It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


[HOAX] Isaac CARET - Drones [HOAX]

page: 107
<< 104  105  106    108  109  110 >>

log in


posted on Jul, 15 2007 @ 02:13 PM

Originally posted by chgowriter
You obviously know more about Palo Alto than I do, but isn't it impossible to build 5 levels underground in this area due to the likelihood of quakes

Can be. i will ask my father who is a civil engineer, who at one point was an "expert" in deep mine and structure engineering, and worked for the Navy for a while. I would agree that parts of the area would be susceptable to liquafaction. However, the clay soil structure is pretty deep, hard packed and almost concrete like.

To be honest, I am always a skeptic when it comes to underground structures. They are expensive, hard to maintain, and almost impossible to conceal in an urban environment. there are notable exceptions like the Greenbriar etc, but......

however, Stanford recently built a 4 level underground parking structure

In addition, a four-level underground parking structure will be built in the Pasteur Drive median.

posted on Jul, 15 2007 @ 02:46 PM

Originally posted by greatlakes
One Caret Program:
Creative Activities and Research Experiences for Teams (CARET) Program

The Creative Activities and Research Experiences for Teams (CARET) program is designed to enhance undergraduate involvement and experience in research and creative activity. This funding program is designed to encourage and support faculty engagement in research or creative activity with undergraduate student collaborators using a team approach over two semesters (Summer-Fall 2007). The research or creative activity can be one project for all team members or multiple projects across students. Although it is not required, faculty in departments with graduate programs are strongly encouraged to include Graduate Research Assistants as mentors.

Well, it's obviously not that CARET I guess. Still, just because the military labels a secret program 'CARET' (asuming it's not a hoax of course) doesn't mean civillians are not going to accidently use it. I mean - what are the odds of anything being out there about this 'CARET'? If it's so secret, I would imagine the powers that be would make darn sure there are no traces on the Net...


posted on Jul, 15 2007 @ 03:58 PM
Here's FredT's "communications" guv facility (or whatever it is) zoomed in on a high res aerial:

(the green arrow refs Fred's timestamp photo location)

[edit-fix link]

[edit on 7/15/2007 by Outrageo]

posted on Jul, 15 2007 @ 04:34 PM

Originally posted by wildone106
You people need to expand your mind as to what is capable with 3d software these days:

All of these images are completely fake, yet look completely real. And you think to make a few semi circles with light reflections is hard eh? Wake up..I mean it in the nicest possible way, but please..its not beyond anyone's capability to fake these 'artifact' pictures and indeed they look quite rendered by either Alias Maya, Softimage or Renderman..

More CGI that cant possibly be fake..

Probably this posting will be ignored as it seems people only read their own posts and that it, but for what its worth..

Originally posted by jhanks28cold
Been following this for a while tonight, and I can reasonably state these photos were definatley scanned into a computer, and after looking at the reflections off of the objects, they are definately real objects.

If you look in photo 3, the left I-beam has a piece of lint that is perfectly visible. This is virtually indisputeble evidence they were scanned in to the computer, not simply created with an image creater."

Problem is: to my untrained eye even - all the images you linked to LOOKED like CGI. Maybe a few of the landscapes could fool me - but most of the 'objects' (cars etc) looked like CGI.


admin edit: repaired quote tags - Jimbo please review the posting protocols for ATS in the TAC

[edit on 7-15-2007 by Springer]

posted on Jul, 15 2007 @ 04:46 PM

Originally posted by NGC2736
Does your gut feeling tell you anything about these numbers except direction? Do you feel that it's English words with a straight substitution? Or could it be whole "alien" words arranged in a left to right pattern?

Well, before I'd noticed the 'Protect' part I had noticed that the generator had long sentences and the drones/diagrams had very small chunks at the most, so my thought was that whoever made the generator diagram was not perhaps the same person who'd made the drones and the swirly diagram mostly because they don't 'match' up gramatically.

I.e. that one person made the gravity graphic first, 'Isaac' then made the documents (and didn't really look at the gravity device) and then perhaps afterwards noticed that they'd used long sentences and said "make it SEEM like writing next time (for the drones) but DON'T use sentences, just randomly make letters and numbers.

The generator seems like some sort of oversight or later addition. It could be that its there purely to make us think the whole thing is a hoax as some suggested - i.e. the drones and the documents are true but the generator is so blatantly fake it casts doubt on everything. I mean, why else does he want to speak to the other people who've seen the drones, that sounds a bit clandestine to me.

But, no, it does read like they were just substituting the symbols they made, for English to me; I don't think they were actually that clever enough to have encoded any sort of cipher but I could be wrong. It's more like someone writing out something in say Word and then changing Arial to an alien font - the underlying grammar and original language are there, but disgused. I think they also thought that randomly jumbling words would make it look better and less 'human'.

Having done something similar in the past (to wind up a friend who is a cryptographer, I think I mentioned it in the thread a while back), I made sure I typed everything in sentences, so I guess if you were WANTING to fool people you'd perhaps take that into consideration, I dunno.

I'm not really that big into cryptography enough to know how to go about using it to try and get at the data underneath, so it could be encoded in some form and the 'Protect' is actually to throw us off or make us look at the wrong end of the stick.

I'm starting to doubt my belief of hoax with each passing oddity I notice.

posted on Jul, 15 2007 @ 04:49 PM

Nemo provided a good web site, ovinus, that had sorted the letters, and seem to think there were eight numbers plus zero. This would be logical for a gray(?) as they are often shown/reported as having four digits per hand. I say this because our writer seems to have taken a lot of pains to do a back story on this as well, even if this backing is rather obscure. I too found nine "marks" that I thought were numbers, and a base eight system seemed right, as zero is needed for any higher math, making the total nine.

Does your gut feeling tell you anything about these numbers except direction? Do you feel that it's English words with a straight substitution? Or could it be whole "alien" words arranged in a left to right pattern?

You know, based on what Isaac said about the so-called infinite language being able to program the device but one letter out of place can yield a totally different instruction, it seems like this language might be an advanced sort of binary programming. Maybe each character on its own doesn't have a specific meaning, but in sequence perhaps each character is a place holder for 0, 1, 2, 4, 8, 16, 32, 64, and so on.. And the reason for using many different characters instead of just using two (such as 0 and 1) could be that it tells the computational substrate which layer to access. If it is a holographic substrate, then it would have many layers to it.

posted on Jul, 15 2007 @ 04:51 PM

Looking objectively the gravity generator seems to need longer sentence-like instructions than the drones single letter (upto about triple letter) 'words'. Seems odd to me that if this is some sort of shorthand, then why is it used short on the drones and swirly, but long on the generator?

Well, because the generator was supposed to be a recovered artifact and the drones are reverse engineered. I'm sure they never fully understood the language and therefore could only make sense out of some of it. They probably only figured out how to use triple character sequences and nothing more.

posted on Jul, 15 2007 @ 04:55 PM

Boy I find those links interesting , the first one the most , I'm assuming that he is mapping it out on the keyboard? can you post a link to the user that made it and the thread?
i'll try this edit again:I see you said other foum and not other forums, so I'll take that as a hint and off I go

The language looks like a combination between Hebrew and Japanese. The dots in the letters look like hebrew vowels, and many of the letters are extremely similar to hebrew writing. The plot thickens.

[edit on 7/15/2007 by pjslug]

posted on Jul, 15 2007 @ 04:59 PM

Wow! If this is's easily the most amazing thing I've ever read here on this board. Do we have ANY info on PACL? CARET? Anybody here hear of these projects before? If this is a hoax - it's one hell of a involved hoax. What does anyone here know about this??

Perplexed and amazed,


Yo Jimbo,
There is way too much to summarize it for you. There are 107 pages in this thread, and just as many on other forums as well. I suggest you read all of what has been posted here. It might take you some time, but it sure will help you digest all of it.

posted on Jul, 15 2007 @ 04:59 PM

Originally posted by wildone106
HOAX..those perfect renderings of the device parts is right out of Alias Maya or Renderman, holy cow perfect pristine CGI renderings that are supposed to be photographs..are we that stupid to this dude?

Furthermore, if he knows so much about advanced tech..he should submit himself to some kind of scientific review on what he actually knows and see if his knowledge about advanced material has any credibility..only THEN would I even consider this..but Im guessing he wont because all he knows how to do is render CGI objects.

What a tool..

I don't agree. Why go to the trouble of rendering details such as a tiny piece oflint on your photo? Surely it would be easier to make a coupe of small plastic medels, take a pic, then scan the photos. In that sense, I don't think the CGI argument holds up here.....if, judging by the samples of cutting edge CGI posted by another user here, are anything to go by, this guy is better at CGI than the professionals - why would he waste his time on an internet hoax when he could be making massive $$$ working in the computer games industry? I mean - why bother?


posted on Jul, 15 2007 @ 05:14 PM

Originally posted by jimbo999In that sense, I don't think the CGI argument holds up here.....if, judging by the samples of cutting edge CGI posted by another user here, are anything to go by, this guy is better at CGI than the professionals - why would he waste his time on an internet hoax when he could be making massive $$$ working in the computer games industry? I mean - why bother?


And there's the rub, to quote WS. A really good cgi person/team wastes a lot of time creating a hoax that is so indepth, and yet has almost purposeful flaws. It seems counterintuitive. I am almost ready to think these are actual photos touched up just enough so that cgi can be called on them at any time, like an escape clause.

And every time the hoax layer of the story is peeled off, another layer of things shows up, just like the writing is supposed to do on the drones. Everything has a hidden element. I went to research the site of PACLE, after FredT did the hard work, and I trip over the name of Vannevar Bush in the history of some people connected to this thing.


posted on Jul, 15 2007 @ 05:34 PM
Before we get excited about lint, remember that every genuine expert has stated they believe these are REAL photographs with the CGI drones/generators, etc... added to them and then the whole composition was printed and scanned back into the computer.

Which is a very possible and likely way to get artifacts like lint and whatnot.


posted on Jul, 15 2007 @ 05:39 PM
Springer, you are right. And the same carries over to a lot of items. And we're sure there are elements of a hoax here, and maybe it is all hoax.

But the thing that interests me is the elaborate methods and the time and resources put into a hoax that at best will be noted by only a small group of people.

It has all the "feel" of plausable denyablity.

posted on Jul, 15 2007 @ 05:49 PM

Originally posted by curme
I'm amazed that after stuffing the papers in his pants, that there isn't a fold or a crinkle, but then again, he has hundreds of other pages he hasn't shown.

I'm curious about the blacked-out words. Why would the gov't censor the documents before he and his co-workers got them, or did Issac censor them himself?

I mean, Issac is already working with ET technology, what could be so sensitive as to censor from him and the other people on the project? I guess Iaasic could of done it, but why photocopy sensitive material for release, and then black it out?

What does everyone else think about it?

And something else I was curious about. He said his office was one exposed story with a fake company name and logo (why not say the fake company name?) and five stories below ground. How do you build something like that in secret? "over 200 computer scientists, electrical engineers, mechanical engineers, physicists and mathematicians" going in and out of a one story building? That's a big parking lot. "bi-weekly tours were made by military brass to ensure that not a single detail was out of line" I guess they dressed in civilian clothes.

My guess would be that 'Issac' censored them - either to help keep his identity concealed, and/or to keep certain sensitive info out of the hands of foreign governments....which would make sense if the docs are real.


posted on Jul, 15 2007 @ 05:53 PM

Originally posted by fooffstarr

Originally posted by augoldminer


Not saying i don't believe you or anything, but here is a possible explanation for that.

We all know about the supposed 'black budget' projects and shadow govt etc etc, so are we so sure they would stick to a code regarding documentation? Sure, it would be classified to some crazy level above top secret (pun intended), but they may have a different system to the standard govt. body one.

Just a thought.

Good point. Also, wasn't the stated aim of back-engineering these devices for 'commercial, civilian' use (albeit in very basic, primitive forms) in order to raise cash for other 'black projects'? If so - you wouldn't want a paper trail congress could follow leading to the secret funds really, would you?


admin edit: Jimbo PLEASE review the quoting protocol for ATS.

[edit on 7-15-2007 by Springer]

posted on Jul, 15 2007 @ 06:00 PM
Hey guys check out Now a press article there. This is starting to grow again.
[Edit]And witnesses with names, ages and locations.
[Edit2] And the site is apparently ran by

[edit on 15/7/2007 by PsykoOps]

posted on Jul, 15 2007 @ 06:08 PM

Originally posted by neformore
Another thought, have you visited the Transformers website for the film?

Look at Ironhide and Blackout, and Megatron as depicted, see any familiarity in the "structural" elements there? not really. I looked at the depictions on the official movie site, but I can't see anything similar to the Issac documents.


posted on Jul, 15 2007 @ 06:09 PM
It's not transformers, many have already seen it and said that there's nothing to link the drones with the movie.

posted on Jul, 15 2007 @ 06:11 PM
Google that email of the website and you get one link on a msg board he has posted with the name 'kalama'. That's as far I've followed so far.

posted on Jul, 15 2007 @ 06:17 PM
I'm starting to feel like this is some sorta game cause now the board claims that the user isn't registered

top topics

<< 104  105  106    108  109  110 >>

log in