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.

 

The CARET drones-Where is the evidence

page: 1
1

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 30 2008 @ 09:02 PM
link   
I'm sorry if the Thread title sounds like a dig up but.
With almost 300 pages in
www.abovetopsecret.com...
I cant find where the proof is(and cant look through EVERY page)

Can someone simply provide the evidence that proved this was all a hoax




posted on May, 30 2008 @ 09:27 PM
link   
No one here can help me figure this out.?
anything would help



posted on May, 31 2008 @ 04:12 AM
link   
I've read most of the Caret thread and from what I can understand, the "evidence" is CG experts claiming that the drone videos are CG. I don't know know of anything more specific than that.



posted on May, 31 2008 @ 05:46 AM
link   
(EDIT) Okay, someone in the looong drone thread linked to the debunking: www.abovetopsecret.com...

That pretty much has everything that can be said about these fakes and I completely agree with "the secret web". The drone pictures are fakes created by a relative beginner using default settings in his programs.

As for my creditentials, I've got 9 years of experience in computer graphics, with last 3 years spent working as a Photoshop artist in a special effects company.
(/EDIT)


I think there was some mention of somebody making a re-creation of the pictures. I too would like to find those pics.

Anybody with experience with 3D can say the drone pictures are hoaxes. The lighting, the shapes of the craft*, they just scream out it's made on a computer. Unfortunately it's very hard to explain that to someone who hasn't got the experience.

Show the drone pictures to some computer graphics professional and they say "that's a hoax, they've used Global Illumination". Show them the Haiti UFO videos and they go "This has to be a hoax, but how did they do it?". But the Haiti videos had a smoking gun in the form of the tree models, that was easy to show to people. But when it's just overall crappiness it's so much harder to prove.

This drone stuff pisses me off professionally, because the guy who made them is not nearly good enough to get this much attention. Not to mention the morality of a lot of people buying into an obious hoax.


*The lighting.
It's a technique called Global Illumination. It basicly has the light come from a dome - like outside on an overcast day. This creates realistic soft shadows and looks very pleasing to the eye. It's often used for test rendering of models because it shows off detail very nicely. However it's very recognisable once you've seen a lot of images using it.

The shapes.
Pretty much every 3D program has some basic geometric shapes that you can use to build a model. You start with a disc or a box and then you start modifying them. Inside the program these basic shapes are built out of polygons, that's triangles. Most often they are handled as squares (two triangles but together). Once you construct a shape of these basic shapes you can add details to them easily by selecting these individual squares inside you can then "bevel" them, raising or lowering the squares and adding tapering to the edges etc. This is how extra detail is often created to 3D models. Now the drones (especially in the first pictures) are constructed of mostly basic shapes that have then been modified by tapering, beveling and cutting holes - all very basic tools of 3D modeling.

As I said, there isn't a smoking gun here. It's hard to understand these things if you've never made a 3D model yourself. Once you do it you start to spot the pieces and techniques that are used building the models, like a construction worker or architect would recognise different kinds of bricks and elements used in building a house.

[edit on 31-5-2008 by Toveri]



new topics

top topics
 
1

log in

join