It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com 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: 122
185
<< 119  120  121    123  124  125 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 22 2007 @ 12:51 PM
link   
Ok I've done a precusory search and as far as I can tell, it has been a LOT of years since anyone used the 'lined slab' approach to making commercial and military hangars because it damages the wheels of the craft.

The last date I could find was 1967 for poured concrete slabbing, but can a few of you also look around to see if this correlates correctly please?

I've said all along this looks like poured plaster (i.e. a model hangar). The lighting is definitely wrong (top secret military items would undoubtedly have the door closed), and model wise, it looks much better to make concrete slabs than the smooth poured level concrete that seems to be the norm for REAL hangars (since it doesn't look realistic in a huge slab and can crack when drying or produce a meniscus (sorry sp?) round the edge because it dries quicker in the middle).

Seems at a glance, our guy's not stepped foot into a hangar for a long time. I couldn't find information on small hangars, like those used for say light aircraft, maybe he holds a pilot licence for small craft and is basing his knowledge on that?

JOHN LEAR get in here please!




posted on Jul, 22 2007 @ 01:05 PM
link   
To me the floor looks like the sort of floor you would expect to see in a warehouse. From Isaac's description of the PACL establishment I didn't get the impression that there was any scope for a hangar, most of the facility being underground with a single story building above ground. As we have no colour version of this image, we have no idea what colour temperature the lighting was.

I am of the opinion that it was shot under a large array of fluoro strip lighting, such as you would find in any warehouse/storage area. As fluorescent strips are not a point source the fall-off is only a factor of 2, rather than a factor of 4. This can give rise to exactly the sort of shadows that we can see.

[edit on 22-7-2007 by Karilla]



posted on Jul, 22 2007 @ 01:16 PM
link   
That's far more likely actually and I think we've all been considering this from the wrong perspective. Although, you'd have thought that they would have somewhere to float them outside to test them?

It looks big enough to do that though to be honest, so yes, undoubtedly you're right that is ISN'T a hangar, we just assumed it was.



posted on Jul, 22 2007 @ 01:17 PM
link   
Does anybody here find it strange that Isaac’s scan show’s a part that’s 20 years old that wasn’t on the first Tahoe drones?
What? They decided to whip that bad boy out and Slapped on the Raj Drone to see what that Baby could do?



[edit on 22-7-2007 by moonking]



posted on Jul, 22 2007 @ 01:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by moonking
Does anybody here find it strange that Isaac’s scan show’s a part that’s 20 years old that wasn’t on the first Tahoe drones?
What? They decided to whip that bad boy out and Slapped on the Raj Drone to see what that Baby could do?



[edit on 22-7-2007 by moonking]


Playing Devil's advocate here. It could have taken them 20 years to get it operational. Or, maybe it only works in that configuration.



posted on Jul, 22 2007 @ 01:25 PM
link   
Twenty years to get it operational ?
Then decided they didn’t like it, took it off then thought “Oh what the hell let’s build new design and test it at big basin, we’ve got a few weeks to get it done”



posted on Jul, 22 2007 @ 01:29 PM
link   
moonking, consider it like testing the new design against the old. We have no way of knowing how many working models exist. ( Now remember, I'm just bringing up the questions, as I think it is reasonable to assume it is cgi.)



posted on Jul, 22 2007 @ 01:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by NGC2736
moonking, consider it like testing the new design against the old. We have no way of knowing how many working models exist. ( Now remember, I'm just bringing up the questions, as I think it is reasonable to assume it is cgi.)

I hear you my man
Just what a quantum leap from “Chad, anonymous Raj” drone with the “simple form of alien language to the all out “complex form” on the “Stephen, Ty” drone. Not the usual slow pace of government projects

On the more humorous lighter side of things



If only Stephen’s name was Eddie LOL !




[edit on 22-7-2007 by moonking]



posted on Jul, 22 2007 @ 01:51 PM
link   
We also have no idea what the functions of those elements are. Certain drones could conceivably be differently configured for different purposes. So we have one very basic model, another that is capable of, say, scanning something or other, another that is capable of faster flight, and yet another (by the looks of it) that can also make a full continental breakfast and a pot of tea while whipping cream and freaking out hikers.



posted on Jul, 22 2007 @ 01:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by moonking

If only Stephen’s name was Eddie LOL !



Isn't the Spanish version of Stephan something like Estaphan?

Nothing comes easy on this one though.



posted on Jul, 22 2007 @ 01:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by NGC2736

Isn't the Spanish version of Stephan something like Estaphan?

Nothing comes easy on this one though.


My god your right, should have thought of that, being that my name is Steven and I lived in Miami Florida for 40 years and have been called that many times !



posted on Jul, 22 2007 @ 02:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Karilla
We also have no idea what the functions of those elements are. Certain drones could conceivably be differently configured for different purposes. So we have one very basic model, another that is capable of, say, scanning something or other, another that is capable of faster flight, and yet another (by the looks of it) that can also make a full continental breakfast and a pot of tea while whipping cream and freaking out hikers.

I'll say this much ,if that Big Basin Drone is Real ,I hope to hell that they know what ther doing, That’s one sophisamacated machine, one wrong move and Kablamo!!!



posted on Jul, 22 2007 @ 03:36 PM
link   
Look at the black and white pic Moon posted of that spikey slice thing.

WHAT is on the right-most side? It looks like either a piece of its fallen off and the spike is exposed, or its a pipe/control that should be attached to the main ring. WHY is this not in the pictures of the drone when the thing is attached to it? In the drone picture (same post by moon) we can see what looks like a flat piece of L shaped metal holding the thing on with screws or bolts, NOT that pipe piece in sight, why? You'd have thought if it's on the piece, it needs it, so why is it missing on the drones?



posted on Jul, 22 2007 @ 05:36 PM
link   



posted on Jul, 22 2007 @ 05:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by moonking
Does anybody here find it strange that Isaac’s scan show’s a part that’s 20 years old that wasn’t on the first Tahoe drones?
What? They decided to whip that bad boy out and Slapped on the Raj Drone to see what that Baby could do?



[edit on 22-7-2007 by moonking]


It's obviously not the same piece. The one in B&W has broken and bent "teeth". The one in the color photo does not.

Karilla,
Excellent observation with regards to the hangar probably being the warehouse.



posted on Jul, 22 2007 @ 06:03 PM
link   
Moonking, did he mention that he was on foot anywhere? The pics would match if they have been taken from a car, he screws up one shot cause the car is braking to stop and then after that gets a clear one. Also the drone is close to the wires in the first pic so unless it was moving really super slowly he must've been on wheels to get that shot from under.



posted on Jul, 22 2007 @ 06:25 PM
link   
Psyko - Check Linda's site, it gives you the stories better than anywhere else. As far as I remember, almost all of the people were biking or walking out in the bush.



posted on Jul, 22 2007 @ 06:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by PsykoOps
Moonking, did he mention that he was on foot anywhere? The pics would match if they have been taken from a car, he screws up one shot cause the car is braking to stop and then after that gets a clear one. Also the drone is close to the wires in the first pic so unless it was moving really super slowly he must've been on wheels to get that shot from under.

Rajman said
"The camera was still out from earlier so I grabbed it and tried to get some clear shots of it. It took off over the roof shortly after, so I ran into the street in front of the house to follow, trying to get more shots without wobbling around too much (which was harder than it sounds). It then came in lower over a telephone pole, where I was able to get a few more pictures"



posted on Jul, 22 2007 @ 06:28 PM
link   
After, together with my gf who minored in psychology, going thru the various websites that commented on the drones from the beginning we developed the "possible theory/scenario" (it is not more yet) that Whitley Strieber is behind this. His website ([sarcasm]with his wonderful subscriber section[/sarcasm]) has been on the drones story from day one, and he is certainly very close to LMH. In his (serveral times changed) journal entries he first sold the CARET stuff as real, then changed it to add "it is a possible hoax" and in the end seemed even actually offended by ATS and other board populations not buying into it, and then comes to say that no matter if hoax or not, the message is true, and starts his esoteric mumbo-jumbo about meditating over the symbols/diagrams like he meditates about crop circle designs...wtf????
I wouldn't be surprised to see the drones show up in his upcoming (september) 2012 novel and movie.
IF this is a hoax, I think he is behind it. Whether LMH is being used or in cahoots is another speculation.
As I previously said, both have before been caught in actively promoting hoaxes against better knowledge.



posted on Jul, 22 2007 @ 06:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by 11 11
comparing apples with oranges...


I wasn't comparing anything. I was simply making a point that cgi is becoming so elaborate that it has become increasingly difficult to distinguish between true and false. It now takes a higher level of technical expertise to make clear distinctions between computer generated images and reality generated images.



new topics

top topics



 
185
<< 119  120  121    123  124  125 >>

log in

join