CARET/Drones Debunked? – A “viral” fantasy

Originally posted by Bunch
Can anybody explain to me why is that divide between the CGI crowd?

Maybe some aren't true MODELING experts (eg.: They know a videogame took 10 years to make, they see a really beautiful CGI intro, they associate drone with intro, and then link to the amount of time game took to be made, lol,and since it's of such good quality, it must've taken ages, just like that game (Not in reality))

Just look at the thread, There's not that many that actually show that they know what they're talking about when they mention the CGI stuff.
They say they know, and this or that and because, but they don't show any ''evidence'' (like an edit with arrows and tidbits to show why this or that is fake). Nor do they use modeling terms.

And some that do shout fake, don't even mention their modeling experience, they only mention ''it's fake''.


So I guess it's something like modelers and the non modelers (not saying they don't know jack about cgi, but they might not know the time involved)

Originally posted by Bunch
What in the opinion of the CGI people would you describe as an CGI expert?

It depends, a CGI expert ANALYSIST (sp?) or a ''CGI expert'' on all areas (including creating)

A reason why? As someone said but I will make more succinct; bull# = business, and it makes some might fine roses when you work hard and plant a good seed in fertile ground.

We are the ground, and they're not ready to pick the crop yet I think. But, it's making everyone crazy - has noone else noticed the furor and DRIVE its given everyone? It's like we've all become addicted to drones and we need to dig, and opine wildly about what we feel is good or bad, it has splayed us wildly like practically no other thread, and there are newcomers each and every day.

My training is business (and computers, but more business), and this feels like its got a good backer, who that is, be they government or not, they have to get something out of all of this. Some people do it for laughs plain and simple (think of the money someone like Bill Gates could WASTE without even blinking an eye), but I say there's money to be made here somewhere, and we've got to find the someone who's in the garden watching this rosebush grow before he starts his pruning and selling his wares at the market.

Originally posted by -0mega-


Just look at the thread, There's not that many that actually show that they know what they're talking about when they mention the CGI stuff.
They say they know, and this or that and because, but they don't show any ''evidence'' (like an edit with arrows and tidbits to show why this or that is fake). Nor do they use modeling terms... ()

This has been covered. The resi. cgi experts on this forum has credentials enough, look it up. But I mean geez, there were guys reproducing these things like months ago in the original threads. Look that up as well. All in all though, the best way isn't laying back spouting "prove me wrong, prove me wrong", it's all about educating yourself on the subject so you can make an informed "decision". Buy some CGI books, download Maya personal edition or just look at various art forums on the net.

The whole "this must be real if you can't reproduce it" is just old.

Originally posted by ejsaunders
We are the ground, and they're not ready to pick the crop yet I think. But, it's making everyone crazy - has noone else noticed the furor and DRIVE its given everyone? It's like we've all become addicted to drones and we need to dig, and opine wildly about what we feel is good or bad, it has splayed us wildly like practically no other thread, and there are newcomers each and every day.

I have notice the same, in fact the drones was what made me join the site after a long time of lurking around, I dont regret it, but my wife says Im addicted to it, I check the drones on my job, in the house, on my Blackberry, is ridiculous. Thats why I think that Mr.Bennett article was a breath of fresh air for me, not saying that I agree with all his arguements, but having some skepticism in you is a good thing. (I can't believe I just said that).

good job. You're right, this hoax is obvious. Anyone who has read the CARET article about how he "worked" for the government can be easily skeptical.

Some criticism of the Bennet article is emerging and would that it should. I think Bennett's point of view expresses a meme itself and is somewhat "out there" in terms of how he expresses himself and where he's coming from. He sounds like an obscure cross between observe50 and antar, but sounding more sober. (I mean no disrespect and trust those two could and will laugh along.) Obviously influenced by his Fortean connections, if he sported a bumper sticker, it would be, "Reality Isn't!" the man is not convinced there is any Capital-R Reality and essentially criticizes anyone who would suggest there is. His references to Marshall McLuhan show the influence of that educator's communications theories on Bennett's thinking, leading us to this somewhat strange theory of memes running unfettered across the intellectual landscape.

I think Bennett's idea that smart people don't watch television, but are infatuated with UFOs is highly suspect and perhapes self-congratulatory. It kind of reminds me of that 'Doctor PhD" fellow on here a few days ago that got booted for faking a rice paddy manifestation of Yeshua. His PhD cost was a coorespondence-based year long sprint that cost him $990 total. Peace unto you, too, buddy. I don't think this form of flattery is appreciated by anyone. It struck me that he may be intentionally damning with faint praise.

The valuable part of the article, though, is exploring the reasons why this hoax is being perpetrated and by whom. As yet he also has no answers, but he has also tantalized us with only half an article. I think this particular method of presenting his thesis is suspect, I must say, for the next chapter is to be in UFO Magazine. I guess we'll have to subscribe. Hmm, I'm not feeling too good about that right now. Nevertheless I'm willing to withhold judgement until the entire article is extant. In any case, it's not so much Bennett's particular conclusions that may be valuable, but the general approach.

That approach is essentially that the Drones are a hoax. They aren't viral marketing. So what's the deal here? Who is doing this and why? That's what I'd like to explore.

Edit my grammar. 'striked?' Good Lord! What was I thinking?

[edit on 7/26/2007 by schuyler]

10-4. McLuhan's "the medium is the message" is the message? Hmmm, let's explore that... Not "viral marketing" as such, maybe "viral-idea" research; the effect of introducing a stimulus into a group and documenting the effects and "spread" qualitatively and quantitatively... secondary, tertiary and quaternary "infections"... how many pages on ATS? All port 80 too... public. Fill the void - see how fast. That knowledge has value. Have a cookie.

Look up Databasing the Brain, Van Essen Labs, and while your there download the CARET brain mapping software. It's all in the same place. Perhaps, DARPA or "the like"... they do "play" with universities and scientists and labs and finance all manner of wonderful stuff. If you feel real ambitious there's all them there DARPA contracts.

Even the name "caret" - puh-lease. Breadcrumb central.

I would like it to be an identifiable individual - so I will profess to "hunt the head of Isaac with an affectatious blood-lust similar to that of an axe-murderer who's discovered chainsaws". Any meatcutter's? Breakers of beef? LOL. Not. Well maybe.

I wonder what stance Linda Moulton-Howe will take tomorrow night on C2C? Could this individual have been "punked" or is this individual complicit?

Not "cult"... how about "culture" as in a growth medium. Someone's yankin' our chains for fun and profit? OK. Research. OK. Jollies. OK.

This is yummy,

Vic

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

As several people already stated, there is money that can be made with hoaxes; books, t-shirts, stickers, website traffic and even movies.

Well, whoever is doing this has certainly succeeded. Personally I'm bored with this so right about now would be a good time for whoever is behind this to step forward and bathe in reactions, I won't be tapping that one though...I'm done with these threads

“The greatest gift you can give another is the purity of your attention.”, Richard Moss

I'm still not sure how much they've "succeeded". I mean really, in all the research I've done on this, I'd say MAYBE 10% of the feedback to this has been positive belief; the rest has been what you'd expect-- people calling BS up and down and in many cases, providing very good evidence for their reaction.

I think the reason this has been spread around so much isn't that people are buying it, but simply that we're all rather fascinated with the hoax itself-- I've been on the fence for most of this, and flat-out convinced it's a hoax for the last few weeks, but even still I'm interested to see where it goes. I'm treating it like a movie or a web comic or something. "Let's see what trouble Isaac gets himself into this week!" That sort of thing.

So while I think the hoaxers have achieved a lot of attention, I wouldn't say it's really "good" attention, so much as a lot of people wondering why the hell they're putting so much effort into this.

Originally posted by alevar
I'm still not sure how much they've "succeeded"...

I also am not sure how much they have succeeded. I do tend to think that the final outcome can only be meassured several years from now. That is if in the future new people are being introduced into this drones, these threads have been burried, and most of the "old people" are tired to disprove it again, and again. Only then will we see how many books and movies will be made for the, let's say, 10% of the current believers and for the new believers.

Good hoaxes have always been clever marketing schemes; plant, polarize and take profit.

I have been tracking not photos but people since this started. Yesterday i was on omf seeing what the take was on the lmh hi res release. After reading some articles from forensic magazine, it was obvious werespinning wheels with respect to digital photos. in the march issue some development has occurred that lets you know what camera etc it was taken from, other than that it was up in the air. The story line reminded me of a book review i had read on David Brin, in which the author retells a story of the old days in unix at palo alto and how it left him very affected,,almost identical verbatim to the manual. But david brin is one of the most prolific sci fi writers and has a degreee in physics, has worked for dod projects and would know exactly how to construct such a scenario. Another person keith edwards w. also, now at georgia tech, has attended forums with david brin, both are familiar with viral marketing on a level far far better than anyone having been founding fathers of its initial concepts , One thing struck me was that after googling David Brin, Keith Edwards, Saladfingers12345 and several versions saladfingers,1,2,3,4,5, 6 ( who is a hero in the Leviatahan6, (salads antagonist and True believer) and several others I did not find anyone who was not into Graphics, and stories making. That was odd as you would expect to find at least 1 joe shmo in the crowd, a regular guy, like one of us as a witness.

are all ufo believers graphics artists book writers and production artists? and attorneys to boot? Haber in the titor was the the Chief counsel as I understand for visicorp that invented on the apple computer, heads the titor foundation, visiicorp,appleproductions, and ft street productions. (this from thats damn interesting)Then there is Todd schwartz in Oregon, another lawyer who bought up the caret sight.

Now as I was saying about omf, they are really superb, interestingly saladfingers debunked a photo leviathan6, i bellieve it was the one with the circles on the gound, revealing gaps from fishing lines or something to that affect. Leviathan6 mysteriously cancelled his account. AS i am trying to connect dots between people, their statements, and behavior i just googled it, and found he is in oregon, was booted from wikepedia over using several aliases in the production of an article, Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn..the alistair crowley thing, which he may belong too. Wikepedia is very strict about that . Some of that article and comments are still there. I then visited leviathan6 other presences. I found him and saladfingers debating on other sites, scathing dialogues actually.

To me it felt as we have a parade coming and somebody wants to profit by selling baloons, another flags, the crowd is happy because it has a parade , but who is the grandmaster ,the organizer? The last parade was Titor, and they are still making money off that ridiculous story all timed very well without needing John Titor, who is conveniently in a parallel timline to us, so close yet so far. We really won't need Isaac either, Why the poor man is probably in a cell somewhere in area 51 or hangar 18. But we have a myth, which in the church of ufology is as good as a martyr. Why if he were exposed like the wizard of oz, that would be the end of the story and no books or movies could be made. C2C and LMH would still have their audience and speculatingly peculiar guests, and the money machine still cranking away. There are plenty of new args and books, and movies, But it serves as a model as outrageos article delineates.

Does this solve the story no but

Thanks for the pm Outrageo.

Personally, i'm not sure if this is the answer.

After all the viral marketing ideas and theories that have been thrown around, there is still not just one that i would put my money on. In saying that i am 100% certain that it is a CG creation, i'm just not sure by WHO and WHAT FOR.

Kudos for posting this though, just another piece in the ever-expanding puzzle.

Originally posted by Bunch

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

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

Not much to tell really. As with any group of people there will be disagreements about details. I don't think anyone has said this could not be accomplished with current CG methods.

Terminology depends on where your experience comes from. It can differ without there being any misrepresentation. For instance someone who uses primarily Photoshop would have some differing terminology than a person who worked in the 3D modeling arena who only used Photoshop for compositing. Someone who uses Lightwave may have some different language than a Maya user or a Max user. Terminology even differs between Documentation for the software that is authored by the Developers. Those arguments are just hotheaded, I am right and your not silliness.

There really is not that much argument except maybe one person who was just Banned for the second time.

I am into Photography and my Wife is a Professional Photographer. I use Photoshop as part of my work as well. I do 3D modeling as a hobby and to add elements to photo's for pleasure and for work. With Photoshop I am as capable as most Professionals and in the 3D world my skills are approaching that of student near graduation although I am self-taught. The problem is, you have no way of knowing if I'm being honest. I'm not going to prove it by revealing my name or the name of my Business. I don't want to risk being harassed or hounded for favors. I work more than I desire to as it is. The reasons are the same as my picking a User Name that does nothing to reveal my identity.

Springer went to the trouble of tracking down a couple of experts who could give their identities to prove who they are. I'm behind on this topic but I think so far every Professional has confirmed a Hoax. Even though he went to that trouble there will be some who will never believe them. Some want to believe in something so badly their sensibilities can not cope with being fooled until all other possibilities are eliminated. That, believe it or not, is a good thing. It keeps it all honest and when a Hoax is identified there is no further argument.

Some of the ideas around this are just plain wrong. Like the falsehood that the diagrams would be difficult to accomplish. In Illustrator, part of the Adobe CS Package, it could be done in an afternoon and evening by a skilled professional and an amateur could do it in a few days. In Illustrator you work with Vector files that are quite different from Raster files. Vector files give instructions for drawing a shape while Raster files simply assign a color to a pixel. That means the Vector file can be made to any size without loosing quality so the print can be from post card to wall size or larger. Vector tools make drawing complex shapes a literal cakewalk.

Here is a new modeling project I started for fun today. I'm thinking of posting it and letting people who claim to have seen one first hand guide me to finish it.


Please consider any original image I post to be under a Copyright.

That's some art project. Copyright eh? How nice. How does it relate to OP if I might inquire? Are there not threads where folks have expressed the "graphic thing" McPlenty? Yes, "eye-space", attention... more graphics please? Yes you are good. My meme-memory nmemonic colonic. I am very happy for you. Bring me the head of Isaac please? LOL.

St. Louis.

Vic

by Schuyler
...for the next chapter is to be in UFO Magazine. I guess we'll have to subscribe. Hmm, I'm not feeling too good about that...

My Plan: As soon as the issue is published, head on over to my local Barnes & Noble, Fry's, or B. Dalton and read the article while "browsing". If it's good enough to keep, I may buy just the issue. Or just sit down and take a few notes. No full subscription needed. If you have one of these bookstores/ragshops in your area, you may want to do the same...

Thanks for your viewpoints. BTW; Bennett sure took a cheap swipe at Friedman, eh? Maybe Mr. Meme Agenda has an Agenda of his own... though for the time being I think he's more right than wrong.

p.s. I hate regular TV (except for History Channel/Science Channel, etc.) now and then. Oh yeah - and my favorite sports team if I have the time. But the "reality shows, soaps, sitcoms, "Idols", "news" shows, talking head shows, and especially the Jerry Springer-types - pretty much all turn my stomach. I can't bear to watch them and, frankly, I could care less in whose fancy car Paris Hilton just barfed in. If I have some free time, I'd rather read a good book, garden, or hang with my pals here at ATS... of course, that's just me...

Originally posted by V Kaminski
That's some art project. Copyright eh? How nice. How does it relate to OP if I might inquire?

Vic

If you read the post, you know I first answered a valid question that was asked. This thing has grown so large that you have to factor in many threads just to understand what is going on. Since I was one of those commenting on the graphics it makes sense for me to answer a question like that.

Whether or not the photo's and graphics from this Caret fellow are CG work, meaning an outright hoax, is very relevant. Part of the linked document is based on the graphics and the authors assumption was ludicrous and not true.

If your implying I was just showing my work. I guess I was What more effective way to demonstrate I'm qualified to comment on the authenticity of the graphics. I was also throwing out an idea. In fact I acted on it and the post is up. If that offends, all I can do is apologize.

As far as copyright, only a fool does not post that every time an image is placed on the web. You would be amazed at how often a graphic like this ends up on a for profit website or in a book. All that means is go ahead and use it, just don't profit from someone else's work.

If you take issue, again I apologize. I'll leave this thread to others. I've expressed my opinion of the article. I came back looking for others opinions and nothing more.

Yup Ok Mr. Blaine. No Problem. Your show. Got any more pictures? Like the one above and on your other thread? Hmmm? LOL.

Graphics are "THE" answer to the Isaac/Caret/drone show? Sure, pleased to actively listen. Can you explain like you did for the legitmate poster above? Please clarify your remarks, explain more fully with more graphics please. Are there any "perfect aliens" associated with the Drones? You design aliens? Anything else? Drones? Please expand with your beneficent largesse and obvious mastery of the scope and breadth of the issues of the day. Please post a picture that will solve problem. Please.

This is not an issue of graphics in my humble self-generated opinion, but rather, it is a "people" thing. A slimey, scuzzy, belly crawlin', lyin', thievin', misprepresentin', avaricous, greedy, deceitful, attention cravin', unethical human thing. Graphics are an inconsequential element in relation to the OP of "this" thread. But please show us "your" answer. It can stand for itself can't it?

And yes I've read ALL your work and read ALL the threads. LOL. I just started last night.

Vic


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

The 'meme' construct is a useful one in a number of contexts as you've noted.

I've been trying to see if there's any way that a meme and a construct are different. Or is a meme a subset of all constructs? I'm using construct in the George Kelly sense who created the role rep grid which sorts elements based on constructs.

And, no more than 26 constructs were ever found to be used by any culture. Most individuals use less than 15 constructs in their daily lives and only a handful of those are of primary import.

A great website for sorting relationships with the grid--resulting in some powerful information--is available here:

tiger.cpsc.ucalgary.ca...

A major super-ordinate construct in most cultures is GOOD/EVIL.

Guess I should define construct . . . at least in terms of humans and psychology a la George Kelly . . .

"A personal construct is a bipolar collection of concepts, thought patterns, priorities and meanings used by an individual in the ways he/she anticipates events and objects--in the ways he/she construes his/her world. Such processes are viewed by Kelly (1955) as channelizing or pathway building psychologically." from my own PhD Dissertation as is the following:

A Construct System is an ordered set of constructs collected by a person over time and experience to be used in anticipating events.

Construing--a thought process of organizing events, situations, objects and/or people into a more or less connected system of priorities, values and meanings.

###########

I think the latter definition may clue folks in as to why I see a lot of similarity with memes.

Merriam-Webster asserts re meme:

Function: noun Etymology: alteration of mimeme, from mim- (as in mimesis) + -eme Date: 1976

: an idea, behavior, style, or usage that spreads from person to person within a culture

and

Main Entry: mi·me·sis Function: noun Etymology: Late Latin, from Greek mimēsis, from mimeisthai Date: 1550

: imitation, mimicry

So, I again arrive at the conclusion that a meme is a subset of all constructs . . . what would the other pole of meme be? Non-meme, of course! LOL.

Putting the two definitions closer together:

Construing--a thought process of organizing events, situations, objects and/or people into a more or less connected system of priorities, values and meanings.

meme: : an idea, behavior, style, or usage that spreads from person to person within a culture

It seems clear to me . . . that for a meme or evidently more commonly--a set of memes, a constellation of memes to have sufficient impact, influence to be spread from person to person within a culture, it MUST organize events, situations, objects and/or people into a more or less connected system of priorities, values and meanings. Otherwise, no one would bother paying any attention to such memes, much less passing them on as something of value, meaningful or even merely 'clever' and interesting.

############

Moving along to the Chad Drone issue . . . phenomena . . .

Is the phenomena 'nothing' more than an effort to infect the global culture with a particular set of memes? A reasonable postulation. If so, . . .

1. What are the specific memes that the originators seek to infect the global culture with?

2. What would the constellation, cluster, structure of the collection of memes look like?

3. Perhaps more to the point . . . What is the GOAL of such an infection, injection of said memes?

4. What is the criteria for measuring whether said goal(s) has/have been reached?

5. What is the context most focused on and what are the boundaries of that context?

At this point, I'd like those ATS members given to and somewhat gifted at brainstorming . . . to offer their brain-stomed responses to the above questions. Here are my flights of fancy in such directions I'll withhold censoring my own until the end:

1. One goal might be to hoax the public in a kind of egotistical orgasm of intellectual excess to demonstrate that not only is the hoaxer smarter than the average bear--he's smarter than a long list of average bears and the masses in general.

2. He could have some sort of very unique, super rare and heretofore fairly unheard of psychological problem that fosters extensive hours constructing another very special reality and working extremely hard to convince masses of people that the phoney reality is real.

3. He could be precisely who he says he is trying to do what he says he's trying to do.

4. He could be a paid shadow government disinformation speciallist trying to throw the world off the track of more important quarry.

5. He could be a paid shadow government employee trying to prepare the masses for future things with a mixture of truth and falsehood.

6. He could be a paid shadow government employee trying to prepare the masses for future things with calculated facets of and fractions of a larger truth.

7. He could be a sociology student, prof, fanatic trying an elaborate experiment on the impact of strange information on the culture.

8. He could be an ET plant doing 6 or 7 above.

9. He could be an angry mal-treated black ops former employee outting sensitive information in a very creative way to "SHOW THEM."

10. He could be a very bright, creative fellow living on a trust fund with far too much time on his hands.

##############

My own bias at present remains with some variation on #6.

I don't have a good explanation for the wide diversity of witnesses and locations . . . otherwise.

What would the memes be? . . . perhaps something along the lines of . . .

1. Reality is a dance stranger than any of you average simpletons dare imagine.

2. Brace yourselves, things are about to change with reality blinking in and out before your eyes; strange machines doing super strange things manned by stranger creatures altering your lives forever . . .

3. Add in stargates, invisibility . . . zapping individuals, families, groups where they don't want to go . . . or "merely" monitoring them extra-dimensionally at close range . . .

4. ???

I really would appreciate some spring boarding off the above in a wide diversity of brain-storming ways. I think that would be a most fruitful way to enlarge the fruitfulness of the whole idea of memes in terms of the phenomena and what it might be about.

Cheers.

Originally posted by schuyler
Well, considering the lack of critical thinking skills exhibited by those who are left worshipping the drones, I, along with several tens of thousands of other ATS members will agree with you. Compared to you, we are. What we are left with is the Cult of the Drone, waiting on the mountaintop, circling the wagons for Yet Another Coming, eating astronaut ice cream and proclaiming that it is Good.

yay so we need to make a thread for the cult of the drone