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: 123
185
<< 120  121  122    124  125  126 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 22 2007 @ 07:04 PM
link   
Ok, makes you wonder though if the pole in the first picture is the same as it is in the close ups.




posted on Jul, 22 2007 @ 07:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Karilla
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]


I'm sorry but I disagree, I can't see any way flouro lighting can give those sharply outlined shadows, nor the type of high bay sodium or mercury lighting as normally used in hangars and warehouses.

Anything other than a single source would provide multiple shadowing and I can't see any evidence of that.

What I can see is shadows on the inside of ring 16 caused by the smaller internal "wire" rings that go part way round. To me, one of the shadows in particular doesn't look as if it should be where it is.

Could be just me, would welcome other opinions.



posted on Jul, 22 2007 @ 08:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by PsykoOps
Ok, makes you wonder though if the pole in the first picture is the same as it is in the close ups.

I'm thinking it's not , I'm thinking it would be the next pole towards him to his left, just seems funny he would have gotton himself under the lines , just a little move either way would have gave him a clean shot



posted on Jul, 22 2007 @ 11:41 PM
link   
I don't think this has any relevance but is interesting nonetheless.
On a website named www.chunder.com (any relation to you, Chunder?)
there's a photo called "Caret's UFO". Take a look:

UFO picture



posted on Jul, 23 2007 @ 04:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by pjslug
I don't think this has any relevance but is interesting nonetheless.
On a website named www.chunder.com (any relation to you, Chunder?)


Hi, no relation - I use Chunder on a few forums, it comes from this song and is Australian for unscheduled regurgitation.

[edit on 23-7-2007 by chunder]



posted on Jul, 23 2007 @ 06:42 AM
link   
I thought I'd seen the word somewhere before, and of course, you Aussies and your strange bands (one of my favorites - Black Lace, Bundaberg Rum, quality song that).

----

Anyway, back on topic, I've asked John (Lear) to pop in if he can at some point to give us his professional opinion on the 'hangar'.

One thing I would wonder is, how exactly that spikey piece came to be broken in the first place (because of the 'displacement field' around the drone that protects it, and if that piece got broken, why are there not more broken rings given their size) and why it fits so neatly onto the drones, when it looks like it's just placed on since the sides of the circular parts don't seem to have anything to mate to.



posted on Jul, 23 2007 @ 06:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by chunder
I can't see any way flouro lighting can give those sharply outlined shadows, nor the type of high bay sodium or mercury lighting as normally used in hangars and warehouses.


The reason I thought multiple light sources is that, while you can see a defined shadow for the closest objects, this isn't the case with the furthest. However, the closest object (item 16) does not ONLY have a sharp shadow. There is also a diffuse shadow, or actually shadows, associated with each object. In my opinion if you had a series of fairly dim light sources arrayed on the ceiling above so as to give as even a light distribution as possible (which is how the placement of large-space lighting is worked out), with one brighter, possibly point source, light above and to the left of item 16, you would see the type and range of shadows that we see. I also think that indirect daylight, say through skylights or large windows, with a supplementary point source could also give the same shadows.

Moonking, as far as the power-line thing, I'm just wondering how many times I've seen people on UFO forums wishing that a photographer had got some kind of measurable object in frame with a UFO, for the purposes of establishing a size/distance ratio cone. There's not much between in frame and in the way with a moving target. Just a thought.

Oh, BTW, never heard the spoof of Rolf Harris song: "Chunder rise, early in the morning, spreading all your drink all around...."?

[edit on 23-7-2007 by Karilla]

[edit on 23-7-2007 by Karilla]



posted on Jul, 23 2007 @ 08:13 AM
link   
I am currently working with a professor from Stanford University. His name is Pat Hanrahan.

- link to his webpage Pat Hanrahan

I have him looking at the orginal "Chad" photos as well as the photos from the "Isaac" documents. Analysis should be complete any day now and I will post an update as soon as I have one.

Also, even though his contact information is available to anyone if they search for it, please avoid sending him any additional emails as he was nice enough to take time out of his schedule to look at these images and I don't want to upset him.


[edit on 23-7-2007 by fibonacci]



posted on Jul, 23 2007 @ 12:50 PM
link   
This is my first time here, I been reading some of this post about chad picture and Isaac report, Just for reference check out this website www.parc.com... as you can see how synonymous goes with Isaac research. I hope it helps on this matter.



posted on Jul, 23 2007 @ 01:37 PM
link   
I don't know if it is a hoax or not. Seeing as how we cannot prove one way or another, i shall assume it is genuine and see what conclusions we can arrive at.

I have read through many of the pages of this thread, but time doesn't allow me to review them all at this time so please correct me if I am rehashing material already brought to this discussion.

First, if the glyphs are an operational code, perhaps that explains genuine crop circles. Instead of using metals on the craft, perhaps the earth itself is the medium and the crop patterns are the activation to achieve some desired change. Perhaps some of us here could begin going through documented crop circles to see if we can find any similarities to the code present on the craft.

Secondly, I came across the Above Top Secret site through listening to Coast to Coast. In the document, the author says he has been listening to C2C since 2002. Perhaps he is aware of ATS and maybe we could think of way in which he/she could join this discussion. We would have to ensure the secrecy of his/her identity as well as weeding out any imposters.



posted on Jul, 23 2007 @ 02:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by moonking
Something I just notice while quoting Isaac on a post ,2 post ago

Isaac said “These crafts, assuming they're anything like the hardware I worked with in the 80's (assuming they're better, in fact), are equipped with technology that enables invisibility”

HELLO !! , did you just say “ assuming they're anything like the hardware I worked with”
How about this “NUMB NUTS”


DO YOU THINK?



as much as i like the idea of this guy being the real deal i think you just made the final nail in his story's coffin stick. i have been fence sitting but very much a proponent that anythings possible and now i do believe there is enough supportive evidence to render a deffinitive decision.

thanx moonking.



posted on Jul, 23 2007 @ 02:05 PM
link   

First, if the glyphs are an operational code, perhaps that explains genuine crop circles. Instead of using metals on the craft, perhaps the earth itself is the medium and the crop patterns are the activation to achieve some desired change


then why do these crop circles always appear in the nice neat center of the crop field. If it truely were a code to an operational system and the earth being that medium, then wouldnt these imprints occure on dry ground, sandy beaches, water(?), and only a part of the picture being displayed on the wheat field as its placement would be more relevant to the earth rather than to the wheat field itself.

[edit on 23-7-2007 by hiii_98]



posted on Jul, 23 2007 @ 02:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by chunder

Originally posted by Averysmallfoxx
not necessarily, anyone skilled enough could lift the image from another source and cgi it into a background like so. the isaac caret page isnt affiliated by any means and this vid is not whats in question of being hoaxed or not. its the man and his technology that we are still debating over. try not to be so impulsive in coming to a decision and do try to stay on the subject at hand instead of a branch of it that he (isaac) takes no credit for in any way.


As EJ says careful friend.
Whether the drone pics are fake or not has total relevance to the Isaac docs considering that the Inventory Review photo shows parts of the drone and the writing is similar to that in the Q4 report. Recognising the writing is the reason Isaac came forward.
If the first published Chad drone pics are proven to be CGI or otherwise fake then Isaac's claims are also likely fake as what would be the probability of co-incidence that a fake drone actually looks exactly like recovered ET technology. There are a couple of other remote possibilities, as discussed previously on this thread, but the drone pics do have a direct relevance to the subject at hand.


yeah to chunder and ej, your totally right, i hadnt had that come to my attention to really recently i had some personal issues arise and i became distracted, to both of you and everyone else i do apologize if i sounded somewhat behind on the newest posts but ill try to be up to date with replies.



posted on Jul, 23 2007 @ 02:22 PM
link   
something really jumped out at me with this post when I went to PARC's website.

The content-centric Networking diagram


and ISSACs LAP diagram


they seem to have somewhat of a similarity

[edit on 23-7-2007 by sheila947]

[edit on 23-7-2007 by sheila947]

[edit on 23-7-2007 by sheila947]



posted on Jul, 23 2007 @ 02:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by ejsaunders
Excellent, well why are you the one who appears to be close minded then? In your posts you are basically saying things cannot be so because there is no reason for them being that way (like the no paper trail possibility you are expounding). The military is and always has been reliant on humans, and as far as I know, they're not infallable, so there is a huge room for error in anything it does. I'm just trying to lay out all the possibilities, like everyone else here. I've read this thing from page 1, you seemed to start at page one, read it, post your theories and then assume you'd found the answer to the universe. Most of what you said had already been discussed a little further on in the thread that's all I'm saying and I would assume, that anyone who has some time to get into such a large thread, should read at least half of it to get what's already been discussed.

am i implying the man that i quoted and responded to is ignorant? no. I dont know him in any capacity deemed fit for such conclusions.

So, uhh, why DID you make it then? Two completely different people came to the same view that you were insulting the man's intelligence.

in addition, judging the technology of this claim by vague discriptions of its behavior while activated is the very sort of thing we would like to see less of at such a place as this.this is afterall alien engineered (originally so) technology and it would make sense that a race beyond our abilities could generate technology that is also beyond our abilities,hence beyond our fathoming if you will.

WHERE did I say I believed in it? I did believe at first, but now I think this is a hoax. You seem to be assuming what I think on this subject, most of my posts have been to try and find out whether this is a hoax, I have not once rested in trying to find something that will reduce this to an amusing tale. I AM however open to the situation - if it does become clear by someone else's hard work its real, I will definitely be one of the first to apologise to those involved and say I was wrong. I'm a big boy, I can take having a wrong opinion.

as a sidenote i want to make sure i make my viewpoint abundantly clear. I do not in anyway suggest the drones or mr. isaac are real or legit. but i maintain that until deffinite proof is presented, it cannot be proven a hoax or proven to be real. so yes the discussion is in lingo till then. thats how these types of discussions usually go. often deffinity is unattainable or out of reach atleast for the time being. the emphasis is on keeping an open mind.

2. i understand the logic behind what your saying and what others are trying to do, and if they come up with anything i think they were right (obviously) to take such initiative. i maintain though that if these types of operations are so securely maintained, then the disposal of the "paper trail" of their existence would likely be also. especially regarding such immensely sensitive technology.

Such immensely sensitive information that was seemingly easily smuggled out and was in fact, if we take Isaac at face value, being worked upon by non-military personnel. A second ago you were saying 'keep an open mind' and now you're saying, reading between the lines, Isaac couldn't have these papers BECAUSE of the security.

What is it you think I'm trying to do exactly? I'm trying to prove Isaac is WRONG and a HOAX.


so it isnt at all a very close minded comment to say the technology itself cant work just because it sounds unlikely?
i made it pretty clear that i was fence sitting, i made my opinions on it public but i NEVER said he was the real deal, ever. i never said that skeptics were wrong or wrong for trying to debunk his claims. if you read my posts like you say you wouldnt be debating that.
and keeping an open mind means its possible even if unlikely,even if you feel its unlikely



posted on Jul, 23 2007 @ 02:54 PM
link   
Hello everyone

I have followed this thread from the start and have read every single post so far. The discussion as been very informative and I have to say I have certainly been suprised by some of the examples of what can be done with CGI!

I know that the argument of its/its not cgi is very important, but to me I have found the back story that supports these images to be the most intresting.

Lets say for the sake of it that it is a hoax. Who would do something like this and why? It could be argued that it is just a single or a group of pranksters with nothing better to do. It can also be argued that it is some kind of viral marketing (although I always thought the point of marketing was selling a brand and god knows what this is meant to be selling!) But is there a chance it could be a school or university project? The sheer level of time that seems to have been spent on this thing seems to point to a quite well organised and educated group working together. It could well be a educational project to see how different groups react to information across the internet, surely this could be a great project to run and study?

I'm not saying it is a hoax one way or another, but if so it would seem that this one has more of a purpose behind it than just annoying the ufo community!

But again it could really be evidence of never seen before technology! Either way what ever the verdict turns out to be its been great to follow and the people who have been participating on this thread have impressed me no end by remaining level headed (most of the time) and trying to come to a rational explanation.

Keep up the good work guys I'm really looking forward to learning some more.

regards
paul

[edit on 23-7-2007 by Hope_for_reason]



posted on Jul, 23 2007 @ 02:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Averysmallfoxx
as much as i like the idea of this guy being the real deal i think you just made the final nail in his story's coffin stick. i have been fence sitting but very much a proponent that anythings possible and now i do believe there is enough supportive evidence to render a deffinitive decision.


Isaac said in his document that he recognized the pieces in the drones (this was quoted a few pages back) as some of the ones they had in their possessions. He is simply stating that IF their properties and uses haven't changed from when he dealt with them, then they SHOULD do the things they did back then. No discrepancy here.

In addition, as I stated earlier, Isaac didn't really work with these pieces. They were in the CARET report, but his area of expertise and his work focused on the language. Because of this, it's very possible that he only has a general knowledge and memory of these objects.

[edit on 23-7-2007 by Amberite]



posted on Jul, 23 2007 @ 02:54 PM
link   
the guy said it, in reference to the functionality of the technology, sounded too far out to be realistic. let me get this straight, he thinks the reason its a hoax is the behavior of the artifacts, not the fact that the individuals who released the pics and isaac have a photo which connects them, not that the vids of these drones look more and more likely to be cgi than real? not because its pretty hard to see any shapes over a general figure that to be honest doesnt distinguish the actual diagram he says hes familiar with from his research days in the bb photo? this guy says its not feasible that this technology could exist based on the fact that he doesnt think technology could manipulate gravitational fields in the way described but he has no supportive evidence to stand on.he at no point mentioned any other reason, not one. i agree that i think its far fetched that isaac saw the bb photo and did notice some diagram that looked familiar to his research because u cant make out much of what is inscribed even in zooms.
while things can be likely or unlikely and its ok to state that, do not post some opinion that it can or cant be this or that just because you say so. show some logical reasoning that has logic behind it, scientific support is always nice too, IF your arguing that the its the technology that you dont agree with as oppose to the people perpetuating the story.
if a comment is made that is narrow minded and without factual support or logical reasoning, why shouldnt it be identified on a forum like this as at the very least an ignorant comment?
this is a conspiracy theory forum, you will get things here come out that sound far above and beyond our understanding especially in the realm of technology. lets not further a quarrel over a waste of a post, which is what i feel, his comment was. in no way did it contribute any meaningful information in any way and my responce was to make it clear that it is possible that anything on this forum is within reality's scope until it is proven to be hoaxed. does that mean it should be considered real until proven hoaxed? no way, just that its possible, nothing more.



posted on Jul, 23 2007 @ 02:59 PM
link   
It would have been helpful if Isaac had mentioned whether or not he had shown his material to anyone over the course of the years that he had it in his possession. What is the possibility that another Caret person also removed photos for some to use in modeling versus someone seeing Isaac's material. The later seems more probable. If it is not a real craft then Isaac or someone he knows is in on it, one way or another.



posted on Jul, 23 2007 @ 03:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Amberite

Originally posted by Averysmallfoxx
as much as i like the idea of this guy being the real deal i think you just made the final nail in his story's coffin stick. i have been fence sitting but very much a proponent that anythings possible and now i do believe there is enough supportive evidence to render a deffinitive decision.


Isaac said in his document that he recognized the pieces in the drones (this was quoted a few pages back) as some of the ones they had in their possessions. He is simply stating that IF their properties and uses haven't changed from when he dealt with them, then they SHOULD do the things they did back then. No discrepancy here.

In addition, as I stated earlier, Isaac didn't really work with these pieces. They were in the CARET report, but his area of expertise and his work focused on the language. Because of this, it's very possible that he only has a general knowledge and memory of these objects.

[edit on 23-7-2007 by Amberite]


right but if the photos released turn out to be cgi'd then it stands to reason that theyre connected and therefore if one element is hoaxed the other is too, those parts are perfect, they match completely and without any deviation of detail. too perfectly one might say.its just MHO.




top topics



 
185
<< 120  121  122    124  125  126 >>

log in

join