[HOAX] Isaac CARET - Drones [HOAX]

If i post on this forum, S.O. can locate my ip adress and know that i m from...

So stop talking about the pictures... this are cg made.

I think would be good to start search these points:

1. the ip adress from the guy who posted the pics.
2. find a meaning (if there is one) of the alien language
3. find where the "design" of the spaceships come from
4. look in some cg forums if we can find "the work in progress" step by step
5. analyse the "crop cercles"looking diagrams and find some logic

just my ideas...

Ivan

It is based on Base-59, with 60 numerical symbols, and the language is still in works. I have not completed it, but the style and characters are nearly the same. Even the same curving layout of the letters or symbols. Right now I am up to 134 individual letters based off several main, distinct designs, and basic tongue.


I've submitted all these images and documents to my art team for review and a single statement. I don't think believers in this being real will like what they have to say.

[edit on 28-6-2007 by Foxe]

Same rendering technique for the Isaac object:
Note the white background, the generic ambient whitish blue lighting and sheen to the metal surface which matches the Alien object's sheen & general reflectivity.
Im not trying to match the objects design here to the Alien one, but anyone who knows a little about rendering in Maya or Max will reconise the distinct similarity's between them, its too close to be a chance or co-incidence.

www.cgtoolkit.com...
www.cgtoolkit.com...
www.cgtoolkit.com...
www.cgtoolkit.com...

Just food for thought.

Not sure if anyone else saw this, but I opened one of the images in Notepad, and got the software tagging - this is what I've pulled out so far:

Adobe Photoshop Elements for Windows
adobe:docid:photoshop:013dfdd7-fc30-11db-b305-b8a28f50b702

This is from the image I pulled from C2C.

Ah, I have been attacked by the smiley of poor editing.



[edit on 28-6-2007 by Argossol]

i've got it. CGI.

look here:
isaaccaret.fortunecity.com...

the symbols on the center of the piece are mirrored at the half-way point. they should be rotated if they were supposed to be the same symbol!

in case you don't see it, pretend you were looking at the module from the side and cut it in half from top to bottom: the symbols on the left side are mirrored across that "cut" to the other side. this tells me that the texture was just mirrored across that point and not actualle redone from scratch for the other half.

_All_ images have photo shop tags. He could have just resized them, but all things considered: Hoaxed IMAGES

However! The DOCUMENT SCANS ARE NOT photo shop tagged. Neither are the Linguistic images.


My art team has this to say about the 'drone' images however:

"Judging by the lighting in the supposed "Drone" photographs, it seems to me that they are fakes, as the shadows never seem to match the environment. It should also be noted that the "Drone" does not cast any shadows onto the environment, either. Light either passes straight through it, or isn't there. In some photos, the "Drone" appears to be sharper than it's surroundings...as if added to an existing photograph. In my opinion, the "Drone" appears to be an elaborate hoax created by a CGI artist with an imagination and a 3D suite. Kudos for them, they did a good job in designing it, but made a few mistakes that gave it away."

[edit on 28-6-2007 by Foxe]

To whoever suggested Palatino, kudos, looks like a near exact match to me; then again, the only copy I have of it is a Mac TT font. And the kerning looks horrible enough to be Word, but as I don't have Word on this machine, I cannot confirm or deny that.

And as others have said, hoax or no, it's entertaining.

[edit on 28-6-2007 by regeya]

I'm glad it didn't get saved, but my edit wasn't saved. Weird.

[edit on 28-6-2007 by regeya]

What I've been saying all along..I picked up on the sharpness of the object when the foreground/background was blurry. Got totally ignored there too lol

Originally posted by Foxe


My art team has this to say about the 'drone' images however:

"Judging by the lighting in the supposed "Drone" photographs, it seems to me that they are fakes, as the shadows never seem to match the environment. It should also be noted that the "Drone" does not cast any shadows onto the environment, either. Light either passes straight through it, or isn't there. In some photos, the "Drone" appears to be sharper than it's surroundings...as if added to an existing photograph. In my opinion, the "Drone" appears to be an elaborate hoax created by a CGI artist with an imagination and a 3D suite. Kudos for them, they did a good job in designing it, but made a few mistakes that gave it away."

[edit on 28-6-2007 by Foxe]

Anomoly that's not proof that it is CGI because you can transform "skins" in any way you please, plus these 'symbols' seem to be intentionally reversed.

i know you can transform skins any way you like, my point is that the artist didn't take the time to create a new skin for the other half. he just flipped the on he already had.

the object is symmetrical across that center point. the little spikes on both ends match position exactly.


[edit on 28-6-2007 by an0maly33]

Nice find, thats very suspicious..

Originally posted by an0maly33
i know you can transform skins any way you like, my point is that the artist didn't take the time to create a new skin for the other half. he just flipped the on he already had.

Anybody besides me find this a little too convenient?

In most of the major discussions of the drones, a recurring criticism was that the lettering appeared to be essentially functionless. It serves no apparent purpose. Then a few weeks go by, and suddenly this stuff pops up that offers an explanation of not only why the lettering is there, but actually says that the lettering is a critical "component" of the ship and its design! It's not just lettering, but a kind of expression of the holographic construction of the craft itself, and possibly necessary for the control of the ship via psychic transmission (those are the blacked out parts, the parts about the telepathic control mechanism).

I don't know. Like I said, I find this a little too convenient, given that the complexity of the design and the information about it seems to always be increasing in real time for us. Simple to more complex. We don't get to see the more complex stuff first, or out of order. It's unfolding for us as we look at it, rather than just being lumped on us all at once for us to try to figure out why some stuff looks simple and other stuff involves magic lettering an holographic construction.

Just sayin'.

[edit on 28-6-2007 by SuicideVirus]

check out the renderings I posted yesterday and today, you can ABSOLUTELY get reflections as good as this on CG objects, its dead easy to have it reflect the environment or even objects not visible in the image. It would be just as easy to fake the environment (table top) and additionally I dont see any camera reflected in the object, nor light stands ect.(Although thats not always a dead giveaway, no need to post examples..)
Anyway please look at what I posted to see how possible and likely it is.

Originally posted by an0maly33
i've taken a pretty close look at the photos. even if they aren't what they purport to be, i do believe they are physical objects and not photoshopped. the reflections are just too accurate and detailed to be cg imo. i'm not declaring that i'm right but it sure is a damn good cg job if it is. especially in 4.2 you can see the reflection of the "generator" that's sitting off camera to the left. you can alos see reflections of the markings on the insides of both objects.

in 4.1 you can see in the reflection that there is an "edge" to the white space the object is sitting on. so if this was rendered then the artist would have put this against a white plane instead of making the surrounding space completely white. if you think in terms of this being a large object then it can't possibly be real - i think that's the perception that some people have. but if you think of this in terms of an object sitting on a table then the images look pretty authentic.

[edit for more comments]

[edit on 27-6-2007 by an0maly33]

[edit on 28-6-2007 by wildone106]

yea I agree the release of information in this manner is totally reactionary.
And Im pretty sure chad/Isaac are the same person(s)

Originally posted by SuicideVirus
Anybody besides me find this a little too convenient? In most of the major discussions of the drones, a recurring criticism was that the lettering appeared to be essentially functionless. It serves no apparent purpose. Then a few weeks go by, and suddenly this stuff pops up that offers an explanation of not only why the lettering is there, but actually says that the lettering is a critical "component" of the ship and its design! It's not just lettering, but a kind of expression of the holographic construction of the craft itself, and possibly necessary for the control of the ship via psychic transmission (those are the blacked out parts, the parts about the telepathic control mechanism).

I don't know. Like I said, I find this a little too convenient, given that the complexity of the design and the information about seems to always be increasing in real time for us. Simple to more complex. We don't get to see the more complex stuff first, or out of order. It's unfolding for us as we look at it, rather than just being lumped on us all at once for us to try to figure out why some stuff looks simple and other stuff involves magic lettering an holographic construction.

Just sayin'.

This is Honey Trap:-
They are looking for one of you guys to come up with a real answer. Then Bingo Knock on the door, and you will disappear.. working for those that cannot be spoken of.

This has real ET material, mixed with junk to sort the men from the boys.

You are on dangerous ground here. Its not a Hoax, but it is. Just make sure you don't mention to anyone what bit is and isn't.

That's my call.

BY

Originally posted by an0maly33
i know you can transform skins any way you like, my point is that the artist didn't take the time to create a new skin for the other half. he just flipped the on he already had.

the object is symmetrical across that center point. the little spikes on both ends match position exactly.

You are correct, the lazy 3D modeler that created this CG render got lazy, or just used common practice with symtrical objects. You see, when someone is about to make a 3D model of a car, they only have to model half of the car cut down the middle, clone it, and mirror it to complete the car and to make sure both sides are identical. This is EXACTLY what the modeler did on this CG render. The entire craft inluding the textures were cloned and mirrored to create the other half....

I made this image to show what i mean. Imagine the red rectangle is a mirror, you get exactly the same on both sides, except the font, which was not changed..




Its so obvious this is a CG render... Because cloning, and mirroring half of your model is common practice.

[edit on 28-6-2007 by 11 11]

VERY NICE!!!!

Originally posted by 11 11

Originally posted by an0maly33
i know you can transform skins any way you like, my point is that the artist didn't take the time to create a new skin for the other half. he just flipped the on he already had.

the object is symmetrical across that center point. the little spikes on both ends match position exactly.

You are correct, the lazy 3D modeler that created this CG render got lazy, or just used common practice with symtrical objects. You see, when someone is about to make a 3D model of a car, they only have to model half of the car cut down the middle, clone it, and mirror it to complete the car and to make sure both sides are identical. This is EXACTLY what the modeler did on this CG render. The entire craft inluding the textures were cloned and mirrored to create the other half....

I made this image to show what i mean. Imagine the red rectangle is a mirror, you get exactly the same on both sides, except the font, which was not changed..

Its so obvious this is a CG render...

You got that right! And it seems to be a battle between people who are in a CGI industry who 'know' and those who aren't, who just think they know

Originally posted by megawatts

This is Honey Trap:-
They are looking for one of you guys to come up with a real answer. Then Bingo Knock on the door, and you will disappear.. working for those that cannot be spoken of.

This has real ET material, mixed with junk to sort the men from the boys.

You are on dangerous ground here. Its not a Hoax, but it is. Just make sure you don't mention to anyone what bit is and isn't.

That's my call.

BY

seeing, how we just unraveled another hoax poster. on the false flag thread. the writing style of ghostraven and the guy on the fortune city page...their techniques of making a point, then digressing into something else than going going back to the main point of the whole conversation. I'm not saying their one and same...but, it just seems coincidential to me...that this fortune city thing shows up in the midst of different "big reveals" as of late...and that fortune city page..coincidentially has alot of things that people we're calling for to be seen in that last thread..I don't really know..it just seems coincidential to me. I'm not accusing anyone of anything..just taking things as I see it.

my bad anomoly I was looking for a mirror in the x axis rather than the z axis. Good photoshop by whoever cut it in half!