[HOAX] Isaac CARET - Drones [HOAX], page 154

posted on Jul, 30 2007 @ 06:35 AM

link

shux i guess i missed that one then *snaps fingers*

posted on Jul, 30 2007 @ 06:40 AM

link

For those who are still considering there is truth that Isaac hid somewhere in here, you are right, my previous employer is probably the way to go, but I warn you:

"For the thirteenth consecutive year, IBM was awarded the most patents"... They have been one of the pioneers of patenting almost anything they find, some of it (you can view them online somewhere, they have like a patent database, I'll post it if I find the link, but try Google) is completely weird; some of the weirdest patents ever have come from IBM over the years.

F.e. - "Big Blue was awarded 3651 patents in 2006", that is a huge number to search, and you've got them going back 13 years of doing such large numbers, and they're not going to use simple language, it'll take months to find anything if its not buried in some way by the security that would surround such a high-profile, dangerous NS-related patent.

chunder

posted on Jul, 30 2007 @ 09:04 AM

link

Originally posted by pjslug

Originally posted by alevar
I'm sorry, I don't think you can brush aside the shadow issue that simply. It wasn't just 11 11-- a number of people on multiple forums spent a lot of time rebuilding the scene and analyzing the shadows with extremely precise detail, and by all accounts, it's at least SOMEWHAT off base.

If you want to assert otherwise, you need to back it up with evidence of your own. You can say whatever you want about the skeptics, but at least in the case of the shadow issue, there was PLENTY of solid reasoning and research behind the conclusion.

If I remember correctly, a shadow study was done by someone else through CGI who originally concluded it was a proper shadow, and then suddenly bent to 11 11's will. It's buried somewhere in this thread.

I think it was SKF33 - I have to say though that I think 11 11's tirades may have clouded the issue and caused many not to look at the info presented by others at that time.

The evaluation was very detailed and did give significant evidence - to a very high level of certainty - that a shadow should have been present when it wasn't.

As the rajman pics showed for the first time a new "appendage" to the drone that was clearly present in the Inventory Report photo it did indicate to me that if the photo was created the whole thing must have been created.

I don't want to open up the whole CGI not CGI can of worms but there is no escaping the fact that if either the Chad, Rajman or Stephen / Ty photos were created then they had prior access to the CARET documents as they showed exact features of parts in the Inventory Report and symbols in the Linguistics Primer.

If anyone can provide a valid argument against the conclusions that were drawn from the evaluation of the Rajman picture then I would be very interested in seeing it as opposed to the rest of the he said / she said arguments it does seem to be the single most detailed verifiable expose of any particular point of this story.

I'll post a link to the right section of this thread when I get time. I would contend that until a valid argument has been raised refuting the points made it means that the story as it stands doesn't hold water.

Edited to add link here to the two pages where, IMO, SKF33 did a great job of explaining to the layman why the pic could only have been created. If someone can provide a valid argument against then I would welcome it, for the sake of getting closer to the truth.

[edit on 30-7-2007 by chunder]

NGC2736

posted on Jul, 30 2007 @ 09:19 AM

link

Originally posted by chunder
I would contend that until a valid argument has been raised refuting the points made it means that the story as it stands doesn't hold water.

I don't think the whole event was ever meant to "hold water", as you put it. I think it was always meant to be found a hoax, *cough*albeit after it got everyone in the UFO community to notice the drones.

I posted in the thread "Drone Anti-Hoax", by yuefo, my reasoning for this.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

I would appreciate other opinions about my idea there. I would post the entire thing here but you really need to see the context of what led me to even think this way.

spf33

posted on Jul, 30 2007 @ 12:06 PM

link

Originally posted by chunder
SKF33 did a great job of explaining to the layman why the pic could only have been created. If someone can provide a valid argument against then I would welcome it, for the sake of getting closer to the truth.

thanks.

yep, me too.

still waiting for a motivated 3d artist to confirm or refute the rajman pic16 3ds max IES light study.

*hint - additional lighting concerns with pic15.

Hidden Knowledge

posted on Jul, 30 2007 @ 12:47 PM

link

Originally posted by chunder

Originally posted by pjslug
If I remember correctly, a shadow study was done by someone else through CGI who originally concluded it was a proper shadow, and then suddenly bent to 11 11's will. It's buried somewhere in this thread.

I think it was SKF33 - I have to say though that I think 11 11's tirades may have clouded the issue and caused many not to look at the info presented by others at that time.

The way I read it is that 11 11 didn't trust the EXIF date and time on the Rajman telephone pole picture, so he did calculations of the Sun position using the photo only, with advanced methods. His calculations were only a few minutes off, and matched the EXIF date and time, to prove the EXIF date and time is correct. With that same date and time information 11 11 claimed the Sun was at such an angle, to cast a downward shadow from the drone arm onto the body of the drone, but the shadow wasn't there.

www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...

SPF33 used a 3DSMAX function to re-create the position of the Sun, and the shadow wasn't present in the render. So many didn't believe 11 11's calculations. Thats when 11 11 showed SPF33 that his 3DSMAX function was setup wrong, and wasn't displaying the correct Altitude and Azimuth, probably due to daylight savings differences. After SPF33 fixed his 3DSMAX function, it turned out 11 11's calculations were correct, there should be a shadow on the drone, but its not present in any photos.

Thats when 11 11 came to the conclusion that the hoaxer probably used the same 3DSMAX function SPF33 did, to create the drone's lighting. The hoaxer entered the correct time, date, and coordinates in the 3DSMAX function, not knowing that the 3DSMAX function was not accurate. Which gave him the incorrect shadow's on his drone image.

[edit on 30-7-2007 by Hidden Knowledge]

spf33

posted on Jul, 30 2007 @ 01:54 PM

link

Originally posted by Hidden Knowledge

Thats when 11 11 came to the conclusion that the hoaxer probably used the same 3DSMAX function SPF33 did, to create the drone's lighting. The hoaxer entered the correct time, date, and coordinates in the 3DSMAX function, not knowing that the 3DSMAX function was not accurate. Which gave him the incorrect shadow's on his drone image.

again, in my original study i was concentrating on the utility pole shadow not the drone arm shadow. so i wasn't specifically looking for that shadow, yet it's there in the rendered image with the original and incorrect data-sun angle i used.

max is not at fault, nor is it incorrect in any way in it's calculations of shadow angles. i mistakenly had the "daylight savings" for pacific standard time zone set incorrectly.

incorrect

corrected

however, both the incorrect and correct sun angle casts shadows, that's how close they are.

further, as i showed on the other forum from about 2pm until 7pm, the geometry of the arm should cast a shadow even just roughly matching position of the drone in the photo.

shadows from 2:30pm until 7:30pm:

2:30pm until 7:30pm, misc. angles:

my point being i don't think this is a case of the potential hoaxer using 3ds max and incorrect data. rather, if it's a hoax perhaps the artist somehow miscalculated the sun angle or the publics ability to measure it so precisely even using rough estimates.

i'm still wide open for criticisms or reasonable explanations on where the expected shadow is...

Bunch

posted on Jul, 30 2007 @ 04:08 PM

link

I been following up with ISAAC claims of the military/security aspect of his story.

I have done many searches on the web and other places and so far I have not founded nothin g to indicate any kind of military presence in the Palo Alto area. Anything that would indicate military providing security to facilites outside what is now know as Moffett Airfield, all the leads end there at MAF.

I did find that the AF had Special Projects assign to this base but given the kind of mission that this place has had over the past decades it does not raise any eyebrows IMO.

Is my opinion that if this PACL where to be true there should be a connection between PACL and MAF, because MAF will be the closest military installation to the area that ISAAC refers to and will be the best place for logistics purposes to test any of the equipment that was being research, and also to house any military personnel that was working in the area.

It will be nice if we could find someone that was station at that place during the time that ISAAC claims. A couple simple questions could shed light to the arguement of military working in the Palo Alto area.

chunder

posted on Jul, 30 2007 @ 06:32 PM

link

I think the last few posts probably sum up where we are at.

Rather than let it slide why do we not turn our attention back to who is behind this, rather than the why's and wherefore's.

That would include Chad, Anon, Rajman, Stephen, Ty and Isaac. I know a few people had some ideas of tracking down through emails etc, personally I think any methods game now and the gloves should be off.

NGC2736

posted on Jul, 30 2007 @ 07:02 PM

link

Originally posted by chunder

That would include Chad, Anon, Rajman, Stephen, Ty and Isaac. I know a few people had some ideas of tracking down through emails etc, personally I think any methods game now and the gloves should be off.

My guess is that if, and it would be hard to do, this were backtracked far enough, it will be from the same area as GR.

We've been played by the big boys, IMO.

Lexion

posted on Jul, 30 2007 @ 07:31 PM
link

Originally posted by Bunch

I have done many searches on the web and other places

Might I inquire as to what "other places" you searched.

Just curious.

Showed this to a few of my old General Dynamics friends.
All had the same response.
"You're joking, right?"

Is my opinion that if this PACL where to be true there should be a connection between PACL and MAF, because MAF will be the closest military installation to the area that ISAAC refers to and will be the best place for logistics purposes to test any of the equipment that was being research, and also to house any military personnel that was working in the area.

Opinion aknowledged, but incorrect.

Skunkworks used Groom to test airframes.
They (whomever "they" are
) to this day
fly and bus in employees.

It's not what installation is closest, but what
installation can facilitate the project test pro-
cedures.
Logistics don't really count, in the situation Isaac
hoaxes, here.

Just my 2 cent,
Lex

ejsaunders

posted on Jul, 30 2007 @ 07:55 PM
link

'sactly Lex, 'sactly.

I said before Isaac's story doesn't add up somewhat in the way they have this BIG underground base, and a HUGE parking lot above it. The way underground bases generally work when I experienced it first hand (the place I used to go to work was mostly built underground because it was reconditioned from some old bunker) was a BUS to the area, from a public place, such as a well known, reasonably local public car-park so people could park up for the day and be taken to work without a load of people wondering why the hell there were all these people driving to a shed in the middle of nowhere and not coming out (it would have looked mighty dubiously weird in a TARDIS stylee since the 'shed' cover was just generally big enough to cover the lift and give the guard who opened it somewhere to sit).

Too many holes, not enough corks for Isaac.

pjslug

posted on Jul, 30 2007 @ 08:35 PM
link

Originally posted by spf33
thanks.

yep, me too.

still waiting for a motivated 3d artist to confirm or refute the rajman pic16 3ds max IES light study.

*hint - additional lighting concerns with pic15.

spf,
Didn't your analysis originally show that the shadow was in the proper place? Or was that someone else?

RING0

posted on Jul, 30 2007 @ 08:58 PM
link

There is a small chance that the drone story is a Google recruiting device, similar to the famous billboard that had a puzzle on it. Google is known to do this in order to attract intelligent applicants for job interviews. They are located in California. Some links for more information.

Google recruiting billboard

Solve the Equation, Get an Interview

Google's Secret Weapon

From Secret Weapon site, Google also advertises in a select number of publications — for example, mensa. But there advertisements are puzzles and the people who can solve them and submit their resume get interviews.

I can think of at least two reasons that this is NOT a Google recruiting instrument such as, no clear puzzle to solve, and an element of deception that would not promote a positive company image. Without something more concrete pointing in this direction I doubt there is much to it, but perhaps someone at the Above Top Secret forum can share information about the possibility.

Corporate address:

GOOGLE / FENWICK
SILICON VALLEY CENTER
801 CALIFORNIA ST.
MOUNTAIN VIEW
CA
94041
US

chunder

posted on Jul, 30 2007 @ 09:03 PM
link

Originally posted by pjslug

Originally posted by spf33
thanks.

yep, me too.

still waiting for a motivated 3d artist to confirm or refute the rajman pic16 3ds max IES light study.

*hint - additional lighting concerns with pic15.

spf,
Didn't your analysis originally show that the shadow was in the proper place? Or was that someone else?

If SPF doesn't mind I'll answer that.

I can't remember my exact words but I did ask whether the original evaluation should show a shadow thrown by the arm and the answer was originally categorically no.

Further to 11 11 raising the time and altitude queries a second evaluation was done which showed the shadow should definitely be there and at the time SKF did admit that his previous answer was wrong and that the shadow should have been there in the original also.

Confusing but the error was admitted. It's a shame 11 11 couldn't just stick to the facts as he saw them rather than insulting all and sundry as this may then have been clearer.

I didn't go along with it at first but did try to replicate the situation in a highly scientific way - in the garden with a cardboard box and a broom handle. I satisfied myself that what was being said was correct and couldn't think of a plausible reason for the shadow not to be present.

I didn't twig until later that the Rajman pic had to be directly related to the Isaac documents and therefore this pic being false meant the claim, as it was made, false.

Bunch

posted on Jul, 30 2007 @ 09:47 PM
link

Lexion:

I really dont get your point as far as logistics don't count.

Wherever you have a significant amount of military personnel working they have basic needs that need to be cover. Housing for single people as well as members with family. They need access to healthcare and be mindful that we dont use the same healthcare system as civilian populace. Thats why logistics IMO is important. I have a couple of military friends that work in Loockheed Martin facilities and Boeing and the like, but they are assign to the base in which I'm located, because of those very same needs.

Now if they had a 24 hour force in place to guard the facility at some point they need to be rotated, in addition they need it to have a quick response force near by that could have respond in a reasonable amount of time. ( I dont think they will be permitted to dial 911), thus my idea that they need it to have a close military installation to make all this work.

Now ISAAC says that there was guards and other military personnel working on the research. (specifically in rocketry and propulsion a rather odd statement considering that although the military has researchers in this field within the ranks the best engineers and scientist in this field have always come from the private industry, so the DoD had the money to bring the smartest tech guys, but not the guys with the propulsion and rocketry background?)

Thats my whole thing with the logistic side of it. Now I might be wrong sure, I'm just trying to figure this one out as much as you.

As far as to where they test the equipment, you may be right, they can test it anywhere that provide requirements that they will need to test such equipment.

[edit on 30-7-2007 by Bunch]

CLT1985

posted on Jul, 30 2007 @ 10:11 PM
link

I heard someone call in on C2C AM that it is a promo for a movie that will come out next week.

alevar

posted on Jul, 30 2007 @ 10:45 PM
link

Originally posted by CLT1985
I heard someone call in on C2C AM that it is a promo for a movie that will come out next week.

Do you remember which show this was? I'd like to check it out on Streamlink.

Did the person give any other details or evidence for this?

chunder

posted on Jul, 30 2007 @ 11:34 PM
link

Originally posted by CLT1985
I heard someone call in on C2C AM that it is a promo for a movie that will come out next week.

If it's a promo for a movie then a lot of work has gone in to cause a small group of people not to go and see it.

chunder

posted on Jul, 30 2007 @ 11:41 PM
link

Originally posted by Bunch
Lexion:

I really dont get your point as far as logistics don't count.

Wherever you have a significant amount of military personnel working they have basic needs that need to be cover. Housing for single people as well as members with family. They need access to healthcare and be mindful that we dont use the same healthcare system as civilian populace. Thats why logistics IMO is important. I have a couple of military friends that work in Loockheed Martin facilities and Boeing and the like, but they are assign to the base in which I'm located, because of those very same needs.

Now if they had a 24 hour force in place to guard the facility at some point they need to be rotated, in addition they need it to have a quick response force near by that could have respond in a reasonable amount of time. ( I dont think they will be permitted to dial 911), thus my idea that they need it to have a close military installation to make all this work.

Now ISAAC says that there was guards and other military personnel working on the research. (specifically in rocketry and propulsion a rather odd statement considering that although the military has researchers in this field within the ranks the best engineers and scientist in this field have always come from the private industry, so the DoD had the money to bring the smartest tech guys, but not the guys with the propulsion and rocketry background?)

Thats my whole thing with the logistic side of it. Now I might be wrong sure, I'm just trying to figure this one out as much as you.

As far as to where they test the equipment, you may be right, they can test it anywhere that provide requirements that they will need to test such equipment.

[edit on 30-7-2007 by Bunch]

The military personnel could have come from a nearby base. It's doubtful whether there would have been anything on site of value other than documentation. I think you may be putting a 2007 view onto a mid 80's set up.

Anyway, until someone can prove SKF wrong logically it's a hoax.