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: 13
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in


posted on Jun, 27 2007 @ 12:20 PM

Originally posted by keeb333

Originally posted by Chupa101
Also, what's up with this symbol? I think I've seen the chevron used to describe anti-gravity before somewhere else. I know its origin is to do with masculinity, as a crude representation of the phallus, doubt that has anything to do with this though lol.

Ha, it's a caret ^, an obvious choice for the CARET project!

[edit on 27-6-2007 by keeb333]

Of course. Now I feel stupid. At least this hoax wasn't called Stick, with the hoaxer going house to house beating us all with his 'evidence'.

posted on Jun, 27 2007 @ 12:24 PM

Originally posted by TheExaminer
has anyone noticed the giant faint blue T shape in the background of all the document scans? reminds me a little of the Torchwood T used in the British TV series.

I'm looking at each document closely to see if I can find another artifacts of interest.

What does everyone else make of the T shape?

I noticed that too. I can really see the T shape in blueish color if I look at the monitor at an angle. I'm using a laptop so it's easy to get the right angle. If you look straight on you can't really notice it. If you angle it it pops right out. Not sure what to make of it really, just noticed the same thing. ZReminds me of invisible ink

posted on Jun, 27 2007 @ 12:24 PM

Originally posted by LoneWeasel
All of this feels like a hoax to me, though I'm well aware that if and when a genuine story comes along, it will probably share a good deal of the characteristics of this one. And I'll probably think it's a hoax too.

I think there's a faith/conviction argument here. I don't need a watertight story with incontrovertable evidence to believe in some of the things we discuss on these boards. I will never know if any of these photos are photoshopped, or CGId, or whatever - so I can't base my faith in what I believe on any story like this. At the same time I'm unconvinced by these photos, and the fact that the ones on this guy's site appear to have been shot in a studio....rather than in an equipment depot of some kind....but that lack of conviction doesn't really affect my faith.

I guess I started looking at ATS because I wanted to see proof - but actually, though I've not been here long, I'm getting a lot more out of hearing about what other people believe. One blurry video looks much like another, but it seems very rare that more than one person shares exactly the same perspective on a story...


The existence of government operated extra-terrestrial reverse engineering programs is NEVER going to be "proven" via a few docs and photos released on an obscure internet site. The best one can hope for is an augmentation of the chain of evidence that began to accumulate in the early 50's and continues to this day that suggests that the government has a significant interest in this topic. Some of the MJ-12 documents play such a role and, until proven otherwise, so will "Isaac's" stuff.

posted on Jun, 27 2007 @ 12:25 PM
This new find is very interesting, and I think we can all say that it blows open the debate again.

Of course, the counter arguments are equally valid. The documents don't say much in the way of hard facts (although this is hardly proof of fakery) and the photos are, as usual, debatable as to whether they are CGI or not.

What I would say though, is that the examples of 'photorealistic' CGI are poor comparisons at best. The pictures of the cars and vehicles are very, very easily spottable as CGI. Whilst there are certain elements of the CARET photos that point towards CGI (some of the shadows and texturing have some CGI characteristics) I don't think it's possible to say one way or another.

I personally feel viral advertising is unlikely, especially now. Advertising should be short, snappy and relevant to a lot of people. I think that hardly anyone except the most enthusiastic of UFOlogists would be willing to trawl through this amount of information, and keep up with a story like this. Advertising agencies aren't dumb and this is far too complex and concentrated to really be for the sake of advertising a movie or a game. Plus there has been no logical progression linking the product to the campaign. If it's for Transformers, they have a little over a week to reconcile how this campaign relates to the film. I just can't see it.

So, I personally feel we're left with two options: Hoax or a genuine revelation. Unfortunately whilst the amount of evidence, and its detail, point quite strongly to this being real, all the evidence is fakeable. The pictures could potentially be CGI, and the reports don't offer any genuinely constructive, progressive explanation of the technology. Not to say this proves or disproves anything, just that it could all potentially be explained by other means.

This would have to be a hoaxing team, however, in my opinion. The photos, reports, sightings etc. The thought that one person could work across so many fields is hard to believe. I don't know of anybody that would have the patience and time to model and render the photos, plan the diagrams, orchestrate the reports, type up the sightings and then organise the distribution of evidence. If this is a hoax, my bet is that its a no holds barred hoax - a small team of the best with a long term goal to make this a memorable and engrossing hoax campaign.

So, I am undecided. One thing is for sure though, this is exciting stuff. Just the sheer quantity of information across a range of sources rules out any sort of passive hoaxers, making the possibility of credibility that little bit more likely. Only the next set of photos, reports, or sightings will shed more light on whether this is a great hoax or something far more amazing.

posted on Jun, 27 2007 @ 12:29 PM
Fame and amusement is the bain of all conspiracy theorist, but the laugh those get when we get worked up is just the ticket for them. Its like a college prank, has no intense meaning, but is just to annoy people and get some laughs.

At those asking about ESDC and such I was surprised that in the picture of the 'hangar' they have no coated white floor or clean room, its just as it looks, inside an open hangar (the lighting seems to reflect either a big aircraft hangar with the doors open or a glass topped hangar).

However, if the technology can be whatever it wants to be, then perhaps it could repair itself if it got scraped on concrete, or it was generally inert. If it can be disabled by certain frequencies, then I'd think MORE control would be needed to record it in a lab setting, but we are talking about back in the day, when people generally didn't worry. Think of the # that went down with sailors exposed to radiation because they didn't know any better.

While my time with the industrial-military complex was computer based, we did most things in places that looked generally like any other lab, and almost everything was ESD coated or controlled (mind you, it was in ESD research that I worked). Everything was also coded, recorded, notated, and the lack of notation is somewhat concerning, BUT a lot of internal, first pass stuff never got rubber stamped until it was put in folders or file cabinets. If it was fairly recent, it was for the most part pristine until it needed to be sent somewhere else or put in storage, but that's just in my experience and in a UK setting. It could be far different in the US.

posted on Jun, 27 2007 @ 12:31 PM
Poor? Show me better examples then..
And the objects depicted in the photo are very CGI, if you work with it you can just tell the feel of the rendering technique.

Originally posted by corda

What I would say though, is that the examples of 'photorealistic' CGI are poor comparisons at best. The pictures of the cars and vehicles are very, very easily spottable as CGI. Whilst there are certain elements of the CARET photos that point towards CGI (some of the shadows and texturing have some CGI characteristics) I don't think it's possible to say one way or another."

posted on Jun, 27 2007 @ 12:35 PM
In the black and white photograph of the drone parts you can clearly see that the smaller piece is supposed to slot into the main ring, if this magical language links these pieces together with gravity force how come there are no symbols on the individual pieces shown that supposedly bring these pieces together?

No symbols means there is no way of the technology to bring these drone pieces together.. am i right?

posted on Jun, 27 2007 @ 12:36 PM

Originally posted by SuicideVirus

THAT also has the 'atomic' symbol that is also in the weird spiral document.

Does somewhere like keep records of businesses inside the valley? It'd be interesting to ask a historian or business records company if there were any companies.

posted on Jun, 27 2007 @ 12:39 PM
October, I am with you on your thoughts here.

After 20 years of research, the hardware is still the same. If it is ET it doesn't make sense that it has been mothballed for that long and recently reactivated either.

Why is it now just being spotted? We've had power lines, Sat TV, cellular, etc for quite a while. I looked for some major solar events on 5-5. Nothing big.
Government worker human error? Seems flimsy for sucn an advanced ET technology. IF this was built using ET tech, someone knows how it works. The UFO community has never talked about in the 'leaks' about ET dones being found, captured, etc. Guess there were inside the UFO in a rack.

He mentions the cloaking but does not attempt to explain why it might fail. Seems like he would know something or have some ideas.

I have to wonder about all this.

posted on Jun, 27 2007 @ 12:39 PM
Have you guys seen this video?

Video Link

posted on Jun, 27 2007 @ 12:41 PM

And the objects depicted in the photo are very CGI, if you work with it you can just tell the feel of the rendering technique. (not complete quote see wildone106 for complete quote)

wildone106 What is your CGI background that makes you qualified to make this claim?

not trying to be mean or any thing just wondering If you could post some computer school diploma or something that says your a CGI master or something.

[edit on 27-6-2007 by ashnomadonte]

posted on Jun, 27 2007 @ 12:50 PM
Been working in computer game graphics & animation since 1994 from the early days of 3D Studio right up to Maya 7.1, before that had a traditional art background from college. Im not a master by any means, but having worked around all sorts of CGI art & animation for over 10 years I think it qualifys me to have some expert opinion of this stuff, dont you think? As does anyone who has worked in a computer graphic related field. I think alot of people here are frankly ignorant of whats possible and further have no idea of the current state in 3d techniques or whats possible

Originally posted by ashnomadonte

And the objects depicted in the photo are very CGI, if you work with it you can just tell the feel of the rendering technique.

What is your CGI background that makes you qualified to make this claim?

not trying to be mean or any thing just wondering If you could post some computer school diploma or something that says your a CGI master or something.

[edit on 27-6-2007 by wildone106]

posted on Jun, 27 2007 @ 12:50 PM
Hi Smokin,

Yeah i have seen this before, it's by no means perfect but it gives you a very general idea as to the capability of using CGI. If someone can knock this up moving it is very easy for someone to create still images to look like ET technology.

I don't get this either.... They say they were looking at this ET technology first hand in order to back engineer for commercial purposes, such as transport etc there is no way the military presence would even allow them to look at the technology until the military have found out how it works themselves.

If the military HAD found out how to use it for their own projects and finally handed it down after they had finished with it, how come these guys were struggling to find out how it actually works?, surely the military would have shown them or pointed them in the right direction, it just doesn't make sense. I got to hand it to the guy he's pretty bold. Every mystery has to set standards and this one is pretty high in content, and there's more to come

[edit on 27/6/07 by October]

posted on Jun, 27 2007 @ 12:51 PM
The language sounds like witchcraft if I do say so my self.

posted on Jun, 27 2007 @ 12:53 PM
Ok I was on the fence, I'm jumping in for a second and go back to the fence, but not before I bring some perspectvie about the military, classified documents and some procedures that are common practice in the military.

I'm in the Air Force but although my AFSC is not Security Forces, sometimes we are task to work with them since they are shortmanned because of the war.

At my base we have a PL1 facility (Priority Level 1), and although we work in the area, we conduct searches of personnel and vehicles coming in and out of buildings, we do not go inside the building and watch what the scientists or engineers are working for obvius reasons, need to know?, we are not even allowed to ask them anything that is not security related.

This guys said that they were working in a civilian type environment but working for the DoD, I dont think that's plausible because by that time we were still in the Cold War and every technology at that time must have been proctected to the fullest and still so to this day.

Classified Information: the idea that this documents where not some how mark also raises some flags to me. All the documents and equipment where I did security where somehow mark, not all the same way or following the same procedure but still need marking. Confidential,Secret, Top Secret, bar codes, codes etc? Why? So people that are doing security can ID this documents or equipment, if they are being taken out of the building you need to show an authorization letter if not you go to jail. Granted a security guard that is sloppy ( we are humans), would let someone walk out with some CI, I have seen it, but there is still other security forms and procedure for CI inside the building that he had to defeat as well.

Civilians in the military: this guy makes some good points about the relationship of civilians that work in military projects, we as military some times see civilians as not trust worthy, and if this story is true then you know why.

Last thing the military is a very compartmentalized institution and theres not a single reason for that. My points is for example there is the field of intelligence and it has subgroups the one that collect, the one that analyze, the one that strategized, and they are not working with each other, they work in steps from one department to another , so the idea that a computer sciencetist or electrical engineer would have know what the physicist were working on I dont think is accurate.

Finally I have a question for the CGI guys, if it is CG and you guys seem to know a lot about the stuff? Why dont make one yourself, the exact same replica put the instructions out on how you did it. I mean at least you dont have to deal with the inginous and creative side of it, since the model is already out there. And that will be the end of it. I mean look at it this way, you will be the guy that destroy THE DRONE!, that should count for something.

Im just trying to bring some the military perspectvie from my experience and what I have heard over the years, like I said going back to the fence.

posted on Jun, 27 2007 @ 12:54 PM
Ok than can you please do me and the outher members here a favor?
I beg you and any outer CGI person here, to make a copy of this to prove one way or the outher. I am aware it will take time lots of it however it would be great help to put all this stuff to rest one way or the outher.

posted on Jun, 27 2007 @ 12:54 PM
Regarding the hoax claims because of the writing technology described:

Masaru Emoto proves that writing words on the outside of a bottle changes the molecular structure of water. This explanation of the drone writing fits in with what is already proven without the help of ET help.
Dr. Masaru Emoto @ what the
This is not "magic" just like the writings on the drone aren't "magic"
It's a deeper understanding of our universe than what humans have at this point in public evolution.
It may seem like magic, sound like fantasy and be harder to swallow than reports of a new 8-headed loch ness monster spotted in my toilet to most of you, but it's not.
This is the point within your life where you should add 1+1 to derive 2. Not eleven..or another number... just simply 2. Read and really GRASP the Masaru story. Words written on the outside of a bottle CHANGES water. What will our knowledge of this be in 10,000 years?

regarding the hoax claims beacause of the scans being blue:

Um.. if you bring 50 people into a project, you still print black and white even in this day and age if you have multiple pages to print for everyone. they were studying language, not colors. The blue nature of the scans lends to it authenticy because a black and white print scanned in the RGB color mode will have slight color shifts in the neutral balance area. Best way to put this into laymans terms is ANY device like a scanner, printer monitor or whatever else handles color information puts out a different output than another. Kind of like a toaster. Buy 15 toasters, put them side by side, put in bread and burn them for the same amount of time. You will get different shades of brown. Scanning B/W imges on a scanner in the RGB color spectrum means instead of different shades of gray, you get diffferent levels of the RGB balance. In this case, the scanner obviously leans towards blue at a certain point in the grayscale range.

CGI claims? bah! and I'll tell you why.:

Take every one of the CGI links that people have sent in and compare ANY of them to ANY of the photos taken of the grone pics. The thing that gives CGI away EVERY tiime is the patterns within the individual RGB channels. CGI has no "color noise" meaning the red channel is as smooth as the blue which is also as smooth as the green channel. The C2C photos each have there own noise patterns. Meaning is some photo sets, the red channel is less blotchy than the blue which is evel less blotchy then the green.. These noise patterns change throughout each photo set. If you have photoshop or similar, go take ANY cgi image from ANY of the links provided and look at the individual R , G and B channels.. compare and you wil see what I mean. CGi is EASILY proven fake while all of these sightings have none of the same qualitys as a rendering.
I use 3d in my designs.. I know photography and am especially familiar with digital photography and I design and am used to printing 10ft wide in photo-resolution.
There is no cgi here..

posted on Jun, 27 2007 @ 12:57 PM
ejsaunders, I'm impressed! That was a fast find. And it's in propulsion, no less.

But I saw a date of 1960 something. Would it have been a front for something covert that early?

I guess it could, and 'Isaac' would think it a fake company.

Don't know how it ties in, but good work!

posted on Jun, 27 2007 @ 12:57 PM
At the end of the day..all I can say is 'so what'? These documents & images prove absolutely nothing, give absolutely nothing away (really) and are just fantasy. If the person who supplied these docs can actually step up and offer
some new groundbreaking physics or science to a reputable scientific group then Im all for it, but otherwise its just a story with very pretty pictures. It wont change Ufology or bring about the 2nd coming..nothings gonna come of this except the OP stroking his ego and havin a good laugh at all the gullable people here..

posted on Jun, 27 2007 @ 01:00 PM
Please see member 11 11's addition to this topic here:

Hopefully he will repost that material to this thread for continuity.


new topics

top topics

<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in