. A little too much patting yourself on the back.

Aside, the little poke at Stanton Friedman was nice, though. Think the "nuclear physicist" is held up a little too high.

[edit on 7-26-2007 by Esoterica]

WoW!! What a read!

IMO he makes some valid points in regard as to whom this stuff is targeting, note that he makes a lot of comparisons or association between SERPO and CHAD to make his points, so that gives away easily the take that he has on the subject, still I don't think it takes away from what his points is.

After reading the post by Engineering Type on the other thread and now this, I'm ready to take a vacation from all this, but I know it won't happen.

I don't think it adds much to the core of the subject at hand other than an different fresh perspective that tries to explain why all this might be happening.
But it will be something worth keeping on the back of my head.

Originally posted by NGC2736

And yes, I also agree about the overall attitude.

Any doubt I had about this being anything other than a Hoax left me some time ago. In fact, I had stopped even looking at the threads until this popped up. Amazing how this person piled on in an effort to share a little of the notoriety by simply commenting on the topic.

I will never see this scam as being even remotely complex to achieve. Some basic 3D Modeling and Compositing skills, visit a few relevant sites to see what rings peoples chimes and - voilà - a hoax to keep the keyboards clacking for a month. Keeps us entertained and keeps the "Perp(s)" entertained. Everyone goes home with something.

this is utter drivel, i am screenshotting it for proof, there is no story, you are just directing people to the website and nothing more, it seems a crass way of trying to implicate a concept, which simply isn't valid, no.

say cheese...

[edit on 26/7/2007 by deaman88]

I have 2 questions for the guys that are knowledgeable about the CGI stuff. (and this is NOT a rant)

It seems to me that CGI crowd is divided by the guys who said that this is an amazing piece of work, that would take at least a group of people with great skills working a lot of manhours, money, effort to create this, the other group says is as simple as few mouse clicks here and there and done. The two sides agreeing for the most part that is a hoax. I think in my opinion that this divide gives ammo to the people that want to belive this. Then throw in more people posting that something like this will take years to make, and Mr. Bennett (that BTW I dont know what his credentials are) saying that this is a work that requires great effort and skill.

Can anybody explain to me why is that divide between the CGI crowd?

What in the opinion of the CGI people would you describe as an CGI expert?

Im leaning towards a hoax, at least in the ISAAC document but for reasons other than CGI, but is has not been determined if they are link to the photos.



[edit on 26-7-2007 by Bunch]

[edit on 26-7-2007 by Bunch]

Originally posted by rocksolidbrain
Am I the only one who's not impressed by this article ?

It appears that he is simply totally fascinated by these drones and didn't do his homework properly. I mean even I (I'm not researching too much on this), know much better on the subject than the author......()

I second that.

"Graphic artists are paid scores of thousands of pounds
for original fonts, and this one appears to have given his talent easily, or else he was paid an enormous amount which deepens the mystery again. Trying to copy these line drawings is not easy. They must have been done on a huge canvas, because bringing the fonts down to screen size they become almost obliterated. The only way to see the letters clearly (as above) is to paste in Photoshop, crop a small piece, and zoom to 100% . The exquisite precision can then be seen. The skill is equal to that of a watchmaker or jeweller. Yet another mystery: even at this zoom, some of the smaller thinner lines still do not separate. I give a reader a guess then, say 200%? Yes, they separate at this zoom, thus ever single piece of the design can be seen clearly. But it means that the size of the original canvas must have been mind-boggling!"

Lol. What is this guy on? I want some of it. Ever heard of vector graphics? You don't need to work on any huge canvas, vectors are just beizer curves which scales to whatever size you want.

God and it goes on like that. That the drawings had to be made by some amazing talent on a huge canvas. That's just bull, this is done in any illustrating software like Adobe Illustrator.

It's no doubt cool and talented, but give me a break, the writer of the article needs to get his info straight and to not sound like an excited kid at christmas. Do a search on deviantart for abstract vector art and you will find equally interesting items.

Some random examples:
/ywmlce
/gvybn



[edit on 26-7-2007 by lasse]

[edit on 26-7-2007 by lasse]

Originally posted by Esoterica
This sounds like just another attempt to make this event more than it is.

Amen to that. Money. Who is Issac's sole contact? C2C. Who keeps drumming up witnesses and photos? C2C's associate, Earthfiles--two websites that accept paid subscriptions.

Having expressed that suspicion, I've still got an eye out for viral or any other connective to the drones. "The simplest solution tends to be the best one."

Originally posted by schuyler
2. Second up were the CGI experts proclaiming an obvious hoax.
...
Biedny and Ritzmann no longer find the fake drones of interest, leaving those who think they are real.

Unless you count 11 11, which still occasionaly pops up to devour the ''Drone = true'' supporters to the bone. lol

OK. I take all "stories" I read on here with a grain of salt and an open mind.

I also know what lengths the psychologists in the government will go to when trying to bury something. They call it PsyOps. They will make up a counter story so convincing and so detailed that they cause yet more doubt than we started with.

This is the plan, to confuse and obliterate any possible connection to absolute truth. This is supposed to throw off the dogs as it were and continue the public confusion programs.

What does it really matter though? Since we know that EXIF data can be faked and we know that any fool with a computer can set up a web site, what data can we trust?

Going as far as Issac went to call up C2C and talk with George is pretty brave. Its not the first time someone has done so though. I remember a show back in 1997 when a guy called in and was making all these claims about area 51 and Art lost signal lock on GE1. The guy called back later the next year and told Art that he was a fake. So? What does it really matter?

The only data I'm going to take seriously is the parts in my hands and the craft flying over my house. All of us here on ATS should too.

We should have higher standards than the general drooling public with ADHD. I deny ignorance by demanding facts. We don't really know now anymore about these drones that we started with. If they exist or not, still doesn't matter.

Point being, what do we really KNOW about this case anyway? All we've been presented with so far is photos, not a person standing in the picture with said drone and no one willing to come out of the shadows.

Originally posted by NGC2736
Did anyone else notice that the False Flag thread held us all up just long enough for the drones to become the big eye catcher? It reminds me of a two man pickpocket team.

The False Flag thread began on 6/22/07 and was effectively over about three days later, as I remember. (Who wants to wade through that and see? Not me!). But the first drone thread was in May. Even the Omnibus thread, which was supposed to be a consolidation effort, was started in late May. There have been about a dozen separate threads altogether. So I think the Drones were in orbit well before the False Flag lifted off. (I'm pretending to be Vic here.)

Not saying there is no connection. I just don't see it yet.

Originally posted by schuyler

Not saying there is no connection. I just don't see it yet.

Thanks schuylar. You're right, naturally. Now that I think back, the False Flag thing was later than the start of the drone saga.

And I too was scared to go back looking much in that mess.

There isn't a connection yet, and my not be, or I may not find one. It's just one of many ideas on trying to find a logical reason, aside from some pinhead's ego, for all the effort that went into this hoax.

You have too kiss a lot of frogs to ever find a prince.