[HOAX] Isaac CARET - Drones [HOAX]

Originally posted by corda
So, there is a good chance this is an overview report, not a thorough analysis. Again, I'm not convinced on this yet, but I'm just countering some of the argumetns that this CAN'T be true because the report paper is so basic.

Oh, this could certainly be a generalized, basic report for distribution to non-technicians involved in the project. All I said was that I would really like to see something a bit more technical, something for example, that I myself couldn't cook up from my little old imagination. I'm creative, but I can't fake technical documents beyond my own understanding.

A more technical document that other experts could comment on would certainly go a long way toward verifying this guy's admittedly questionable story.



[edit on 27-6-2007 by SuicideVirus]

Originally posted by SuicideVirus
Originally posted by corda
So, there is a good chance this is an overview report, not a thorough analysis. Again, I'm not convinced on this yet, but I'm just countering some of the argumetns that this CAN'T be true because the report paper is so basic.

Oh, this could certainly be a generalized, basic report for distribution to non-technicians involved in the project. All I said was that I would really like to see something a bit more technical, something for example, that I myself couldn't cook up from my little old imagination. I'm creative, but I can't fake technical documents beyond my own understanding.

A more technical document that other experts could comment on would certainly go a long way toward verifying this guy's admittedly questionable story.

[edit on 27-6-2007 by SuicideVirus]

Ah, I do agree completely with that. A technical document would vastly improve the credibility of the whole thing. I see where you're coming from now!

New members all over the place. If nothing else Chad has some of the lurkers talking. Gotta love these threads.

Since I did not add anything to the discussion I'll chastise myself and mosey along.

CG guys - you know those photo's are scans of CG renders. Spoils the fun though. Hope I'm wrong. Afraid I'm probably not.

There's a machine going around looking for it's body.
OR
Perhaps there was inspiration behind the craft design.

The detail to this project was enough for me to jump in here. With so much information to comb over, and read.. It was really well put to gether and compiled to make any debunker have to do his homework on this one.. Im not here to debunk much other than its easy for this to be CGI in part of its manifestion.. Its far to easy to make trees and sky line look very realistic.. If there was a better referance point to the horrizon to see the reality of where the shot was taken. Then I would be much more convinced that is what real.
The Caret program came up in a few searches, which Greatlakes and others have already linked and cover.. I found nothing new there.
I know enough about sci fi to know this person is sertinly creative and had to get those symbols from somewhere.. I was guessing perhaps ASCII code. As caret is the ^ symbol in ASCII. But looking closely at the symbols put on the A1 doc. it was very close to Klingon symbols.
www.kli.org...
He went threw so much work, hes not going to use the Klingon stuff for verbatim, but they where very close.. ASCII code will be the next place I look for referances, he did claim to have a love for code when he was in grad school about learning about Tixo.

The TX-0, for Transistorized Experimental computer zero but affectionately referred to as tixo (pronouced "tix oh"), was an early fully transistorized computer and contained a then-huge 64K of 18-bit words of core memory. TX-0 went online in 1956 and was used continually into the 1960s.

en.wikipedia.org...

Being a Fan of ASCII and computer coding I know this stuff is really advanced these days and only a few people in this world truely understand how all this stuff works deep at the atomic level. He says they have software that runs itself! That the hardware is intergraded within the software code!! Thats wild, comming from my line of work in my life doing code part time.. And all us code heads, are really good at thinking up stuff, and just being creative.. We just dont have the time to put something like this together to hoax.. Maybe this guy is the hoaxer, but over all I do belive that we have technology that is byond what we ever knew, and there are people working on this stuff, keeping it from you and me.. Great read, thanks!

Edit:spellchecked



[edit on 27-6-2007 by zysin5]

Now imagine trying to add the billionth word to the list (imagine also that we're working with an infinite alphabet so you don't run out of letters) and you can imagine how difficult it is for even a computer to keep up.

hmm billionth worth to the list.. what with only 26 letters in our alphabet!
so lets take a look at this infinite alphabet!

I count only 33 different characters in all the documentation and photos provided so far?

12 of the characters are asymmetrical (meaning there are four possibles ways to display it)
another 7 are symmetrical on 1 plane (meaning there are 2 ways to display)
the other 13 are symmetrical on 2 planes (meaning only 1 way to display them) the last character featured is more of a designed squiggle in the documents but it is repeated so I counted it as a character!

in total it makes 72 variations..... hardly infinite.



enjoy the ride!

Originally posted by keeb333

Honestly, I don't know much about CG (my background is in biochem). How does one reliably differentiate between a CG image and an image of a real object? I think that these things look remarkably realistic. How much work would it be to create something like this in CG?

Very simple. Organic is hard but this type of stuff is easy to model.

Here is another shot at presenting this.
Notice the reflections? Or lack of them? Where are the lights and walls and so forth and so on. The surface is reflective enough to clearly reflect the other parts but not any of the light or area around it. Not very likely that this is a photo.

Hello, I am a CG guy, and yes those pictures are renders. I talk about it here:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

...but the thread got closed before I could finish....

When I was looking at these renders, I automaticaly thought to myself he is using the render system called Lightwave. It just so happens in the gallery/video section of the Lightwave Official website there is a video made by a guy named Isaac Botkin. I turns out Isaac Botkin is very well known in the Film, and CG business...

www.independentchristianfilms.com...

Isaac Botkin has worked on the cutting edge of production technology since 1995. He has created both classified material for the U.S. Department of Defense and animation for mass media seen on The Discovery Channel, CNN, NET, CBS World News Tonight, National Television of New Zealand, and on broadcasting outlets in Europe and Asia. Television and filmmaking credits include creative director, co-writer, editor, visual effects supervisor, assistant director of photography, art director, and associate producer. His work as a supervising animator has brought him into professional association with the world’s leading visual effects professionals, including the team at Weta Workshop. He is currently a director at First Pacific Information Technology Ltd in New Zealand. Isaac is the author of the upcoming book Outside Hollywood.

Isaac Botkin runs this following website:

www.outside-hollywood.com... **note the posters name

..Isaac is also the "alias" used when posting here:

isaaccaret.fortunecity.com...

Which just happens to have pictures of the actual renders.

Conclusion:

Its all a hoax.

Originally posted by Megadeth

There is a member here in this thread ( forgot the screen name ) who says that the colors of the drone photos differ and in a CGI rendering the colors are all smooth and show no 'static'.
He says that by this logic it shows the drone photos to be real. Why has nobody challenged this statement or some CGI expert refuted this claim? Its like nobody has even seen the guys post.

I don't think it matters if it's CGI or props anymore, as by now you should know CGI is that good. If you guys don't get it, then no one can help you lol. They could be real photos, but that doesn't mean the objects in the photos are real. And it doesn't matter if the objects are real if you can't touch them.... If you think about it, it's really all CG so far until we can get negatives or any type physical evidence. So far everything is computer generated.

I don't really see a major connection between the characters. The drone has slash marks while the klingon seems similar to English characters.

oops I didn't mean to say negatives lol....wheres the edit button lolll...

Originally posted by 11 11
Hello, I am a CG guy, and yes those pictures are renders. I talk about it here:

Hey 11 11, thank you for the info. Its hard for us who are unaware or have never used these types of technologies. So when something like this looks the way it did its hard for at least myself to conclude. Its great knowing we have people who do know this tech and can explain it in detail. Hats off Sir......

PS: And you dont call us ignorant either I like that Thx again.

Originally posted by 11 11
Hello, I am a CG guy, and yes those pictures are renders. I talk about it here:

[]

Conclusion:

Its all a hoax.

Please explain the differing noise patterns on R G and B channels, especially entering the darkly shaded areas. A member has stated CGI's are usually smooth and the images presented are blotchy.

Your opinion?
.
Thanks,

Sri Oracle

Originally posted by RandomThought
OK everyone is quick to shoot down my post, but did anyone see the post I made before? if so then why not agree or disagree with me on that one?

I mean look...the part is freakin floating. you're telling me that these individual pieces are anti-gravitational? If so why are they on the ground in 1 pic, and in another its floating?

isaaccaret.fortunecity.com...

Your link is not working.. I just tested it.

This "floating" piece you are so focused on. To me the "floating" piece was taken from a different photo set in a layout program/by hand before they went to "press" .
Given the amount of material NOT shown just from the realization of the page numbering, I imagine there were alot more photos for a person doing layout to choose from. It seems to me the floating piece was taken from a different part of whatever secret photo session and then pasted there to make the layout complete. We don't know what the page is illustrating though.
Also, a trained military professional in a very controlled environment could produce these pictures.

to recap.. floating piece is simply one photo from another set not shown by the lmited amount of info submitted.

to Middle cut.. go through the scanned documents material and pull out all of the characters instead of the ones just on the scan of the object itself.. alot more is there.

REGARDING CGI HOAX CLAIMERS
refute my earlier posts before you keep claimiingit's cgi. Anything can be modelled.. we all know this. Present logical NEW thoughts please. Show me an opposite to what I claim with the R,G and B noise patterns...

I will place renders and photos side by side if you wish.. in channel separations as well if really good renders are shown to emulate the noise pattern of the Digital Rebel XT shown in one recorded phot set. Or show me a render that emulates the noise pattern of the RGB channels of a scanner.. I just haven'tr seen it yet.

Quit claiming it is CGI.. show me in a concise way or by example.

b

Originally posted by 11 11

When I was looking at these renders, I automaticaly thought to myself he is using the render system called Lightwave. It just so happens in the gallery/video section of the Lightwave Official website there is a video made by a guy named Isaac Botkin. I turns out Isaac Botkin is very well known in the Film, and CG business...

That could be reasonable. My first thought was Rhino as it looked more like work for a Nurbs modeler. Lightwave could do it as well as any decent render engine. Lightwave is one of the programs I use by the way. I spend most of my time in ZBrush lately.

No smoking gun yet and you know ATS requires that. Beats siting here staring at employees and I love these threads. One day the real deal will show up. Not today I suspect.

Originally posted by Sri Oracle

Your opinion?
.
Thanks,

Sri Oracle

My opinion is that you are not seeing the final clean render straight from the render software which would give you a perfectly smooth appearence. You are actually seeing renders that have been passed through another software or filter that adds that effect to it. "Noise" and "Age" can be added for realistic effects of media.

For example, if someone wanted to add CG effects to a low quality recording from a hand held video camera, you couldn't just add in these perfectly clear and smooth CG models and animations, you have to filter it with different effects and tools avalible, to match the quality of the video camera.

Basicaly,
You can make anything realistic with digital. Pixel by Pixel.

Doesn't the first photo of the device look like the two parts (off to the side) are floating and not resting on a surface? If rendered in 3d and given surfaces to rest on, lighting and shadows etc, would this be a particular issue that would come up?

Originally posted by 0mikron

Well met, Omikron...wait, 0mikron,
Great game, btw...had Davidid Bowie and his wife in it. Pretty neat.
You know them ?
Anyway, to your post :

My background is in information technology and graphic design. I have been exposed to high-end CGI for games, medical imaging, motion pictures and publication still imagery for years at a professional level.

Please provide references. I could type the same resume, but I'd be
a fibber.

I can't say for sure yet that they are a hoax or real. I will be determining that in the near future.

YOU will determine if they are real ? Interesting. I'll be interested to
see your decision.

Doing so only highlights the ignorance of those that make such statements.

Calling us "old hands" ignorant ? We pegged GR.

You can know nothing from these images and documents without gaining some insight into who made them and why; and if the objects depicted are real or not.

I beg to differ. We can, and have proven at least one photo a CGI
rendering.

There is no way to garner this information from the data provided thus far.

That statement is inherently false.

But how does one gather the details to discover whether they are real or not when there is no way for anyone to physically inspect the hardware in the images?

Research and knowledge of CGI rendering. No hardware exists, that
is known at this time. And, it's in the high 99.9% range that it doesn't.

The same way governments, law enforcement and many corporations do. They employ remote viewers, under contract and very quietly.

Nice way to CYA. "very quietly". This offensive statement provides
a cover to anyone asking for proof of your statement.

I can say without a doubt that RV does work; as long as it is not psychic-remote-viewing.

Ok, you state that it DOES work, then rescind the statement. Please
clarify.

I have learned RV using the protocols that were developed by SRI for the DOD/CIA via Maj. Ed Dames.

This Ed Dames ?
How much did you pay this charlatan ?

The methodology used is a rigorous protocol that does produce accurate details of ANY target that is investigated. It eliminates the conscious minds efforts to overlay imagination on the data collection process; something that psychics are usually unable to do. It is a truly amazing and not incredible skill that anyone can develope. The RV efforts of a single remote viewer, even a beginner, usually achieves 80% accuracy for any target that is RV'ed and analyzed. When a target is investigated by a group of remote viewers this accuracy can be be improved to 90% or better.

Nice advertising.

I and others in our RV group will view these images. After one session we will be able to determine the following:

"Whether the objects are real or CGI"

How oh how can you even begin to claim this ?

And please do not read into this anything that I have not typed. I have been very specific.

And, you have been duly quoted and questioned.

The first sessions we do will only determine if the objects are real or not.

How so ?

We will only determine if they are real structures that exists in temporal reality.

Please explain to me and our dear readers what this fancy term
"temporal reality" means. Maybe we aren't as "gifted as you.

If the objects are real then we can further investigate the source that created them.

How so ?

You drafted an exquisite piece of literature, but provided nothing.

Other than that, I'm rather interested in how you can either prove
or disprove this "event".

It strikes me as odd that we, your dear readers here on ATS have
only your word, to base our faith on.

Please respond accordingly,
Lex

I will keep you posted.

0mikron

You dont need to fiddle with the RGB channels to know its a fake..just look at the light reflection, its absolutely perfect. And how was this object photographed? In a room? a box? The reflections dont resemble a reaslistic environment nor does it show any hot spots from the lighting a real object would show. Who gives a toss about the RGB channel..just use your head mate.

Originally posted by Bspiracy

Originally posted by RandomThought
OK everyone is quick to shoot down my post, but did anyone see the post I made before? if so then why not agree or disagree with me on that one?

I mean look...the part is freakin floating. you're telling me that these individual pieces are anti-gravitational? If so why are they on the ground in 1 pic, and in another its floating?

isaaccaret.fortunecity.com...

Your link is not working.. I just tested it.

This "floating" piece you are so focused on. To me the "floating" piece was taken from a different photo set in a layout program/by hand before they went to "press" .
Given the amount of material NOT shown just from the realization of the page numbering, I imagine there were alot more photos for a person doing layout to choose from. It seems to me the floating piece was taken from a different part of whatever secret photo session and then pasted there to make the layout complete. We don't know what the page is illustrating though.
Also, a trained military professional in a very controlled environment could produce these pictures.

to recap.. floating piece is simply one photo from another set not shown by the lmited amount of info submitted.

to Middle cut.. go through the scanned documents material and pull out all of the characters instead of the ones just on the scan of the object itself.. alot more is there.

REGARDING CGI HOAX CLAIMERS
refute my earlier posts before you keep claimiingit's cgi. Anything can be modelled.. we all know this. Present logical NEW thoughts please. Show me an opposite to what I claim with the R,G and B noise patterns...

I will place renders and photos side by side if you wish.. in channel separations as well if really good renders are shown to emulate the noise pattern of the Digital Rebel XT shown in one recorded phot set. Or show me a render that emulates the noise pattern of the RGB channels of a scanner.. I just haven'tr seen it yet.

Quit claiming it is CGI.. show me in a concise way or by example.

b

Originally posted by greatlakes
Doesn't the first photo of the device look like the two parts (off to the side) are floating and not resting on a surface? If rendered in 3d and given surfaces to rest on, lighting and shadows etc, would this be a particular issue that would come up?

3D rendering software generaly doesn't have physics installed, so you don't actualy rest objects onto anything, as there is no gravity to pull it down. Basicaly you are just placing the objects next to each other, to appear they are being pulled together by natural forces.