[HOAX] Isaac CARET - Drones [HOAX]

I wish I were, at least then I'd have some skills



[edit on 12/7/2007 by PsykoOps]

Yesterday was the eleventh. My question to 11 11 and all other cgi professionals is this: What are the black objects that appear in the drone pics where you can see the underside of the with visible text? I'm sure many of you have these pics saved on your hard drives, so here they are.







Are these rendering artifacts? Have they been purposefully included in the picture? Are they craft hovering high above the drone? I have little knowledge of CGI, I would like to hear some opinions.

Dirt on scanner, ccd or lens. Might be added too, no way of knowing.

Originally posted by 11 11

I posted a link to the EXIF veiwer I used 3 times on this thread... please use the search function! Stop making people repeat everything they say word for word.. do some research!

Type "EXIF viewer" in google, its the first link.. man that so hard to do!



[edit on 12-7-2007 by 11 11]

home.pacbell.net... this one? I tried the boolean search to find the posts where you told which viewer you used but couldn't find anything.

Originally posted by 11 11
Springer, please explain to me why people are allowed to ask questions before they even research or think with their mind?!?! This is a serious question.

Because we (my partners, our staff and I) NEVER seek to control "content" (within the bounds of the TAC), only the "TONE" with which it is presented.

You have been VERY LACKING in the "Tone" department, it's a matter of patience and the logical selection of resource employment that comes with maturity...

Here's a GREAT SUGGESTION, if you see a set of PIXELS on screen (that's ALL we are dealing with here) that "upset" you , IGNORE THEM or POLITELY explain you have already answered that.

Wow, what a concept.

In any case you have exceeded the limits of my patience, be cool or be gone. The choice is 100% yours.

Springer...

I've been messing with the EXIF that 11 says is so important because it IRREFUTIBLY confirms its been through several files because of the headers.


Uh, well, not exactly. I got several additions for an image that was directly created in Adobe CS. I don't normally look at the EXIF in anything other than Irfranview because I'm not a computer artist, so I only get one in Irfran not all of it, but that program suggested a while back brought this up:

JFIF_APP1 : Exif
JFIF_APP14 : Photoshop 3.0
JFIF_APP1 : http
JFIF_APP15 : Adobe
JFIF_APP2 : ICC Profile (offset:3537 size:3151bytes)

I'll try some older versions tomorrow, but that's what I get generally. Sometimes the colour profile isn't there, but it definitely adds the other four all the time, so this doesn't prove it got this way because it went through 'loads of image editing programs' (paraphrased).

Originally posted by 11 11

Springer, please explain to me why people are allowed to ask questions before they even research or think with their mind?!?! This is a serious question.

[edit on 12-7-2007 by 11 11]

Im not posting for Springer, but as Springer has said you do post some insightful and thought provoking analysis.

It is however your presentation of this analysis that has members such as myself that take offence to the name calling and narcissistic attitude you display when posting.

As far as I am concerned the whole premise of this site is for people to ask questions no matter how dumb or stupid they might seem to some of us.

A wise man once said there is no such thing as a dumb question.

Originally posted by NGC2736
Now at the risk of a penalty, I will ask you to please shut the hell up about the pictures.

You are telling me to stop debunking the CGI pictures from ISAACCARET huh? Tough luck..

[edit on 12-7-2007 by 11 11]

Originally posted by PsykoOps


home.pacbell.net... this one? I tried the boolean search to find the posts where you told which viewer you used but couldn't find anything.

OOPS my mistake, type "EXIF reader" in google, first link.

Gotcha, I was wondering why I kept getting different data

Originally posted by 11 11

Originally posted by NGC2736
Now at the risk of a penalty, I will ask you to please shut the hell up about the pictures.

You are telling me to stop debunking the CGI pictures from ISAACCARET huh? Tough luck..

[edit on 12-7-2007 by 11 11]

Is it live or is it memorex?

I have said, as have many that you have proved your point. Even Springer said that he is in agreement. What does it take for you to be happy that you have made people aware of the picture's shortcomings?

I merely wanted to find out what other people on this thread, such as Doc M could contribute in other areas of this. But you insist on dominating these pages.

You win. Nobody nor nothing can get past you and your control of this thread. So, rather than get another warning for expressing just how your lack of tact is effecting me, and because I really have no interest in a complete six week course on CGI, I will exit your thread.

You have succeeded in burying the idea of "deny Ignorance" here by virtue of sustained drivel.

Originally posted by ejsaunders
Uh, well, not exactly. I got several additions for an image that was directly created in Adobe CS.

You didn't read my typing correctly, big supprize, but let me clarify. The reason I say "multiple" programs, is because Adobe Album 3.0 doesn't edit the EXIF the way the drone EXIF is edited. So, it had to be other programs.


You just debunked yourself. Thanks.... You just proved that the only way to get this junk in your EXIF, is to open it up in an image editor program.
PROOF that the images were edited....right there... so fun...


Now, show me what the EXIF looks like from an image straight from a Dimage X camera.. then take that image, and run it through Adobe Album 3.0 only, then tell me if it looks like the Rajman1977 photos. It wont.

Originally posted by NGC2736
You have succeeded in burying the idea of "deny Ignorance" here by virtue of sustained drivel.

Sustained drivel huh, you mean my proof is so overwelming, that you give up. ok thanks.

Originally posted by ExquisitExamplE
Are these rendering artifacts? Have they been purposefully included in the picture? Are they craft hovering high above the drone? I have little knowledge of CGI, I would like to hear some opinions.

Why do you have ORB and ORB2? They are both the same picture, I mean render. You see, turn the first picture 180 degrees and you have the pretty much the same picture.. all the specs you circled are pretty much in the same spot....

This is dirt on the lens.

Originally posted by etshrtslr
A wise man once said there is no such thing as a dumb question.

Actually the wise man wasn't to wise, because a dumb question is a question that has been asked and answered before, by the same person.

Originally posted by 11 11
You are telling me to stop debunking the CGI pictures from ISAACCARET huh? Tough luck..

I think the trouble is that you haven't addressed any of the IsaacCaret images, specifically the report photos or the primer. You have concentrated on pictures of the drones which ostensibly have nothing to do with Isaac.

You are assuming that there is one person behind this. Proving the Rajman photos are line drawings coloured in with magic markers still wouldn't affect the reality or otherwise of the Isaac images.

If you did discuss the Isaac images specifically, then I apologise profusely, but I skipped quite a lot of your more strident posts. What else can you expect, its like getting harangued by the nutters at Hyde Park Corner.

Originally posted by 11 11

Actually the wise man wasn't to wise, because a dumb question is a question that has been asked and answered before, by the same person.

That says it all about your level of maturity.

Originally posted by 11 11

Originally posted by NGC2736
You have succeeded in burying the idea of "deny Ignorance" here by virtue of sustained drivel.

Sustained drivel huh, you mean my proof is so overwelming, that you give up. ok thanks.

Well that (the above snide reply) did it...

11 11 is post banned for at least three days, I can only hope if he desires to return to these fora that he achieves the civility level of an adult.


I did my level BEST to explain to him how to interact in the "ATS WAY" that demands courtesy and warned him twice because his data was great.

It was his delivery that was sorely lacking and beneath the minimum level required to paricipate here at AboveTopSecret.com, and that is that.

Carry on.

Springer...

Originally posted by 11 11
You just debunked yourself. Thanks.... You just proved that the only way to get this junk in your EXIF, is to open it up in an image editor program.
PROOF that the images were edited....right there... so fun...

I NEVER SAID IT WASN'T. Forgive me for pointing out you should read MY POSTS too.

I was merely commenting that you had previously said that the image was run though several programs to get to where it was, here's your exact wording:

"I then looked at the EXIF data from that image, and compared it to the CGI Drone EXIF data. What do you know, it appears the Drone EXIF data has been edited, it also shows the photo has been through several programs."

I am of the opinion its a fake, as I keep saying, so I didn't debunk myself if I agree with myself its a fake.

So, no, I did read what you posted and I have just pointed out that it is an incorrect statement, only one program is needed to make the same information as in the photo.

Whoa, what a very unpleasant experience to try that adobe album.
For one, it does install a systray program that automatically opens a window to download images from cameras etc. It doesn't have the same kind of 'save for web' than photoshop does, so I have no idea where that ICC might have come from. It didn't butcher the exif data like was demonstrated by 11 11.
Anyone have acdsee installed? I'd like to see what that can do to the exif data.
This is indeed curious aspect, though it doesn't really prove anything except that the images have been on someones computer.