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: 129
185
<< 126  127  128    130  131  132 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 25 2007 @ 02:55 AM
link   
Salutations! I'm also not Isaac!!! (Although our intern goes by that name...)

Earlier in the thread, two big names in graphics (Springer referenced them, I think one of them worked for photoshop?) both agreed that the photos were CGI. Since the release of the higher resolution Big Basin photo, would it not be prudent for them to examine/re-evaluate it?

Four possible outcomes:
drone photos hoax / caret report hoax - unknown ; this is the simplest solution
drone photos hoax / caret report genuine - false ; drone photos were released prior to the CARET report and contained the same parts and writing as found in the report.
drone photos genuine / caret report hoax - false ; the CARET report could not have extrapolated a high resolution alien font from comparably low resolution drone pictures.
drone photos genuine / caret report genuine - unknown ; Occam’s razor weighs against this.


Random thoughts:
- when this drone business first started, I recall following a thread for a few pages and then reading a post that had a picture of a drone wing/tail with the writing on it in what looked to be a convention type setting. I immediately wrote the drones off as a hoax. Does anyone else recall seeing this? I can no longer find it in any of the threads!

- regarding Isaac and EngineeringType, don't feel bad moonking. My first reaction to EngineeringType's post was the same as yours. I didn't say anything last night simply because the writing styles were so similar, someone was certain to ask it. Perhaps inasmuch as people in certain professions think along similar lines, they would also write in similar styles?

- regarding the double hyphen similarity in Isaac and EngineeringType's writing. I know we've been through this angle before, but what are the odds of this? LOL! :-)
Wikipedia says: "In Japan, the double hyphen is used as a separation for a person's name written in katakana"




posted on Jul, 25 2007 @ 03:03 AM
link   
It is typical to have people fire off instantaneous judgements about what was said. let me help you clarify.

a few of us found Engi's contributions very good, very very good. and if we had any notions of suspect, we had none in ill intent. its just what we were all looking at. it doesnt mean he is ostracized and i would caution the writer trying to convey that. I dont think anyone of us ment to accuse or attack Engi and i for one think that he is, if anything, a brilliant individual, simply he writes well, articulates well, focuses and clarifies his sentences well, and has professional knowlege not only of terms of pertinence but experience in the fields that utilize them, that is a pretty coincidental likeness to the profile of a person leaking such information but it in no way implies E.T. is, we simply had the urge to ask. nothing is fact until confirmed.

One last time Engee we dont intend ill will and i reiterate my apology if it was insulting. i if i were you would consider the intellectual prowess we viewed in your explanations that led up to our askings. its more flattery than insult.



posted on Jul, 25 2007 @ 03:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by Arlington Acid
I disagree chunder.

I mean "self-actualizing software"?

If this is easy stuff to you, you could be making gigantic money in the private sector, dreaming up ideas for the corporate flunkies!



Hi - responses in order from above.

No worries - your perogative, glad to have the debate.

The concept is not that far out - it's basically what you do when you write instructions on computer controlled engineering fabrication machinery. You'll find "self actualising software" in a Harry Potter film.

How do you know I'm not ? Or that Isaac isn't or used to ? I never said it would be easy for me personally, only that given the right resources it was certainly possible. Concepts are fairly easy if you have an entrepreneurial background - practical moneyspinners are the hard ones.

Discussion about the document is good - don't forget though that if any of the drone or report pics are fake so probably is Isaac's info.



posted on Jul, 25 2007 @ 03:26 AM
link   
You guys lol... When EngineeringType posted:

If Isaac fabricated the documentation on the CARET program, then he spent years making it.


Now that would of been a good spot to stop reading lol... Come on, it wouldn't take hoaxers years to produce Isaac's engineering babble, maybe weeks or a month but not years for a nontechnical hoaxer lol. Somebody must be in a euphoric state of mind seeing people analyze their content like this. Years my a$$ lol... well yeah, that is where I stopped reading it.

Oh! I would bet coasttocoastam this Friday with Linda Moulton Howe will be saying exactly the same with their engineer professor. Anyone wanna bet the Friday show content will be along the same lines as EngineeringType post lol...

Isn't that a striking occurrence! Coincidence anyone?
bets please....



posted on Jul, 25 2007 @ 03:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by XPhiles
You guys lol... When EngineeringType posted:

If Isaac fabricated the documentation on the CARET program, then he spent years making it.


Now that would of been a good spot to stop reading lol... Come on, it wouldn't take hoaxers years to produce Isaac's engineering babble, maybe weeks or a month but not years for a nontechnical hoaxer lol. Somebody must be in a euphoric state of mind seeing people analyze their content like this. Years my a$$ lol... well yeah, that is where I stopped reading it.


So you read part of his post, drew a conclusion and based on that conclusion everyone is better off following your advice? Given your full grasp on the provided info which you didn't bother to completely read?

If you're going to discard certain input, at least be smart enough to read everything. And when you then do give advice, perhaps leave your condescending formulation to where it's required.

Just sayin'..

[edit on 25-7-2007 by shadow fax]



posted on Jul, 25 2007 @ 04:17 AM
link   
I'm not giving out advice, I'm just sayin..... it's like music, you know when someone hits that sour note.

C'mon, why read any further when you know where it's leading. I do appologize if it sounds patronizing, though I'm just being practical.

Sure it's good to debate the documentation..... but hey, you know where it's going when it starts off like that.



posted on Jul, 25 2007 @ 04:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by chunder

The concept is not that far out - it's basically what you do when you write instructions on computer controlled engineering fabrication machinery. You'll find "self actualising software" in a Harry Potter film.



I'm thinking that we're in a semantic loop of some type here. What is described in the "Isaac" documents has no precedent (as far as I know) not even in Harry Potter, where I think we can agree that within the fiction of magic, *spells* and such aren't self-actualizing. Forgive me for saying this but it feels increasingly ridiculous to have a succession of posters claiming that documents of this caliber are perfectly within the realm of capability by each making the claim, some even being foolhardy enough to assert that it would be easy.

I maintain that any of you (ANY) who feel up to the challenge, have at it. I've seen plenty of CGI attempts at the drones, virtually all of them with the attached disclaimer "Oh, this was something I just dashed off" and the results looking like it. Mind you, I think the drones *are* reproducible, with enough time, skill and computer power. The CARET documents, however, are a very different thing. I get the sense that no one here is capable of inventing a concept as brilliant as the basis for the CARET papers, let alone the actual production of them.

I suggest that anyone who wants to cling to this notion (that the "Isaac" documents were easily done) attempt a similar construction to prove their point and to refrain from such claims if they cant. I'm not talking about reproducing them, I'm talking about creating a parallel to these documents, based on a newborn concept of equal brilliance, fabricating a primer with original illustrations equal in transcendent beauty to the "linguistic analysis" but using an original and unique form of diagramming and a new font. You would also need to accompany this with report pages of equivalent technical sophistication and photos of equal clarity showing an entirely new "part" of the device being studied.

Don't keep telling me how easy it is to do this stuff, prove your point by doing it. If you can actually back your words up with proof, you'll have shattered the "Isaac" documents and you'll be a hero to us all. Any takers? Come on now, step up and show us all that your boastful talk is something more than just juvenile trolling! For the sake of clarity, let's call this "The CARET Challenge". I, for one, am going to refer to it every time I see someone attempting to play the "oh, anyone could do this" game when referring to these documents. From now on, it's put up or shut up. Fair enough?

By the way chunder, this isn't directed at you, but rather at the sequence of posters prior to this who have little appreciation for what the "Isaac" documents are, and a suspect amount of confidence with regards to their own "skillz".



posted on Jul, 25 2007 @ 05:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by Arlington Acid

1. What is described in the "Isaac" documents has no precedent (as far as I know) not even in Harry Potter, where I think we can agree that within the fiction of magic, *spells* and such aren't self-actualizing.

2. From now on, it's put up or shut up. Fair enough?

3. By the way chunder, this isn't directed at you,


1. Ever seen in a Harry Potter type film someone write some symbols on some material and cause it to change or carry out a particular function - that's self actualising software. As you say though - let's avoid the semantics, in this particular concept I suppose it could be called original.

2. Not from my viewpoint - I don't have the 240 hrs of reasonably professional resources I mentioned would be required, fair call for anyone who thinks it would be very easy.

3. Fair enough - I chose to directly respond.



posted on Jul, 25 2007 @ 05:27 AM
link   
About that years of making it thing. I was under the impression that the skills and the overall planning would take years to master, maybe tens of test versions too. If this is a hoax that is



posted on Jul, 25 2007 @ 06:01 AM
link   
The writing styles do look similair but i do remember getting over excited when I thought another former banned member was Isaac so I'm going to keep my mouth shut!


No word from Engi yet, I do hope he posts again and we haven't shot ourselves in the foot by angering him, it was never anyones intention to offend but i think we are all getting a little frustrated with the lack of information coming through.

Really good posts Engi.



posted on Jul, 25 2007 @ 07:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by Arlington Acid

Given how strongly you seem to feel about this, I'm a little surprised that you're bothering to post here. What's that about?



My post was meant to counter the "irrational exuberance" concerning the CARET report.



posted on Jul, 25 2007 @ 07:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by pjslug We've discussed this many times in the past. He was given a report that was tailored towards management positions. He wasn't being given a technical lab report with equations and scientific notation. How many typical citizens could understand it if that were the case?


The report was supposedly made to describe the functionality and inner workings of the alien technology, the results were not meant to be understood by "typical citizens", but by other engineers. What we end up with however is an exquisitely gift wrapped package under the Christmas tree in a department store. When we look inside the “package” we find that it contains bits of cardboard and bad breath residue.



posted on Jul, 25 2007 @ 07:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by RING0
The report was supposedly made to describe the functionality and inner workings of the alien technology, the results were not meant to be understood by "typical citizens", but by other engineers. What we end up with however is an exquisitely gift wrapped package under the Christmas tree in a department store. When we look inside the “package” we find that it contains bits of cardboard and bad breath residue.


no, the documents were made to inform briefly the big wig military personnel overseeing the operation, not research engineers, lets try to keep the facts straight.



posted on Jul, 25 2007 @ 07:48 AM
link   
'hard at work' as i am, i decided to check into this classification business. from what i gather from a document called 'NISPOM' and the one linked below, all documents with any classification are to be marked at the top and bottom of the page, or alternatively, at the top and bottom of the paragraph of the information that holds some classification.

Again, im just basing this on the idea that if these docs are real, then i would expect them to hold some classification..

DoD Guide



posted on Jul, 25 2007 @ 07:54 AM
link   
a few posts have already been made regarding this particular topic, go back a few pages and look it up, im entirely positive when they classify the docs but it was generally explained that if isaac got a hold of these before they were posted as classified in military archives they wouldnt hold any such things to indicate the level of sensitivity the dod would term them with.
the idea was tha once they get stored is when they classify them or once they are released. i could be wrong but i heard this general idea from a couple people.



posted on Jul, 25 2007 @ 07:55 AM
link   
I'm almost afraid to post on this thread--I once had an uncle named Isaac.


I've seen all the comparison data put forth by our more suspicious fellows, and I had to laugh. The "style" you think of as belonging to Isaac is really an age indicator, IMHO. At the time I was in grade school, learning the basics of putting thoughts on paper, the use of punctuation, including those discussed as tying E.T. and Isaac together, were more commonly used.

Sadly, in the internet world, most of you fail to use any at all. And if by accident you throw in something, simply because you wanted to break in an unused key on your keyboard, the usage is helter skelter.

Now I'm not some grammar king, and I live and let live on the issue. But when you base calling someone out as a hoaxer, you ought to have better evidence than what has been shown. You certainly want better evidence from Isaac for his claims, and yet you will sally forth to disparage a new poster with such flimsy backing. Poppycock!

Now if you read some of my past posts, many of them of a political nature, (provided you can endure my politics), you will find that I have many traits of writing in common with Isaac, albeit I use the word "albeit" rather sparingly.


Seriously, some of you folks are just wound a little too tight on this subject.

ET, phone home, or rather--post more.



posted on Jul, 25 2007 @ 08:03 AM
link   
yeah well i was one of the first to support the claim that it was possible but i retracted it and i think even to accuse with good evidence is a bad bad idea. people have made the point that you dont want to scare isaac off if he does happen to watch his information circulated, even if it were some other person in the thread and he was simply watching us and our debate that fact that we are pointing fingers wont encourage any more disclosure. lets just stick to the documents for the time being and not accuse, no matter how right you may be, you dont want to scare your snitch away...i mean snitch in a nice way ofcourse and i by no means am implying engi or anyone else to be isaac.



posted on Jul, 25 2007 @ 08:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by Averysmallfoxx
no, the documents were made to inform briefly the big wig military personnel overseeing the operation, not research engineers, lets try to keep the facts straight.


When it comes to this report, there are very few "facts", the information is useless to anyone, what new insights do we gain from the report? If the information was “dumbed down”, to be understood by the "big wig military personnel overseeing the operation", then it has no scientific value. How can anyone, “keep the facts straight.”, when no one knows what they are?



posted on Jul, 25 2007 @ 08:42 AM
link   
first of all there is enough information to gather what the technology is and does, so it is not crap like you want to label it.
second, the primer and the geometrical designs are like said previously by others, very intricate and to bounce back to the documents themselves, they are very revealing in how it functions, im sure there is other evidence, if we are to believe our dear friend isaac that would further the understanding to be had by us over these documents which hasnt released yet and maybe never will.
say whatever you want but if you want to prove its crap so bad, emulate it and show us how hoaxy it is friend



posted on Jul, 25 2007 @ 08:49 AM
link   
Seems like isaaccaret.com has gone from bad design to worse
I have 1600x1200 resolution and I still had to scroll sideways because of misplaced objects

Nothing new in content though. Just thought that I'd give heads up.




top topics



 
185
<< 126  127  128    130  131  132 >>

log in

join