[HOAX] Isaac CARET - Drones [HOAX]

(I tried putting this into an earlier edit, but I must be doing something wrong. I apologize if this appears as a double post!)

I take umbrage with reference to the post about 3ds Max being "mikey mouse". The software cost over $3000.00 (yes, that's three THOUSAND dollars). Researchers, architects, forensic analysis, scientists and other professionals utilize this software daily. I agree with you that Chunder's sun solution is incorrect. Here is a screenshot with a correct solution.

For reference, please refer to the photo0016.jpg:

First I set up a scene using a cylinder as a gnomon.
Then I created a "sun" and used the following information obtained from the photograph and from: www.parks.ca.gov/lat_long_map/default.asp?lvl_id=180

From the EXIF data, we can obtain the date and time: 2007:05:16 17:42:58
Once we have that, we need to enter the coordinates from parks.ca.gov: Latitude: 36.98016. Longitude: -121.93107
Verifying that DST was in effect, I made that notation in the software.
The software then calculated the following sun azimuth and altitude.

Time: 17:42:58
Date: 2007:05:16
3ds Max Azimuth: 282
3ds Max Altitude: 15

I then went to: aa.usno.navy.mil... and verified my solution using the same

information to plot a solution. This is the US Navy's solution:

Time: 17:43:00 (closest I could get to 17:42:58, delta +2 sec)
Date: 2007:05:16
US Navy Azimuth: 282.6
US Navy Altitude: 15.6

As you can see, the numbers are spot on. Can you spot Chunder's mistake? It's an honest one, I assure you. Now that you have a point of reference, you can make more accurate measurements with regards to the photographs. Look at the shadows on the gnomon in reference to the compass rose in the screenshot below.



As to the remarks about Chunder's sun being 58' or so away, you need to refer to how 3ds Max (and other high-end packages) calculate light rays. Remember that the mean distance of the sun is 8.2×10^20 miles at a mean diameter of 8.649×10^5

miles. That 58' feet that you see is just a reference point of a vector solution.

It represents a vector between the central solar ray and the "worlds" center vector coordinates (0,0,0 in 3d space).

The fact that I take umbrage with your remarks by no means implies that I am angry or upset. I simply wanted to clear up a couple of points you brought up.

Originally posted by chunder

I don't think you can show the suns rays as the orange lines because if that was the case the sun would be in more than one location.

the blue line in the front view is the graphical representation of the sun angle.

i can crank that gizmo up and down and
it doesn't affect the the angle, it's a visual representation only.

the orange lines are just my representation of the same angle as a visual aid.
i obviously need to label it.

in the front view if you draw a horizontal line across any object that intersects with the sun rays the angle will be about 16 degrees.

You can only show the suns rays in respect of where the picture was taken, which is the blue line at the bottom, which appears to show that from the camera's perspective there would be no shadow cast by the arm ?

here's an animation of the object tilting in the horizontal plane using this sun angle;

Here is my dataset. Please note the inclusion of the EXIF data from P

Capitola is located at 36 deg 58'35"N, 121 deg 57'17"W (36.976250, -121.954750)

My Solution:

Az: 282
Alt: 15
Time: 17:42:58
MDY: 5/16/2007
TZ: -8
DST: Yes
Lat: 36.976
Long: 121.955

US Navy's Solution:

aa.usno.navy.mil...

Astronomical Applications Dept.
U.S. Naval Observatory
Washington, DC 20392-5420

CAPITOLA, CALIFORNIA
o , o ,
W121 58, N36 58

Altitude and Azimuth of the Sun
May 16, 2007
Pacific Standard Time

Altitude Azimuth
(E of N)

h m o o

17:41 16.0 282.3
17:42 15.8 282.5
17:43 15.6 282.6
17:44 15.4 282.8
17:45 15.2 282.9

Photos are from 16 May 07 between 17:41 and 17:44

PICT0016: 2007:05:16 17:42:58

EXIF export from photo PICT0016.jpg

----begin export----------

Tag;Name;Type;Value
259;Compression;3;6
270;ImageDescription;2;MINOLTA DIGITAL CAMERA
271;EquipMake;2;MINOLTA CO.,LTD
272;EquipModel;2;DiMAGE X
274;Orientation;3;1
282;XResolution;5;72/1
283;YResolution;5;72/1
296;ResolutionUnit;3;2
305;SoftwareUsed;2;V100-02
306;DateTime;2;2007:05:16 17:42:58
531;YCbCrPositioning;3;2
34850;ExifExposureProg;3;2
34855;ExifISOSpeed;3;100
36864;ExifVer;7;0220
36867;ExifDTOrig;2;2007:05:16 17:42:58
36868;ExifDTDigitized;2;2007:05:16 17:42:58
37121;ExifCompConfig;7;

37122;ExifCompBPP;5;4/1
37383;ExifMeteringMode;3;5
37384;ExifLightSource;3;0
37385;ExifFlash;3;0
40960;ExifFPXVer;7;0100
40961;ExifColorSpace;3;1
40962;ExifPixXDim;3;1600
40963;ExifPixYDim;3;1200
41728;ExifFileSource;7;
41729;ExifSceneType;7;

20515;ThumbnailCompression;3;6
20525;ThumbnailResolutionX;5;72/1
20526;ThumbnailResolutionY;5;72/1
513;JPEGInterFormat;4;578
514;JPEGInterLength;4;2868
20507;ThumbnailData;1;X` JFIF



[ C 

... edited for length...

20624;LuminanceTable;3;2
20625;ChrominanceTable;3;3
----export end-----------

By the way, the EXIF data are from the high resolution capitola images. There is a lot more there. I don't know why claims were being made that the EXIF data had been stripped.

A more extensive copy of the dataset including full exif data from the capitola high resolution images can be found here:

spiritmtn.org...

For the record: It is my opinion that the images are composites. I believe the base photographs to be real, however. Here is my opinion as to how this was accomplished. First, photographs were taken. The EXIF data was then saved seperately to be added later. A model was composited into the scene, saved and the EXIF information added. Again, this is only my opinion.

Hey SPF33, you think you could add the fin's all the way around the bottom of the 'drone'? I think the shadow would be even more noticable with those fin's hanging down.

This animation is perfect, this is exactly the way I imagined it. Its proves this drone to be a cgi render.


[edit on 8-7-2007 by 11 11]

[edit on 8-7-2007 by 11 11]

Fantastic spf33! It looks like you've nailed it.

I super imposed these two images together, and noticed the "drone" tips the arm towards the ground, which would make the shadow even more obvious. But this image is missing the shadow..

here's an animation of the object tilting in the horizontal plane using this sun angle;



SPF, thanks for taking the time to explain this to me, I appreciate it and am learning something.

Just out of interest, is there an altitude that an object would need to be before, assuming it remains in the horizontal plane, a shadow would not be cast with the sun at 16 degrees altitude at ground level ?

I imagine the answer would be considerably further than 58 feet, I am just interested as to how much more it would be, are we talking hundreds or thousands of feet ?

The image above doesn't seem to move, is it possible for you to show what the shadow should look like with the drone in the best possible guess as to it's horizontal plane. If that can then be compared to the original and there is a noticeable difference I for one would consider it very strong evidence of a fake.

PS I know I am asking a lot !

[edit on 8-7-2007 by chunder]

I don't want to sound too much like a jerk, but I can't believe people are still buying this stuff..

It's a viral campaign. I knew the second I saw these pics that they were CGI.

If you ask me, it's for Halo 3. They pulled an internet hoax for Halo 2 as well. I also remember someone linking the site these first appeared on to the Halo 2 hoax site (something about bees..)

Originally posted by spf33

here's an animation of the object tilting in the horizontal plane using this sun angle;

Nice work spf33 and 11 11 both for proving that the shadows should have been present in the image at that location.

So now what? This should show evidence that this particular photo was created and is a hoax correct...? If so, this certainly casts a dim light on all of the other drone images at this location as well don't it...Sometimes for the hoaxers its the little details that trips em up, sometimes its the obvious stuff...




[edit on 7/8/2007 by greatlakes]

Originally posted by ModernDystopia
I don't want to sound too much like a jerk, but I can't believe people are still buying this stuff..

It's a viral campaign. I knew the second I saw these pics that they were CGI.

If you ask me, it's for Halo 3. They pulled an internet hoax for Halo 2 as well. I also remember someone linking the site these first appeared on to the Halo 2 hoax site (something about bees..)

Why don't people 'get it'? It's QUITE easy to say something "OMG It's a hoax", or "OMG it's real", the issue is actually proving it to the best of our abilities either way if possible. In the case of this particular image (and all of the other drone images in my view) this has been done here and elsewhere in other threads.

But it really isn't offering anything of use when people make comments like its real, or its a hoax, try to offer some evidence, some analysis backing up your opinions or beliefs.

Originally posted by chunder

Just out of interest, is there an altitude that an object would need to be before, assuming it remains in the horizontal plane, a shadow would not be cast with the sun at 16 degrees altitude at ground level ?

I imagine the answer would be considerably further than 58 feet, I am just interested as to how much more it would be, are we talking hundreds or thousands of feet ?

The image above doesn't seem to move, is it possible for you to show what the shadow should look like with the drone in the best possible guess as to it's horizontal plane. If that can then be compared to the original and there is a noticeable difference I for one would consider it very strong evidence of a fake.

PS I know I am asking a lot !

[edit on 8-7-2007 by chunder]

I think I have worked out the answer to my own question in that the altitude change would have to be many thousands of feet for there to be any appreciable change.

A rough calculation shows a 1 metre arm would cast a shadow approx. 30 cms below it with the sun at 16 degrees in approx. the same direction that the arm points.

It would make things easier for a layman such as myself if the two pictures, the correct shadow and the original, could be shown side by side. Yes, I know I am asking a lot but I just don't have the skills to do it myself.

Originally posted by chunder



When Springer does or say's something as a moderator that's because of his position. When he posts on here an opinion it should carry no more or no less weight than anyone elses.

Could not have said it better myself!

Springer...

spf33, 11 11, and rwiggins:

GREAT WORK on getting the "shadow issue" resolved in a graphical way so everyone can see the reality.

When I showed this to Jeff Ritzmann and David Biedny back in May they both pointed out, among other things, the shadow was missing but neither of them had the time or the desire to spend on creating a graphical representation of how it should look with the data to prove it.

Additionally, both of them said these images were created in exactly the same way rwiggins describes in his post above, the real "sky/pole" photo was taken, exif data saved and the CGI "drone" composited into the scene.

Now that we have a graphical representation of IMPOSSIBLE lighting that anyone can look at maybe we can move beyond the CGI/not CGI argument and start really digging into WHY and WHO.

GREAT work all around.

Springer...

Just wondering are any of the *other* forums buzzing with the news? I mean this is fairly conclusive evidence that at least this photo set is a HOAX unless of course a true believer comes in saying that shadows and light do not act on an alien drone in the same terrestrial ways But hopefully that won't happen

Its strange, when news comes in of a find such as the drones, it gets massive press (not mainstream press of course) on forums, blogs, word-of-mouth etc, but if and when its proven a HOAX or an error, it just kinda slips away and quietly sulks in the corner. In fact some aren't even aware of the facts and the evidence of a particular hoax, still thinking its real...Why is that?



[edit on 7/8/2007 by greatlakes]

Good point, we haven't taken into consideration yet that the special aetherflux field being used here to provide stealth is a prototype, and still bends light even if the object is uncloaked.

It spreads the light to specific points and dims them slightly, which gives you the CGI-like appearance.

This alien vessel is nothing but real! I'm telling you!

I'll post some details of the Aetherflux generator later.


p.s:
If someone here thought this was a serious post, with serious thoughts, please do not respond, lol.

[edit on 8/7/07 by -0mega-]

Just a heads up, I'm squatting in the openminds forum skypecast right now, its an open forum cast, ask questions etc on the topic, starts at 2pm EST (now).
Heres the link (you need skype installed)....

skypecasts.skype.com...

who said 3Dmax was "mickey mouse"?.... this was dont in max...
this would take about 2-3 weeks to model,and another 10 to 12 hours each picture to render (with scene and textures) the clay type render would be an hour or so.. maybe longer depending on the type of comp you have.

img378.imageshack.us...
img354.imageshack.us...
img517.imageshack.us...
img378.imageshack.us...
img378.imageshack.us...
img378.imageshack.us...

Admin edit: External images were distorting the site layout due to the large physical size. Fixed.

[edit on 8-7-2007 by SimonGray]

WOW! those are amazing!!! We have entered a world where you cant tell whats real and whats not. And thats exactly where they want us to be.

There will ALWAYS be doubt.

The only thing that doesnt look real are the lil people in the the heli.But I dont give it long before you will see John Wayne and Tom Cruise starring in a movie together one day.

Thank you, Springer, for the kind words. I think that we, as a community, have had enough of hoaxes. I think that some of the die-hards tend to forget that we both have the same goals. The difference is that we aren't willing to simply accept what we are given. In fact, speaking for myself only, I am willing to accept that ufo's (as alien vehicles) might not exist at all if that's what the data demonstrates! I'm willing to go where the data leads me.

It's amazing what a hoaxer can do with the tools available. However, we have access to those tools as well! The combined experience, energy and dedication of the ATS community, together with some pretty cool skill sets, serve notice to this and future hoaxers that we aren't willing to accept anything less than the truth.

I also agree, Springer, it's time for the who and why.

By the way, someone posted a link to a PARC website which contained a list of employees. I noticed a Raj in the list. Coincidence or possible connection? Did the hoaxer pick up some names here to add credibility to their story?

I would like to especially thank Springer, Jeff Ritzmann, SPF33, 11 11, and David Biedny for their patience and dedication to the community. In trying to hash this thing out, we have taken some pretty harsh criticisms. In my field, I expect that, but I can see where it might turn some others away.

Do we have an analyst on board, someone who wouldn't mind going back through the threads and compiling a dataset which may help with the signal to noise ratio? If we can identify what's relevant with what's not, it would be most helpful. I realize it would be a lot of work, but it might be helpful in the who and why aspect.

Again, thank you for ATS!

For clarification, I never said 3DS Max was mickey mouse. I said the render they made was mickey mouse. I use 3DSMax on a daily basis.