[HOAX] Isaac CARET - Drones [HOAX]

Originally posted by 11 11
This is dirt on the lens.

Uhh, how can you have dirt on a CGI lense?

Originally posted by ejsaunders

Originally posted by 11 11
This is dirt on the lens.

Uhh, how can you have dirt on a CGI lense?

In CGI it's added, so it's not really 'dirt on the lens" it's filled pixels added to the image to make them appear more real...

Let's NOT ask 11 11 any questions he can't answer, he is post banned for 72 hours and therefor unable to respond.

Springer...

[edit on 7-12-2007 by Springer]

OK - now that the air has cleared a bit, perhaps some of the 'regular' thought-provoking investigators, arm-chair gumshoes, and curious observers can chime back in and get this ball rolling again.

1. Didn't "Isaac" promise us he would release more documents later? Where are they? When can we expect to see them?

2. Has anyone had any luck finding the actual location of the old XPARC office in Palo Alto? I'd be curious if we got an address and could somehow gain access (potential lessee, business proprietor, etc.) if we can determine if there are actually 5 floors below street level. How long did the CARET team occupy the site? Where did they go? Can we find any other former CARET staff that might corroborate "Isaac's" tale?

3. I know from personal scouring and filtering that there are at least 1/2 dozen other sites following this story (though ATS, IMO, is by far the best and most thorough). I can't keep a thumb on the pulse of everything everywhere simultaneously - but it seems we've all collectively reached a sort of logjam. Does anyone have anything new to report? Is the CARET/Isaac pseudo-disclosure of several weeks ago really the last 'event' in the drones saga?

4. Has anyone made any headway on the writing/text? I keep thinking that even if this is a hoax, there is a rhyme & reason to the placement and cadence of the glyphic symbols. My mind detects a pattern of sorts, but I can't seem to make much progress beyond that so far. For some strange reason I'm certain that if deciphering techniques similar to what was used to translate the Rosetta Stone were employed, one might be able to make a close enough correlation with the symbols to at least 'get the drift' of what is being said - particularly on the Isaac schematic/'maps'. I don't even care so much if it turns out to read, "Ha-ha, fooled you, etc., etc." It's a puzzle - I think we have the collective brainpower to solve it - or at least have a decent 'go'.

Just a final thought: so many of you have demonstrated exceptional patience and fortitude - especially in the last few days or so. I'd like to thank the ATS community for exhibiting the best of what the on-line community has to offer. I'm proud to be associated with you all - even if just in the virtual ether of an online forum. Perhaps one day we can convince the founders to host an ATS Conference of sorts at which time I'd welcome the chance to shake your hands... maybe even buy you a drink...

OK- back to work...

[edit-fixed link]

[edit on 7/12/2007 by Outrageo]

Springer: Np, I was just being a little facetious to him since he thinks its CGI and therefore it 'has no lense'.

-----

Isaac did promise new documents in his letter, but so far nothing. I've been trying to work out the text based on the Isaac letters and the gravity generator, but its either too small or two curved to make out properly on the generator and I beam segments.

On the document side I've tried some of the letters I 'do' know from the generator (the To Protect) but it just makes no sense, its like translating an alien bar-code or some sort of product ID number, there's no English words, just a jumble of letters. That is of course assuming we have the To Protect right. I thought it might have been Project for a while as in, make it form the field but the alien letter matches the T not a J, so...

I personally have discussed this hoax with certain members that float around the dod/doe and military aircraft type threads and are they informed me that the military does have modern Coanda effect drones. I also have heard from these sources that the 'flow chart' graphics from the Caret files resemble something that they had seen in the past, but without any of the glyphs. Almost like some of the Caret report is real, or written by someone who has written 'real' reports in the past. What this tells me is that this is definately something big aimed at the UFO community and us here at ATS because we seem to be at the forfront of the possibilities. That this probably isn't a couple cgi wanabees trying to get famous, but a concerted disinfo campaign. I would invite these people in on the conversation if the atmosphere in this thread wasn't so much about argument and hype, and more about finding whatever truth that we can.

I wish you all, the very best in all your endeavors, but for me, until I see a drone with my own eyes, this is a hoax, perpetrated by a hidden hand to manipulate you and me, and possibly even draw us out of the cracks so that we can be known. So that enemies of truth can analyze how disinfo spreads, and the process the modern collective mind takes to get to the root of the "lie".

DocMoreau

(edit spelling)

[edit on 12/7/2007 by DocMoreau]

I think these would be good ideas to follow up. Logic suggests that such a large and well planned hoax as this one would have a greater payoff than just some person's ego gratification. There seems to have been an enormous amount of work, time, and money put into this.

So far as I can tell, there has not been a payoff for such an investment, at least not by viral marketers as was earlier speculated on some of this. I see nothing promising on the horizon myself, though something could yet turn up.

And was the name 'Isaac" chosen at random, or was that a direct clue to another facet of this whole thing?

Opinions and ideas please.

Originally posted by Outrageo
Just a final thought: so many of you have demonstrated exceptional patience and fortitude - especially in the last few days or so. I'd like to thank the ATS community for exhibiting the best of what the on-line community has to offer. I'm proud to be associated with you all - even if just in the virtual ether of an online forum. Perhaps one day we can convince the founders to host an ATS Conference of sorts at which time I'd welcome the chance to shake your hands... maybe even buy you a drink...

I agree with your sentiments above and that's why we (the owners and staff) are working so hard at bringing the ATS Vision/Style to a much larger audience.

Regarding an "ATS Convention" or conference, HANG ON TO THAT THOUGHT! There are plans being made as I type this!

Springer...

With the spirited debate, I am unsure if my earlier post made it. Does anyone live near Capitola, or know someone who does, and if so are you willing to help me with a little research? I am trying to pin down the height of the pole and length of the crossarms in the Raj photographs, numbers 16 and 17 specifically. If a similar pole can be found with the same type of attachments, that would be great. If the original pole could be found, fantastic! Thank you!

I recall a post many months ago where someone linked to a sight where some posters were talking about planning something against ATS. I got the impression they didn't like this site.

Such a group of people might want to team up to create a hoax of this scale but I am not sure if the pay off against ATS would be there.

Originally posted by rwiggins If the original pole could be found, fantastic! Thank you!

I don't know about the area in question, but in my neck of the woods, poles have little metal plates on them that I think show how long they have been in service. I don't have the pictures saved, and couldn't blow them up enough to look for such a thing anyway, but this would tell a person how long the pole has been there.

So, if you knew when the pole was planted, so to speak, you could maybe crosscheck this with company records, and narrow down the area. Also, I noticed that on one of the pictures, the wires seem to change direction, as if this was at a "corner". Another way to eliminate "wrong" poles.

And finally, many people that work on the lines, as in other jobs, actually might recognize the pole. I know that sounds far out on the surface, but I have seen this happen in other lines of work. For instance, an electrician might be shown a breaker box, and just from the arrangement of the wiring, know what building it was in.

Just some thoughts, hope they help.

Originally posted by roadgravel
Such a group of people might want to team up to create a hoax of this scale but I am not sure if the pay off against ATS would be there.

That's interesting. Several other sites, I've been told, are also heavily into the drones, so if this is targeting ATS it certainly is a broad-brush attack that's getting a lot of collateral damage.

Originally posted by roadgravelSuch a group of people might want to team up to create a hoax of this scale but I am not sure if the pay off against ATS would be there.

I can't see how we could be hurt by this. What could we possibly lose over catching out a hoax? Seems that it would be just the reverse, it would show the community that ATS looks IN DEPTH at such things.

More along the lines of them sitting around, patting themselves on the back, saying we had those ATS folks running in circles for months. I do agree that as for as discrediting ATS members, etc, it really doesn't do much. More for their own gratification.

It amazes me sometimes the amount of venom against ATS that sometimes spews forth from some of the other sites. And we NEVER bad mouth those guys! What's up with that?

Even more amazing to me is that Springer and his colleagues have always been the most cordial and civil toward the ne'ersaywells. Heck - aren't we all just trying to find the truth?

Yeah - they call us names, skeptics/debunkers/u-name-it. So what. They can't hurt us. And frankly, IMO, such vitriol does nothing but poisons their own well.

Anyway - sorry for the OT - had to get it off my chest...

Just to point out that Isaac actually said do not expect more information soon - please see below.

"Any future releases from me will come from the email address I've used to contact Coast to Coast AM, and will be sent to them only. I'd like to make this clear as well to ensure that people can be sure that any future information comes from the same source, although I must be clear: at this time I do not have any future plans for additional information. Time will tell how long I will maintain this policy, but do not expect anything soon. I'd really like to let this information “settle” for a while and see how it goes."

It seems to me that this whole thing should be very easy to prove a hoax, and I mean prove, conclusively, without someone confessing.

Of course there are probably many ways to do this but this should be one of the easiest.

The Inventory Review photo.

It shows similar parts to those in the drones, too similar to be called co-incidence. There are possible explanations as to what came first etc etc but, either that picture was constructed or it's a real picture.

If it's a real picture surely we can identify the parts.

If it was constructed surely someone can point out how.

Far be it for me to suggest what people should do but it does seem that the CGI proponents can cast doubt on all of the other pictures, I would like to see (for the sake of getting to the truth, not being sarcastic) if any holes can be poked in that picture.

Here is another lead along the lines of Keith.

Dr. Arthur Reyes
Ph.D. Information and Computer Science (Software concentration) University of California at Irvine 1999
M.S. Information and Computer Science (ICS) University of California at Irvine 1995
B.S. Aerospace Engineering(summa cum laude) Polytechnic University 1987

Arthur A. Reyes, Aarathi P. Narayanasamy, Atilla Dogan, "Simulation-Based Development of Real-Time, Embedded Software for Swarmed, Autonomous Aerial Vehicles", in Proceedings of the 22nd Digital Avionics Systems Conference: Dawn of the 2nd Century / Raci

www.uta.edu...

I read all the content at Isaac's website carefully. I share with youI read all the content at Isaac's website carefully. I share with you
some of my thoughts about it, especially the "language": I feel Isaac's
diagrammatic notation is more important than any other aspect of his
website or this emerging story.I have served as a senior lecturer or assistant professor in the department of Computer Science & Engineering at the University of Texas at Arlington continuously since 1999. I earned a Ph.D. in Information &Computer Science from the University of California at Irvine (UCI) in1999 and a Bachelor of Science degree in Aerospace Engineering from Polytechnic University in 1987. I worked as an engineer on the B-2
bomber for Northrop in Pico Rivera (Los Angeles) from 1987 to 1992. In
graduate school I researched tools & methods for software engineering,
including programming languages, expert systems, & various diagrammatic
notations. I now teach senior & first-year graduate courses in
software engineering, advise undergraduate students regarding their
academic progress each term, and help direct the university's Autonomous
Vehicles Laboratory.

www.earthfiles.com...

Chunder, I had some similar thoughts but my post bombed on submission here and I decided not to retype. The idea of it was:

It seems the inventory page is a bit oddball compared to the other docs. I had wondered if it has real parts that were the inspiration for the drone photos. It would then later be used to back up the drones and lead into the Isaac site info. The rest of the documents were just made up to further enhance the story line.
Seems like low tech vs higher tech.

Anyway I just haven't figured out a way to find some match to them, short of endless searches through catalogs or online pictures.

Originally posted by ejsaunders

Originally posted by 11 11
This is dirt on the lens.

Uhh, how can you have dirt on a CGI lense?

The background image with trees and sky are assumed to be an actual real world photograph, the drone I am assuming was added at a latter time and is a computer rendering. So the spots on the lens could be from an actual camera.

You know, I just had a weird thought float past, so I'm laying out a little scenario here to see if maybe we've taken the wrong focus on this.

***The Following "Story" Is NOT True, being made up to highlight things.***

I work for agency XYZ of the US government, and we have a problem that has been beyond our best minds to solve for some time. We have these items that were "found", for which we cannot find a use, or even a clue who made them.

All our efforts at translating the writing on them has failed, though we remain convinced that there is some meaning in the symbols.

Because we don't know what we really have, we can't just ask for help, because if it turns out to be dangerous, an enemy would also have a chance to use this information. At the same time, since we have tried everything we can think of, it is doing us no good to continue along the same old path.

I have persuaded my department that we must have outside help if we are to ever solve this, and the best minds to tackle this are in the UFO community. They are used to thinking outside the box, and once they are interested in something, they tend to hang on to it like a bulldog.

We need to do a very delicate job of convincing them that this is a hoax, and yet at the same time, make it so interesting that they will keep worrying with it till they solve the lettering problem. We may even have to introduce a hoax idea two or three times before we get enough of a following to make this work.

The idea is that we make some good CGI and and then a related back story. Both have to be believable enough to catch a lot of interest, yet not good enough that they can't be dismissed as a hoax. If need be we will seed our own people into the "research" to play both the for and against characters in this.

The online community will in effect become our unwitting research center, working on a known hoax, that we can always have the option of further debunking if need be. After years of effort, with no success, we will be forced to put some truth into the whole story just to make it believable enough to generate the interest from the kinds of minds that we want on this.

And even if they never do succeed, we will be no worse off than we are now, and the whole story cannot be proved to have come from us anyway.

***THE END*** This was just a story to make a point or two***THE END***


Now I know that what I wrote can't be exactly true, but it could be true in part. It takes as many parts of the overall Isaac/drone thing into a workable and logical framework as I can see. It even accounts for some of the "help" that has shown up on these threads so unexpectedly. It would also account for what is otherwise a bottleneck in so many ideas of who gets a payoff worth the effort of such a grand hoax.

Perhaps some of you with better minds than me can see what you can add or detract to refine this down to a more logical theory, or blow it out of the water one. (No government agents need reply, please.)

NGC2736: Great post. I like the style of thinking you're employing there, however speculative it may appear on the surface. I had a similar thought which I had been keeping aside for the moment, particularly until we learn a bit more about 'Isaac' (on the off chance that he's for real). I think you could figure it out without me spelling it out because the 'shell' of it is very similar to the idea you present. I attempted to message you regarding this, however the system doesn't allow this based on my relatively infrequent posts here. If you care to, you can read some of my posts on 'that other board' or at organelle7.

pax