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: 133
185
<< 130  131  132    134  135  136 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 25 2007 @ 06:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by schuyler
[This point is where I lose it completely for the drones. The idea that the graphics on the surface of the drones is part of the machine's programming in that it actually causes a result in the drones is the most outlandish explanation ever. I've read the explanations on how this is supposed to work. I simply cannot parse the words; it sounds like utter cluttered gibberish and makes no sense to me at all.

If you want to argue the CGI stuff, okay. Lots of experts who are pretty sure of themselves arguing about whose is bigger. I dunno. Whatever. I'm tired of that. If you want to claim there is an 'ion drive' in the middle of the egg beater, I don't see it, but I'll leave open the possibility because I just don't know.

But strange indecipherable writing CAUSING the craft to be programmed? I'm sorry. No.


yeah i retract the statement i made earlier to arlington acid, i apologize man, and i redirect it to this guy. how can you rule out the technology because in your mind you dont see how it could work? are you a super genius? probably not, this is alien technology and you cant possibly hope to infer you would know more about manipulating gravity fields than an alien who traveled here from some crazy star system....do you?




posted on Jul, 25 2007 @ 06:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Averysmallfoxx
completely refutes the possibility that such a technology could exist i pose to you this, HOW DO YOU KNOW?


I think someday someone ought to take the most often used phrases on ATS and number them. 'How do you know?" would be one of them along with "Prove it is a balloon by sticking one up there and showing it is the same." Then you could just post the number as sort of shorthand and not have to go through it again. Call it an "ATS Meta Phrase." It would save on disk space.

In any analysis that purports to be science based you have to have SOME grounding in reality, even if you invoke possibilities of reality that are not completely proven. Once we leave what we think we know about reality behind, we move into a more religious realm whee there are quite literally no holds barred because people will (and have) believe(d) in nearly anything.

We've now had something like 4,000 posts on the various drone threads about these issues. To some of the new folks who think "we should consider X more carefully" that's why some get a little testy. If you'd read the threads you'd know we've covered that stuff ad nauseum before. The CGI guys are, I think, gone in disgust now. You don't see Biedney trying to deal with the issue any more. He's done. So, the people left are at least 50/50 on this issue, willing to suspend disbelief for a moment and say, for the sake of argument, it's possible, and keeping an 'open mind' on the issue. Next we come to the ion drive or anti-gravity drive folks and it gets a little stranger. No visible mechanism to keep those things in the air, particularly the earlier ones, though complaints about that led mysteriously to more complex drones next time around. So we stretch things a bit and admit that maybe it's possible we don't understand the drive technology yet, so once again, we're still here, not having solved that issue at all, but still 'keeping an open mind' about the issue.

Then we come to the lettering. There was lots of time spent attempting to decipher the lettering, with some people here claiming they knew what it said--absolutely insisted it was a language they knew. Well, upon examination, including some of the best linguistic minds in the world (sorry if you missed that part) those claims did not hold up and, as far a I know, it has not been deciphered. So now we come upon yet another theory, that the lettering is actually magical lettering essential to the running of the drone and involving its flexible programing.

Now I know someone is bound to invoke ATS Meta-Phrase #3: "Any sufficiently advanced technology...." Duly noted. But this is when we enter the realm of faith, I think, and unfounded speculation that snaps the link back to reality. I'm reminded of those poor folks who attempted to keep a dirigible from slipping its moorings many years ago. The ones who managed to let go survived, albeit some with injuries, but those who held on tenaciously went floating up into the sky dangling from ropes.

CGI? Okay, Let's keep going anyway.
Invisible ion drives? Oh, all right. What the hey?
Magical lettering? Sorry, you lost me there. I'm letting go of the rope before it's too late. cul8rbye.



posted on Jul, 25 2007 @ 06:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by BASSPLYR

Like the writing which is programming at the same time. Again what alien is going to invent a system like that. what happens when the thing is struck by something and the writing gets marred.


I take it you're simply skimming messages here rather than actually bothering to download the "Isaac" material? This system we're speaking of is of a level of sophistication that none of us has any experience with, so it probably doesn't operate the way you've imagined it. The lettering, as I understand it (virtually, not at all) seems to operate in conjunction with some sort of sub-atomic matrix that is likely self-repairing or carries redundant echoes of the "software" within it's structure.

We all have to keep in mind that the illustrations shown in the linguistic primer seem to be separate from the drones. Might they be components of a larger vehicle?



posted on Jul, 25 2007 @ 06:57 PM
link   
see it loses its credibility to you because you invision "magic lettering" its not magic and terming it that way just scoffs at the theorhetical science caret was working on. this isnt harry potter and it isnt magic. the documents and they information there in are probably the hardest part to debunk and its where the heart of this technology as we understand it is briefly and i admit generally discussed but its like i said still very possible that we just dont have all the angles.



posted on Jul, 25 2007 @ 06:57 PM
link   
it wasnt written down anywhere but i still think theyre capable of having another caret program but just under a different name

as for the hieroglyths you either believe it or you dont, im not here trying to make you believe it, im just giving my view thats all, these ets are probably millions of years ahead of us in technology so i wouldnt put it passed them that they found a way to encode instructions on to their material



posted on Jul, 25 2007 @ 06:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by deefree
Unfortunately the knee jerk responses here may have turned EngiType completely off and I don't blame him. He spent a lot of time on his post. His post had some real energy to it and I think gave us a valuable perspective on this entire perplexing drone/CARET situation. I think if you are suspicious, why not encourage the guy and give him room to say more. If he is not sincere, give him enough rope and you get the idea. This way we get more, not less. That should be a general rule on a site like this. Let's encourage people to give us their contributions instead of writing them off so quickly based on an unsubstantiated accusation.


Many of us have posted lengthy contibutions, myself included. Go back to the earlier pages. I posted some "huge" insights, IMO; a 17-part contribution over 30 or so posts. I don't think some people want to read this thread from the beginning and that is understandable due to the time it would take to read them, however it is crucial to understand how truly monumental the CARET report might be. I was also accused of being Isaac, but you often must take those comments with a grain of salt. I would think that if Isaac was going to join this debate/discussion he would already be aware of the skepticism that has been present in this thread from day one. If he would be offended by such comments, he would just choose not to post here.



posted on Jul, 25 2007 @ 07:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Arlington Acid

Originally posted by SuicideVirus

Originally posted by newkid
Can somebody explain to me why the CARET project CAN"T be real?


No official documents. No line entries in government budget listings. No other valid testimony. No nuthin'.


Umm........You're not from the U.S. I take it? Maybe you don't realize it but our government isn't like yours, they hide things under oceans of money and red tape. You see, they claim that there are NO aliens and I know for a fact that that isn't true (I saw a family of them once, dressed in human clothes, living in a double-wide trailer in South Carolina).


Are you suggesting that we give some kind of evidentiary weight to supposed documents or budget line listings that theoretically might exist if the government wasn't hiding them? That's a little shaky, don't you think? Trailer park aliens aside.



posted on Jul, 25 2007 @ 07:03 PM
link   
trewth your generalizing and im going to call you on it. show me some website where they say so and so research program regarding so and so technology similar to the caret program in the 1980's. dont blurt stuff out unless you have some links to clarify your rather vague and unhelpful comments. we dont need more generalizing we need more specifics. and i believe there is probably many more programs out there very much like this, infact for this caret program we are debating now, i think it must be that there were and are more research centers devoted to the technology in question but dont just say caret 2 or something mundane like that. if your going to comment use articulation and use research to back what your saying otherwise you get comments like this.

[edit on 25-7-2007 by Averysmallfoxx]



posted on Jul, 25 2007 @ 07:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bunch
The only way I see Isaac walking out with CI is if he works in a department that publish reports But from my experience is highly unlikely, given the type of material he's talking about, from my experience I don't see that happening.

Some people here are underestimating the lenghts that the goverment goes to protect info.



Again, he explained this. He clearly explained that the facility was made to have the appearance and feel of a civilian facility, not a typical military environment. The employees needed to feel as if they weren't being scrutinized at every turn, as this obviously would be a poor environment for any scientist or engineer to accomplish the tasks at hand.



posted on Jul, 25 2007 @ 07:06 PM
link   
why dont you find it yourself

no wonder this subject has so many threads, half of them are from her

[edit on 25-7-2007 by trewth]



posted on Jul, 25 2007 @ 07:12 PM
link   
wow i have met some bone heads on here but jeez man...

TREWTH:

you brought this silly "caret 2" crap up, so your the one who should find that stuff or just keep quiet until you have meaningful comments to put forth.

and smallfox is a dude. dont ever assume gender based on name or anything its just a testament to judgemental tendencies and unintelligent assumption.



posted on Jul, 25 2007 @ 07:25 PM
link   
give me the specific link to download this in depth info from "issac" i've read a few things written by him. Including one where he talks about the language, and the generalistics of the device's antigravity. I'll read it in depth so that i can give a more thought out reply next time.

I don't buy the language story. So the material the craft is made of reacts subatomically with the writing. and is assumed to be able to repair it's self. The writing MAY have redundant coding inside the material and not just on the outside of the drone. OK.

If it has redundant writing or coding built into the matrix of atoms that compose the material of the drone than why even have the language on the outside? An easy way to program the device? Not if you have to build it with all this redundant programming built into the devices sub atomic lattic or whatever.

To change it's programming easily. again what if it gets struck by something that marres the writing on the outside. does that then effectively reprogram the drone.

If it does then wouldn't that reprogram the redundant program inside. If not than why again even put programming on the outside.

if it does, wow what a stupid way to program stuff. Remember that "Issac" said that the language had to pictographicaly perfect for it to work right. I just don't get it. it seems illogical. It wouldn't be very useful in either way. unless I'm missing a whole lot not just the fine details.

The tech doesn't look alien either. Humans can create lots of stuff like that. HR Gigers stuff doesn't look human it looks alien but it's more of human imagination and nnot created from any alien mind. we can create stuff that seems alien to a person who hasn't seen half the imaginative ways humans can create art of any form.

Now Yoko Ono. that stuff is so bad no human could have created it. Yoko is probably the closest evidence for alien presence on earth.



posted on Jul, 25 2007 @ 07:33 PM
link   
Averysmallfoxx:

Friendly advice, STOP with the comments that start with "You should, you better", or any other "parental" style comment post you feel the need to make here.

We don't do that here at AboveTopSecret.com.

EVERYONE is allowed their position and opinion within the bounds of the TAC FREE of your personal commentary or derogatory pontificating.


Springer...



posted on Jul, 25 2007 @ 07:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by schuyler

Originally posted by Averysmallfoxx
completely refutes the possibility that such a technology could exist i pose to you this, HOW DO YOU KNOW?


In any analysis that purports to be science based you have to have SOME grounding in reality, even if you invoke possibilities of reality that are not completely proven. Once we leave what we think we know about reality behind, we move into a more religious realm whee there are quite literally no holds barred because people will (and have) believe(d) in nearly anything.


Well, this is where, if this is a hoax, it's so damned clever. The documents are (we are led to believe) part of a piecemeal puzzle that the very brightest minds are let loose on. "Tell us what you can about this" the military orders them. They are completely over their heads with this (after all, it's technology that has no historic basis or parallel), so they "cover their asses" by describing what they see in the most technical language they can muster (maybe that will make the brass happy?), but little by little, they start putting bits of it together. "Why in the hell is it that when you position this curved piece here, that it locks in place, hovering in mid-air, not touching a damned thing, and stays in that relative position, no matter how you move the other parts?".

They keep messing with it and *something* happens with regard to the writing that shows it to be a controlling function. Some genius/artist has a brilliant revelation that the writing corresponds to our very primitive programming. They eventually cobble enough together to get some small function out of the "wreckage" (for lack of a better term). Eventually the group of scientists is broken up and sent on to other projects, while the bits are passed on to yet another new group, who also gets only a sliver of information to work on.

You see the problem here? "Isaac" has given us a tiny bit of information, of of the tiny bit of information that he was able to smuggle out, and this out of just a small jigsaw piece that the scientists of "Isaac's" group were allowed to see. He never had anywhere near to the whole picture, so how can he give it to us? We're left with a small, but astonishing, little fragment that you demand the whole picture from! If people would apply themselves, we'd possibly make some headway into what function something might provide, but we'll never be able to extrapolate concretely the way that you seem to be insisting on for proof.


Then we come to the lettering. There was lots of time spent attempting to decipher the lettering, with some people here claiming they knew what it said--absolutely insisted it was a language they knew. Well, upon examination, including some of the best linguistic minds in the world (sorry if you missed that part) those claims did not hold up


Actually, I saw all of that, mostly people insisting that the lettering was from Myst, and so on. Of course, it's nothing like it. If there's someone out there who's an ace at cryptology, maybe you can put together a concept or two out of what we have (good luck with that) but as I see it, we'd be better off working in another direction. Find something dated prior to the CARET material that shows an unmistakable resemblance to the diagrams and you'll have your fraudster (this stuff wasn't whipped up overnight, someone would've worked on it for years). I don't think you'll find him/her. There's something in those diagrams that didn't come from a human perspective. They're similar to "tree" charts, but that could easily be a universal form (after all, we're dealing with magnetism here, and flow).

The pages prior to this have been spent almost in vain. As far as I can tell, no one has really focused on those diagrams and what they mean...it's always been about font identity and the ability to replicate symbols. Ooops. Out of space here.



posted on Jul, 25 2007 @ 07:38 PM
link   

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


Depends; there isn't anything intrinsically of national interest IN the document, and it was as far as I can see, never meant to leave the building and was not meant to be seen by anyone without clearance because of the compartmentalization of the work.

However, if they were all need to know and it was hush-hush, it does give some credance that it SHOULD be marked at least with the references and any specific keywords for that level of clearance. It would also have the names (i.e the who it was CCed to) of those recipients, the number of copies printed, and various other security features that are not inherent.

Sometimes it isn't on every page (usually however they are), which is suspicous, but again I've PERSONALLY seen documents that were classified and of national importance (gotta use it now, albeit for the MoD) without anything on BECAUSE they were not mean to leave the facility and never get seen by anyone who would even consider breaking any NDAs or such. This was also apprently made to fit into a more 'relaxed' setting and without all the military hooha, so make of it what you will.

He's given himself the best defence by saying it was relaxed, but then also shot himself in the foot by saying everywhere had armed guards but some places were'nt watched and he wasn't searched completely after so many years - bull#, if they knew someone was stealing (and they WOULD HAVE) then everyone, even the mice would get searched, and no amount of drinks after work or favours would have made the MP stop searching. I think he's SEEN some work in the 'industry' but not enough to know how it plays out exactly. He's a wannabe James Bond IMO.

There are some good for's and some against's for this, but neither can be proven based on the fact that no-one in military intellience has been ASKED about the document, no FOIA requests have been filed to find out about the PACL or Isaac, etc. Saying that, would they give us a clear answer if this was still protected? Nope so why alert them if they don't already know.



posted on Jul, 25 2007 @ 07:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by pjslug


Again, he explained this. He clearly explained that the facility was made to have the appearance and feel of a civilian facility, not a typical military environment. The employees needed to feel as if they weren't being scrutinized at every turn, as this obviously would be a poor environment for any scientist or engineer to accomplish the tasks at hand.


I'm sorry but ISAAC can not have it both ways.

He makes reference as to have military guards in every room with machine guns. Those are his words, that's is something I have never seen in all my years in the military. What kind of need to know, a military guard would have for being in a room with researchers working with ET technology? Well the obvious answer is to make sure they don't take stuff inside their pants.

And let me tell you that working surrounded with machine guns is a far as it can be from a civilian working enviroment.

There's other inconsistencies as for the security measures that I have detected in his story, but for that I will have to give details that I don't feel comfortable with.






[edit on 25-7-2007 by Bunch]



posted on Jul, 25 2007 @ 07:54 PM
link   
so springer your saying we DO make irrelevent comments about gender here when its completely inappropriate and unnecessary? we do throw out comments suggesting information about topics we cant or wont back up with any shred of research or links? we do infact allow people to pretty much throw our standard protocol of keeping things civil just because i make a suggestion that posts retaining alleged information without factual support is at the least unhelpful to our endeavours at truth in its highest forms? is that what we do here?



posted on Jul, 25 2007 @ 08:01 PM
link   
There is the possibility that the 'symbols' were made up for use on the drones or report. In that case they wouldn't match another font or symbol set.

I tend to agree the possibilities of bassplayer's thoughts about the symbol placement on the craft. I stated similar long ago in a post. Maybe if it is real there are reasons that would make sense with full understanding of the system.

The symbols could also be on the outside to make the craft look non-terrestrial, and as hard link to the reports. The symbols must be seen to make the link.



posted on Jul, 25 2007 @ 08:08 PM
link   
Springer,

Do you know what specific links to the in depth "isaac" material I was referred to and what thread it's in so that I can peruse it.

I'm so far not impressed with the whole CARET "Isaac" story. Anyone with a good imagination and access to a myriad of technical papers (so as to mirror the proper tech language and format) from any media production house is capable of inventing this whole story. Heck my imagination could create just as compeling a story. with access to a few other determined dweebs I'm sure I could have fabricated this whole Drone epidemic.

Other than that Springer. I absolutely love your site, has everything I've ever wanted from an internet site. I'm so addicted to ATS, that I'm surprised that I haven't totally lost interest in my day job (I access ATS from my laptop at work, it's a perfect tool to absolve work tension and stress, plus I'm really curious about just about everything, so ATS is perfect.

Back to the thread topic since that should have been in a U2U or something, but I had to take the time to thank you while the opportunity presented it's self.

How come nobody can answer my questions, which I feel are reasonable, about the logic of the writing on the drones, and the manner in which they work. So far all I've been told is, they just do don't poke holes in the "isaac" paper. just cause it's illogical doesn't mean it is. Can anyone please explain the logic that the aliens were thinking of when they designed their "language" program for their drones.



posted on Jul, 25 2007 @ 08:11 PM
link   
the link to isaac's website is as shown below

isaac's site



new topics

top topics



 
185
<< 130  131  132    134  135  136 >>

log in

join