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: 125
185
<< 122  123  124    126  127  128 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 23 2007 @ 06:13 PM
link   
That to be honest mate, is what is SO enfuriating and captivating about this whole thing - the fact nothing has happened to truly prove it either way. I can't say for 100% I think this is definitely a hoax because I can't give myself the whole suspension of belief, if feels real, but in a surreal way if that makes any sort of sense.

It's amazing the amount of people who've said "I want this to be true", and strangely enough I feel slightly the same way - who'd not want to see one of these things; they don't feel alien, nor do they appear overtly threatening, which is why it feels so surreal - the old 'Gingerbread house' trick is going round and round in my mind. Could these be 'we come in peace' but in 3D? What happens when we take them to our leader, considering the lunatics in charge these days? Or is it for our benefit that we don't see them as threatening until too late?

I was watching Stargate Atlantis the other day and noticed the little ships that collect the people for the Wraith - we have preconsieved ideas that WE CANNOT POSSIBLY FIT inside that drone. Why not? If its a holographic substrate, couldn't it hold a copy of ourselves in a buffer and recreate a new us at the other end? Size is not really an indication of power, but humanly we see it that way.

But on the other side - if I was Isaac I'd release everything I had and talk about it, because thats the best way of staying alive (or maybe it isn't, who made this plan, was it leaked by the government themselves, that once you go public we can't whack you?). If I was Chad who seems to see these things all tthe time, I'd buy a video camera and a few disposable cameras/digi cams and take a million shots of these things and post them everywhere.

Too much smacks of truth, and too much smacks of lies or deception, its hard where to see the line and make a final judgement in this case.




posted on Jul, 23 2007 @ 06:25 PM
link   
If a person is going to release sensitive data of ET nature why not put all the info out in one release. Once again someone creates a hazy connection to an event. Is there actually any part of it that can confirm anything. Even the background info is hazy except to someone who was there in the know, like the government. It's not helping the UFO cause for belief.

If it is all real then Isaac didn't do a very good job of getting evidence across to the world. I find it hard to believe he would release real information in this method.



posted on Jul, 23 2007 @ 07:12 PM
link   
Good to see some new informed people joining in.

Just with the shadows on the inventory report I think it was throwing me when looking at it the way it is presented. I am pretty definite that the picture wasn't taken this way and that the numbers have been added in error.

The picture (and shadows) really only make sense when rotated 90 degrees clockwise.

Edited to add - It also then looks as if ring 13 may be broken.
When looking at the manufacture of these pieces there is nothing to indicate advanced technology at all. To me these look man made, no evidence, just a hunch and that I believe I have seen something very similar in some piece of machinery somewhere and it's driving me mad that I can't remember.

The only theory I can come up with that fits with a pile of parts, some broken, being photographed on a hangar type floor is a crash investigation. For some reason I keep thinking of a fairground ride.

I know I'm not offering any evidence but I think it would be very sloppy for a photo in an Inventory Report to be inserted and labelled the wrong way round.

Maybe if anyone knows any engineers or service mechanic type people they could forward this picture asking if anyone can identify the parts ?

[edit on 23-7-2007 by chunder]



posted on Jul, 23 2007 @ 07:31 PM
link   
I get the feeling (I hate going on gut feelings) that there are two groups on this. Now the question is, are they both hoaxers, playing off of each other? Or, is one side trying to disinfo the other? And if it's one side against the other, which is real and which is not?

Even though I accept that there are cgi elements to some of the pics, there's still problems with the scene, like we're being diliberately spoon fed. And the back story leaves out more than it gives up, (we had a name for girls like that once upon a time.).

I guess it just means that we keep digging. And we examine every idea that comes up, no matter how far out it seems, because all the easy ideas have failed.

As a last note, I really am glad to be looking at this with the help of such an outstanding group. Yes, we bicker and quarrel some, but only because the end result matters to us. And I will always prefer a passionate search for truth over the idiotic acceptance of an easy way out based on a guess and hoping the guess is right.



posted on Jul, 23 2007 @ 07:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by XPhiles
Amberite

I think any modeler could wip up a Chad drone in short amount of time. I could if I wanted too, but I don't think I want to go there lol... I'll stick to cgi. As far as price it would be cheap, balsa wood, wire, clear coat, decals. I guess the professional modeler who posted, charges by the minute lol


Are you kidding? Look at the high res big-basin scan and tell me you can rig that thing up in a short amount of time. The complexity is staggering, even in a 3D program. You're talking about cutting, fitting, gluing and assembling hundreds of pieces of wood, most of which have to be an exact shape and size replica to others (for example, the teeth, the rings, the statue of liberty spikes, etc). The amount of work you'd need to do is above and beyond anything you're thinking.

You know there are modeling conventions where people present their works which are MUCH smaller than this, and much less intricate, and yet still takes them months to assemble. In the comment I posted earlier, I didn't make these claims up. I took them from an alleged professional modeler who said those things early in this thread.



posted on Jul, 23 2007 @ 08:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by chunderThe only theory I can come up with that fits with a pile of parts, some broken, being photographed on a hangar type floor is a crash investigation. For some reason I keep thinking of a fairground ride.

I know I'm not offering any evidence but I think it would be very sloppy for a photo in an Inventory Report to be inserted and labelled the wrong way round.


I think you are dead right about the orientation, and the reason for the shot. The perspective and lighting only make sense seen in landscape. All this shows in my view is that whoever took the photo took it in the most natural orientation in which to use any camera. My very first job to do with photography was printing on an old Noritsu RA4 machine in a 1 hour minilab. I can tell you for sure that most people who don't take photos for a living take pictures in landscape orientation (as opposed to portrait) most of the time. Especially with an array of objects laid out on floor like the Q-3-85 shot, it wouldn't make sense to shoot it the other way, and having smaller items in the frame and a whole chunk of useless background.

The person who is laying out the report, for printing on A4 paper, probably according to a set template, is not concerned about the orientation of the image. The only sensible way to lay out an A4 document is in portrait orientation. It does the job it was intended for, and, to me, makes the whole thing more plausible rather than less so. The author of the report doesn't seem to have had any interest in making the document aesthetically pleasing or convincing. Who did he have to impress or convince?

Now put the shoe on the other foot. Why would a 3D modeller create his scene, whose only purpose is to go in the report, in that orientation? Unless he used the reasoning I used above, it makes no sense.

[edit on 23-7-2007 by Karilla]



posted on Jul, 23 2007 @ 08:27 PM
link   
As a new poster here, I ask for your patience while I learn the ATS ropes, so to speak. Several nagging unanswered questions I have, taken all together, lead me to believe that the C2C/CHAD/LMH/ISAAC drone photos, manual, and theory are a hoax. Well done, but a hoax nonetheless.

#1. Why is it that these drones SUDDENLY ONLY APPEAR as UFOs in 2007 and are of such a new and unique shape? I have looked at thousands of recent and historic pictures, illustrations, artwork, and photos both online and offline in books, magazines, and video documentaries. These historic UFO shapes are not at all congruent with the Chad/LMH/et al drone photos. And there has not been very much historical evidence of extensive externally viewable language or writing. Makes no sense for these features to suddenly appear to be sighted just now and in this clustering.

#2. The drones are not aerodynamic and appear quite fragile. I don't know how they would reside in a hanger or mother ship unless they were in a constant state of anti-grav suspension. And they are supposed to change rotation and direction rapidly? If gravity was neutralized would the law of centrifugal force also be gone? Wouldn't the fragile drone fly apart?

#3. The shapes of the drones look to be generated by a human imagination and mind set. I have, for example, a new age battery-operated head massager with gently curving fingers which are a dead ringer for the shape of the tines on the CHAD/et al drones. The visible 'language' resembles existing fantasy fonts (Star Wars), movie alphabets and language (Klingon) or existing earth language (Japanese). If I wanted to hoax an alien 'language' I would construct it using my memory engrams to 'invent' shapes and letters we humans could identify as being an organized set of symbols. And yes, I know that the 'language' is really an endless dynamic alphabet of 3-D computing activity when surrounded by a particular field . . . this concept nicely adds to the believability of the hoax.

#4. Isaac's claim to be able to photocopy and smuggle out all of those manual pages with pictures is just not believable. First of all, having an armed guard down the end of a hallway who is not observing a photocopy machine directly does not make sense. There were surveillance cameras in those days to cover critical security areas in both military and civilian complexes. Isaac does not mention them. It also does not make sense to have a printed MANUAL in a BINDER available for easy theft and/or photocopying. I used to photocopy (we called them ‘XEROX' machines in those days) heavily back then and you could track the NUMBER OF COPIES MADE manually with a built in copy counter. Some copy machines were user specific and you had to key in a special code or keyword indicating who you were. I believe that this would be monitored ever so carefully to prevent unauthorized copies from being made. Basic security rules applied then as now.

#5. As for the drone photos taken in or near Bakersfield, CA. , I can reliably say that I don't think so. I lived in Bakersfield and that type of foliage and terrain are not representative of that part of California.



posted on Jul, 23 2007 @ 08:34 PM
link   
This thread has gone quite a distance without finding real resolution. Might I add my own very humble opinion?

With regards to the documents released by "Isaac", there is an aspect of them that I've never seen mentioned in all of the speculation I've read about them. It's possible that a very clever mind could've come up with the notion of self-actualizing software, but it's a fairly sophisticated concept. The thoughts (and level of language) contained in the written documents would've required that they be written by someone accustomed to description at a very high scientific level. In addition, the photographs of the artifacts are of a clarity that would've taken an an exceedingly long time to render with CGI, if it were actually possible at all.

The "analysis" labeled pages (119-123) however, have a graphic quality that has no real precedent in human art. Many people who have looked at the alphabet/font contained in these have claimed to have found a match for them, but in reality all they found were vague similarities. The writing is contained within designs of almost supernatural elegance, line-work of astonishing finesse and delicacy. There may be a human draughtsman capable of work on this order but in years of study, I've never seen anything to match it. Taking a close look at the specimens provided, you can see that the original easily defeated the resolution of the copier that was used for the CARET booklet, indicating that some of the writing and graphic symbols reach down into microscopic size.

Most hoaxes are carried out by a single person but it seems fairly clear that what we've seen, when taken all together, is likely well beyond the expertise of an individual. Each element of these documents, the photographs, the font design, the technical language used along with the graphic design exhibited in the analysis pages, would've required experts capable of a very high level of work, even a considerable element of genius. A powerful government might be able to assemble a team like this but it is well beyond the capacity and limitations of a single individual.

If you come to the realization that this "CARET" evidence is really extraordinary, you're inevitably going to remember that it was preceded by photographs that bear a striking resemblance to the parts revealed in Isaac's documents. Right off the bat, we saw comments claiming that these were obvious CGI frauds. Even some well known organizations came to this conclusion, citing the technical reasoning behind their conclusions. I think we can all agree that these photographs (suspiciously submitted by people who continue to remain anonymous) are linked to the Isaac documents. If either is false, so must be the other. If, however, we decide that the documents are potentially credible, doesn't it suggest that we need to take another look at the "drone" photos? Surely there have been recent attempts to discredit them by cobbling together hoax photos, but does one hoax really taint them all?

You might try taking a second look at the Isaac documents with an eye to the work that would've been involve in creating them all from scratch. I think you'll come to the realization that they are well beyond the talents of one person. If a group of people were involved, they'd need to be professionals of the highest calibre, certainly not the kind of people that you would associate with what would be an extremely elaborate charade. The involvement of a government seems unlikely (what would be the purpose of it?) but it has to be looked at. In my opinion, there are really only two realistic possibilities: either all of this (including the original drone photos) is the work of a very talented government team or we are looking at genuine artifacts of "alien" technology.

Nearly every aspect of these documents could be fabricated by talented people, equipped with technology provided by a bottomless black budget. The one element that seems to defy this kind of construction though, is that which we would label the "graphic arts" facet of it. Looking at the "analysis" pages, I quite literally get goosebumps taking in what is purported to be alien software. If any human hand created these images, they've squandered a staggering talent. The intelligence, symmetry and natural clarity displayed in them easily surpasses any illustration in the history of human art. I would suggest to you that these pages are "un-hoaxable" and stand as proof that, as unlikely and impossible as it might seem, we are looking at the first concrete evidence of contact with an advanced intelligence.



posted on Jul, 23 2007 @ 09:02 PM
link   
Just thought I’d mention that Linda Moulton Howe will be on coast to coast Friday



Investigative reporter Linda Moulton Howe will share a fascinating interview with a university professor in Computer Science and Engineering, who is so impressed with the Isaac letters and CARET document that he agreed to talk about them on the record.



posted on Jul, 23 2007 @ 09:14 PM
link   
Arlington,

Nice way to join the community. That's a very well formulated post, and it's exactly how I feel about the whole subject.



posted on Jul, 23 2007 @ 09:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Arlington Acid
Nearly every aspect of these documents could be fabricated by talented people, equipped with technology provided by a bottomless black budget. The one element that seems to defy this kind of construction though, is that which we would label the "graphic arts" facet of it. Looking at the "analysis" pages, I quite literally get goosebumps taking in what is purported to be alien software. If any human hand created these images, they've squandered a staggering talent. The intelligence, symmetry and natural clarity displayed in them easily surpasses any illustration in the history of human art. I would suggest to you that these pages are "un-hoaxable" and stand as proof that, as unlikely and impossible as it might seem, we are looking at the first concrete evidence of contact with an advanced intelligence.

For what it’s worth, a similar creation from 'saladfinger' fooling around with it, in case you missed it
i11.tinypic.com...



posted on Jul, 23 2007 @ 09:35 PM
link   
Yes, that's an interesting illustration but.......it's important to keep in mind that this is simply a shifting of the elements provided in the CARET documents. Find me something that matches it dated prior to the release of these images and you'll be on to something important. A part of me really hopes you (or someone) can, as the alternative is quite unsettling.



posted on Jul, 23 2007 @ 09:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Arlington Acid

It's possible that a very clever mind could've come up with the notion of self-actualizing software, but it's a fairly sophisticated concept. The thoughts (and level of language) contained in the written documents would've required that they be written by someone accustomed to description at a very high scientific level. In addition, the photographs of the artifacts are of a clarity that would've taken an an exceedingly long time to render with CGI, if it were actually possible at all.

The "analysis" labeled pages (119-123) however, have a graphic quality that has no real precedent in human art. The writing is contained within designs of almost supernatural elegance, line-work of astonishing finesse and delicacy. There may be a human draughtsman capable of work on this order but in years of study, I've never seen anything to match it.


When considering whether something may be a hoax or not, people often underestimate the talent and time and tenacity that a particular human is capable of putting forth in the creation of a well thought out hoax.

Take a look at some of the past hoaxes in our history for some elaborate examples. The john titor hoax is one in particular. There are many more. There are also hoax websites that have taken much time and talent and skill to produce, to accomplish what? Just for the sake of entertainment, either themselves or others or both. Here is a "Male Pregnancy website" that is clearly a hoax and is more professionally designed than possibly 60% of the websites out there! www.malepregnancy.com...

Here is one particularly elaborate site, complete with multiple levels of links, artwork, detailed descriptions. It claims to display artifacts that were found in underground caves beneath the New Mexico desert by the Advanced Contact Intelligence Organization (ACIO), a secret branch of the U.S. Government's National Security Agency. These artifacts were apparently left there by an alien race known as the WingMakers.

Much attention to detail and time spent on this parody website, is it based in part or whole on true events? No, it's a parody website created by some talented people, just like the Isaac Caret Hoax.

Here it is, some 1000 pages of information...all created as a parody and possibly to get people to think about things differently...WINGMAKERS.COM

And finally, just some more examples of websites that are farces/hoaxes where the creators show talent, artistic creativity and much time spent in the creation:

www.petsorfood.com...
www.mailorderhusbands.net...

The above sites are humorous and meant as farces/parodies/hoaxes, and were created in the same manner that any good hoax is created, only these are done with html and website design. Hope the sites were entertaining to you all


And Finally, "Can One Man Build Stonehenge?" Added this video to show that man's ability should never be underestimated, whether looking at the creation of the pyramids, Stonehenge or other colossal construction projects, the possibility that man created them should not be easily dismissed and substituted for 'other' sources.



[edit on 7/23/2007 by greatlakes]



posted on Jul, 23 2007 @ 09:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Arlington Acid
Yes, that's an interesting illustration but.......it's important to keep in mind that this is simply a shifting of the elements provided in the CARET documents. Find me something that matches it dated prior to the release of these images and you'll be on to something important. A part of me really hopes you (or someone) can, as the alternative is quite unsettling.

It’s more than just a shifting of parts; it was created from scratch on adobe illustrator, if that’s what you mean
His point in creating it was how Adobe illustrator lent itself to creating it at every turn as he pointed out that he wasn’t that experience with that program itself
He also has created videos of the drone, one that was reported as real for a while, one of his "still shot’s" of a drone keeps popping up here as another sighting (the one with the tripod in front)
Point being , if you saw this illustration lumped in with the other Isaac “primers” would you have known the deferent’s ?



posted on Jul, 23 2007 @ 10:01 PM
link   
Here's kind of an interesting thing to look at. Check out this 3-D stereo pair of the photos of the drone and the telephone pole. It's a cross-eyed pair, so all you folks who can freeview 3-D are in luck. Just cross your eyes until the bits of the pole line up. (Oh, the drone obviously won't line up, because it's moved, but there is something interesting about that, too.)



Anyway, look. The "background" images of the pole and the sky have enough separation to create a decent 3-D image. So it's not just a duplicate photo that's been blurred. Looking past the pole, way up into the sky, you can see that it is indeed far away, and the cloud formations line up pretty good, so the photos were taken at about the same time.

But what about the drone? Well, it moved, but it moved in a very cool way. If you isolate the drone (bring your focus in on the central hub), you'll see that it has dimensionality of its own! Is that cool, or what? The "hoaxer" not only shifted the drone, they also tilted it to precisely mimic the change in parallax that you'd see if it moved from slightly above you to more directly above you. He changed the YAW of the craft to be accurate with the photos.

It's been said before, but it bears repeating. Somebody who would take the time to visualize precisely how the drone would move in 3-D space from photo to photo is really going all out.


Now, here's another one. Cross-eyed stereo again. Check this one out.



Not much in the way of background imagery. The trees are so identical that it's very possible that it's two copies of the same image, although I think I detect a teensy bit of dimensionality in it. You tell me.

But look at that probe! Nice, huh? The central portion is in basically the same position in each photo, but it's aparently either rotated slightly or moved exactly in such a way that you can really see the work that they did (or may have done) to create a full 3-D image they could manipulate according to the photos.

What does it mean? I don't know. Except that maybe it cranks up the level of effort that it took to do it. For your consideration.

[edit on 23-7-2007 by SuicideVirus]



posted on Jul, 23 2007 @ 10:20 PM
link   
Greatlakes, thanks for that. I don't mean to underplay the potential of personal mischief driving this but my perception of this is still grounded by the scope of talents that would've been needed to create these particular artifacts. I suppose it's *possible* that there's an individual capable of piecing together the scientific language, the very precise (and therefore time-consuming) "CGI" images, the font design and all of the other facets of this presentation. However, that seems much more unlikely than likely, doesn't it?

If it wasn't put together by an individual, you need to consider a group of specialists, each one at the top of his/her field. That would imply government involvement. What would be the purpose of a government producing images/information of this kind? Perhaps I'm simply not very imaginative about these things but I fail to see any sensible rationale behind it.

I say these thing from the perspective of being one who assumed that the original "drone" images were frauds, however interesting they were. I've really only come to the realization that these CARET items could be authentic based on rather lengthy meditations on the "analysis" images and working my way back through the other documents, up to and including the "Chad" photos.

I may be an imbecile for reaching the conclusion I have, but I have yet to see anything stronger from the "anti" side that outweighs the documents.



posted on Jul, 23 2007 @ 10:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by moonking

Point being , if you saw this illustration lumped in with the other Isaac “primers” would you have known the deferent’s ?


It's difficult to be absolutely certain (after all, I DO know it's a re-creation, and that could influence my perception) but I think I would've known. It should be pretty obvious that we aren't just talking about the utilization of certain symbols, it's the application of them in a way that implies a natural genius, someone who's completely at ease with the use of them. The recreation is (and my apologies to it's creator) very heavy-handed and clumsy. Of course, this is just my own perception of it, however wrong and misguided I might ultimately be.



posted on Jul, 23 2007 @ 10:46 PM
link   
i keep hearing about how saldfingers created a very similar sketch of the report pages. how others have made their own cgi interpretations. now thats all well and good (i applaud the effort and definitely respect the skill level involved), but a copy is just a copy... looking at something already imagined and duplicating it. many people have painted the monalisa by copying but creating the original took a little bit more. the creative aspect involved in thinking up a "hoax" this elaborate and executing it with precision in almost every aspect takes an intellect few and far between the average population. tread carefully because the extent of this seems to have not played out totally and the people behind this are most likely not going to slip up over some mundane detail.

i have not made up my mind yet, but as far as im concerned... if the author/authors of these photos, transcripts, and stories didn't actually work for a secret government project, they probably should have.



posted on Jul, 23 2007 @ 11:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Arlington Acid
If it wasn't put together by an individual, you need to consider a group of specialists, each one at the top of his/her field. That would imply government involvement. What would be the purpose of a government producing images/information of this kind? Perhaps I'm simply not very imaginative about these things but I fail to see any sensible rationale behind it.

It would seem implausible but really is not in my view. I have a friend in the 'industry' as they say, in the special effects industry. He has worked on most of the top FX movies within the last 8 years or so, movies like titanic, Terminator 3, Minority report etc. He's very good at what he does and its 'fun' for him, not like work at all.

Well he's very talented and his friends have these crazy get-togethers where they formulate little hobby or side projects all the time throughout the year...Some projects are small weekend or two long, others are longer term.

They do all sorts of realistic models, movie sets, miniature scale flyovers, really top notch quality stuff that fools us (the audience) all the time. So some of their side projects range from FX to some that are hoaxes and are just meant to be fun for them, some have reached the local news media as well as being something that they were not...So yes its not uncommon for a group of like-minded individuals to get together and 'conspire' to produce results and I'd hazard to say that its more common than you think.

If a group of people is responsible for the Isaac docs (which I'd be more inclined to believe) it does not necc. mean that it's done by gov't sources. It could very well be my friends group above (or any myriad of others) as I hav'nt spoken to him in awhile, also some of his projects were only disclosed to close friends after the fact...after disclosure...


[edit on 7/23/2007 by greatlakes]



posted on Jul, 23 2007 @ 11:01 PM
link   
Some good thoughts from many.

Assuming it's a hoax for the purpose of this post.

Just on how many different groups could be involved unless more than one "group" had access to the language primer and the inventory report photo then it can only be one "group".

The Chad / Anonymous pics showed the basic ring configuration with language on the Chad arms from the primer.

The Rajman pics showed the broken part with spikes from the inventory review for the first time.

The Stephen and Ty pics showed the symbols from the primer for the first time.

I guess you could argue Anonymous hoaxed Chad or vice verce and Ty hoaxed Stephen but pretty unlikely as this throws dates pics were taken out and puts us back into arguing data from camera's etc.

Also the "company logo" symbols on the arms of the Chad pics appear to be the same logo on the parts in the Inventory Report photo.

Even if you just take the Chad, Rajman and Stephen or Ty pics I think they show that if a hoax then they all had access to the same source material.

Question is does this mean if one single picture is a hoax the whole thing is and if so do we accept the earlier shadowing analysis of the Rajman pics as proving it a fake ?



new topics




 
185
<< 122  123  124    126  127  128 >>

log in

join