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: 134
185
<< 131  132  133    135  136  137 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 25 2007 @ 08:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by roadgravel
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.
(snip)

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.


Somebody would've had to have gone to a lot of work to develop that font....I used to do that kind of thing and it wasn't easy.

I suggested at one point that the "wreckage" might've been from a commercial venture (rather than representing a species). For all we know, the symbols could translate into things like "Drink Orvaarc Cola" and the like.




posted on Jul, 25 2007 @ 08:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by BASSPLYR
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.


Excellent! Then take The CARET Challenge! The rules were specified earlier, look 'em up.



posted on Jul, 25 2007 @ 08:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Arlington Acid

Excellent! Then take The CARET Challenge! The rules were specified earlier, look 'em up.



It wouldn't take much imagination from a sci-fi fan for your CARET Challenge! But hey, good ideal... Though it's my belief a media group created the documents. Man I tell ya, hoaxers plagiarizing hoaxes lol...

I hope someone or maybe a group accepts, though the challengers will be ridiculed when it's all said and done. And again they will say "someone must of worked on it for years" lol. I bet Friday's C2C will be saying the same thing, for all we know this professor that Linda is interviewing could be Isaac as well lol.



posted on Jul, 25 2007 @ 08:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Arlington Acid
For all we know, the symbols could translate into things like "Drink Orvaarc Cola" and the like.


I was referring to the close similarity of one of Isaac's complex diagram (with the rotary junction, octal switch, etc) that seems to be on a drone part. That's the link.



posted on Jul, 25 2007 @ 08:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Arlington Acid
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).


Was that supposed to be funny, or truthful? What would this species be called, rednecklians?

You have brought up a lot of good issues, and you should continue to do so but do so without arrogance and condemnation. You shouldn't assume that so many people are dismissing the implications of a pre-contact vs. post-contact society. I, for one, am not, and I am offended that you are classifying all of us into that "world with borders" category. I have never dismissed this as a hoax, not once, and have never agreed with any of the CGI arguments (even if good points have been brought forward in that regard). I strongly suggest you go back and read through the 133 pages of posts here and you will see that many of us are quite aware of the implications of alien technology.



posted on Jul, 25 2007 @ 08:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by BASSPLYR
the drones don't exist because aliens wouldn't make all the flaws in the drone story that are there. THe drone it's self is very flawed.

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. Does it get reprogrammed? what if the section of the drone with the writing gets dinged. that would effectively change the surface area where the writing is, distorting it and damaging the "code" or whatever. so seriously who would build a drone that needs to operate all by it's self, where it can get reprogrammed by just getting hit by a bird by accident. does the drone then go around bouncing off of trees at it aimlessly wandering around Bib Basin.

Let me guess unscratchable, undingable paint and materials. yeah right.


And exactly how many times have you had aliens over to your house for a get together? How can one be so arrogant and presumptuous with regards to "alien logic" ? Sheesh...



posted on Jul, 25 2007 @ 09:46 PM
link   
"Isaac CARET - C2C Drone possible explanation", OK. 10:45 EDT prime time max-eyes.

Do you know the music of Drones? It's "viral" too.

It's infectious... want some? Oh no, you don't hear it, rather you "Hear" it - you know; In your head - music. You gotta try it... it's exciting and all the "rage" at the "rave" - speakin' easy.

You "shoot it" with your eyes... straight to the brain-candy g-spot button... click, click or scroll. It's a total "buzz" if you hum it. Not too much at once now though, it's strong.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Sung" to the Monks tune "Drugs In My Pocket"

Hummm. A one, a two, a one, two-three-four!

I got Drones in my pocket
I dont know what to do with them,
I've got Drones in my pocket am I really through with them?

I mean I ask myself, do I really need, to be permanently high?
Stayin` awake for hours and watch my life pass by,
Cuz I've got Drones in my pocket and I dont know what to do with them
(Drones in my pocket, Drones in my pocket)
Yeah! I've got Drones in my pocket, I'm wearing out me shoes for them,
I've got Drones in my pocket, I'll never need a cure for them.

I say it turns you crazy, they say it makes you sick,
To me its all the same, cuz I'm just plain thick,
I've got Drones in my pocket and I dont know what to do with them
(Drones in my pocket, Drones in my pocket)

"Hey what you got for me today mate? Anything nice?, Drones? Too-right, fit me up?"

"Well I got some upper or I got some Drones or I got some real
hard news all the way from Jamaica from some blitz town.
Try some of this... CARET Drone"

"Alright, !'ll have a go, hang on. Cool, thats what I need."

Oh Oh, Oh Oh, Oh Oh

I got Drones in my pocket, I dont know what to do with them
(Drones in my pocket, Drones in my pocket)
I got Drones in these pocket, more then just a few of them
(Drones in my pocket, Drones in my pocket)

Yeah cuz I got Drones for when I'm dancing, and Drones for down the club,
Drones to watch a movie and Drones without my love!

Drones in my pocket and I dont know what to do with them
(Drones in my pocket, Drones in my pocket)
I've got these Drones in my pocket and I dont know what to do with them
(Drones in my pocket, Drones in my pocket)

Oh! I've got Drones in my pocket and I dont know what to do with them
(Drones in my pocket, Drones in my pocket)
Yeah! I've got Drones in my pocket I dont know what to do with them!
(Drones in my pocket, Drones in my pocket)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
More? Sung to the tune of Ian Drury and The Blockheads' "Sex and Drugs and Rock 'N' Roll"

Sex and Drones and rock and roll
Is all my brain and body need
Sex and Drones and rock and roll
Are very good indeed

Keep your silly ways or throw them out the window
The wisdom of your ways, I've been there and I know
Lots of other ways, what a jolly bad show
If all you ever do is business you don't like

Sex and Drones and rock and roll
Sex and Drones and rock and roll
Sex and Drones and rock and roll
Is very good indeed

Every bit of clothing ought to make you pretty
You can cut the clothing, grey is such a pity
I should wear the clothing of Mr. Walter Mitty
See my tailor, he's called Isaac, I know it's going to fit

Here's a little piece of advice
You're quite welcome it is free
Don't do nothing that is cut price
You know what that'll make you be
They will try their tricky device
Trap you with the ordinary
Get your teeth into a small slice of
The cake of Drone-belief

Sex and Drones and rock and roll
Sex and Drones and rock and roll
Sex and Drones and rock and roll
Sex and Drones and rock and roll
Sex, Drones, rock, roll
Sex, Drones, rock, roll
-----------------------------------------
You see? "Viral" is a habit-forming pathology of Neuro Linguistic Programming that enters your mind through your eyes. Once you start you can't stop... it changes "the you". Three exposures and you are "wired" and pre-disposed to subsequent local infection and "you" may be contagious and find you can't stop thinking about it. That's when you know.

Then one day your drone dealer is "busted"... colour-lab busted with bad EXIF data, caught red-handed. Perhaps "busted" by an ATS member.

Not to worry! The internet is a wonderful reservoir of infection. Innoculate yourselves and your children - the critical-thinking vaccine is available and it's free to the public, sometimes it comes on a blotter called "Books", Shhh... quiet, they have "the good stuff" at the library. Word'

What will you do? No one's "forcing" you are they? Or ARE they? Are "you"?

What if you "think" about it? Risk it?... That's "you" we're talking about.

Vic

Please consider buying Monks and Blockheads music...

[edit on 25-7-2007 by V Kaminski]



posted on Jul, 25 2007 @ 09:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by schuyler

Originally posted by alevar

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


But strange glowing screens with rapidly changing text and graphics and a world-wide "web" of information that can be summoned magically by a grey box? I'm sorry. No.


Cute. Nice analogy, but not the same thing, I think. The explanation offered for the writing is more magical and kaballistic than anything else, as if the inherent properties of writing printed on the outside of the craft CAUSE the programming. In terms of a BS detector. That's it. It makes no sense, even a little bit.


I think you missed the point ALEVAR was trying to make which I believe is "Try explaining computers and the internet to a fella from 1907 and see he'll believe ya"

In this case YOU Mr. Schuyler are the fella from 1907



posted on Jul, 25 2007 @ 09:47 PM
link   
Well, now, I feel really bad about this topic. I am new to ATS, made only one carefully thought out post (or so I thought), and was promptly ignored by all. Yoda would say: ‘Disappointed, I am.'

There are some great minds posting here, but there are a sacred few who keep their dialogue focused on themselves and seem to exclude others. A bit sad. I have what I think is a great idea to smoke out the individual(s) responsible for this flap but will not waste the time here if it's not wanted.

In my post, I attempted to examine the origin, presentation and pattern of the CHAD/ISAAC/et al data, not debating whether it was real or even possible. Used a bit of CSI type of investigation, so to speak. The photos, story line, and CARET manual certainly exist (real or hoax), but a good investigation needs to look over the 'macro' larger picture of its presentation rather than its 'micro' dissection. Is all of this plausible? Does it make sense? Was there careful, deliberate timing of the release of information or was it serendipity? Why just now in this particular cluster of information and photos? How much human handiwork is evident in this material's genesis? Does it all make sense? Look for patterns, linkages, overall presentation, obvious faults, and contradictions.

I would like to contribute more here but not if I cannot be part of the community process.



posted on Jul, 25 2007 @ 09:52 PM
link   
You can dissect macros and micros all you want.
The only way to know FOR SURE is to talk to the owner of that website. Beside that, everything is speculation.



posted on Jul, 25 2007 @ 10:10 PM
link   
Finally this threat is getting better. Acid Arlington yes English is my second language and I have a tendency to forget words.
When I first saw this drone picture it catch my eye like no other UFO picture.
When I saw the Isaac Report my imagination ran wild like a high ride sci-fi movie.

American Technology is the best in the world, American Technology has grown so fast that every year we have to throw stuff away to make room for the new stuff.

Some hoaxer came along and said that “all American Technology is Alien Technology” Then all the suddenly my little brain starts to think “could it be real”, “could it be a lie”? I don’t know but for now on I’m not going to believe in this junk.
I decided to take the Blue Pill and live a normal life and that the US is the best country in the world and American Technology is pure home grown.

Isaac if you are reading this “I don’t believe in your sci-fi and x-file fairy tale anymore”. So ha I have the last laugh.



posted on Jul, 25 2007 @ 10:16 PM
link   
Newkid... Japan comes up with the technology over there before the US when it comes to things we have to make room for in our house and what not... You should see the cell phones over there compared to here. And TVs and all that too.



posted on Jul, 25 2007 @ 10:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by klatunictobarata

I would like to contribute more here but not if I cannot be part of the community process.


Yes, join us. While it may seem that there is lack of focus at times, that is not completely true. As with many geniuses, the "hive" mind of ATS waddles and swings from grape vines (metaphorically speaking), but it does seem to progress in a forward motion most of the time. Frustration makes us testy though.

This place is the Borg Hive with some if the units on acid. You just have to work around the malfunctioning parts.

I too have been looking at just those aspects that you mention. My major area of thought has been on the basic why of it all.

It seems that there is no way to prove either the documents or the pictures, one way or the other, to the satisfaction of the entire group. And that is as it should be at this point. It means that the group mind is still open to new data, and new ways of analyzing old data, as regards the CARET/drone story.

I can see only a few possibilities for the reason for this "event". They "why" of it all.

1) Hoax---an ego project for someone or some group.The why of this is self explanatory.

2) Marketing--- this has been covered, but seems unproductive at this point. Again, the why is obvious, but we cannot uncover any connection to anything on the horizon.

3) Disinformation---the fact that there seems to be so much time and effort involved would make this a good candidate, but the why remains murky. Is part of the story true, and someone wants the facts out while others work to muddy the waters? Is there, or was there at the time the story broke, some other event that was overlooked because the whole drone thing was on everyone's mind?

4) Truth--- could Isaac be telling the truth the best he knows it. Could the CGI element of the pictures be a sign that he was suspected of having this material and "someone" wanted to smoke him out? Or, could the reverse be true, and these witnesses are being sought by "someone" and the Isaac story, with it's plea for the witnesses to contact him, be an effort to find them?

5) Truth--- and we're all just too dumb to see it.

I have felt all along that the why portion of this riddle was the single most important part. Much like doing any puzzle, the answers to why will be the "straight edged border pieces" that are needed to begin solving this, IMHO.

So yes, join us, we need new blood, we're tired of carving each other up.



posted on Jul, 25 2007 @ 10:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by klatunictobarata

I would like to contribute more here but not if I cannot be part of the community process.



Actaully if I were you, I would just stop talking about it all together. It's proven this thing is a hoax, and its also proven the hoaxer is right here in this thread, and its been proven that someone here is making multiple accounts to make it appear multiple people are agreeing with them. Its also proven that the only reason this hoax is still going, is because the believers are using straw man tacitcs to ignore the real evidence.

At this point, if there was a scale, and you put all the "hoax" evidence on one side, and all the "real" evidence on the other, you can clearly see the "hoax" side is heavyer and we all know the answer, but it keeps getting ignored.

People wan't physical proof, when the only proof availible is multiple coincidences and multiple flaws in the images and storys. Basicaly, its a giant waste of time trying to help anyone. But if you really feel you can train the sheep how to not be affraid of the sheep dogs, go for it.

Just don't get angry when the sheep think they know what they are talking about.



posted on Jul, 25 2007 @ 10:44 PM
link   
11 11, could you please post something to show your information for the first paragraph? These things, aside from the pictures being cgi, that you say are "proven" need some backup.

Thank you.---NGC



posted on Jul, 25 2007 @ 10:53 PM
link   
There are some things that have striked me within the PACL 'manual'.

The first being within the section labeled 1. Overview;
within this section I find it peculiar how it is stated that "the goal of this research has been achieving a greater uderstanding of extraterrestrial technology within the context of commercial applications and civilian use"
That sentence reads as though it was written in the past tense (ex. has been).Also, I am a bit confused how a government sponsored(I presume) laboratory and research team would have made their goal be towards civilian use, especially when it regards extraterrestrial technology.

The second item I noticed within that section is how it talks of an ultimate goal of being able to "provide a core set....for patent review".
I'm curious if anyone is aware if such a patent is currently existing.

The next section that arouses suspicion is labeled 2. Extraction;
This section talks of making human-usable applications of extraterretrial technology. Meanwhile the author goes into various terms and definations such as Extraction and Extraction Package.
What strikes me is listed in sub-note "4." which states as part of the Extraction Package, assembly notes and "BOM" should be included.
Why doesn't the author define BOM? Especially since they had done so with other abbreviations twice before.

Another section that has me somewhat puzzled is labeled 3. Executive Summary of Q4-86; what I have found is listed as sub-note "2." It basically states that the recovered artifact has the ability to project 3D images. Which I find very brief; being as that, would the image have to be recorded in order to be projected? Or say, would the artifact be limited to projecting what was stored internally at the time of creation? Are the images projected in color, if so what about contrast and lighting? Also what is the range of projection ability, 10 miles, 10 yards, 10 feet?
I find it too vague for a document of such value.

Within that section it is also noted that not only were these artifacts recovered in the U.S between 1966 and 1986, but that the antigravity that
the artifact implements is already outdated. Furthermore it states that this newer, more advanced artifact "appears to undoubtably be the product of a different and more andvanced source" which leads me to believe that there is a whole array of extraterrestrial artifacts that the PACL team had encountered during their short span.

Another section which arises suspicion is 4.2.1
within this section there is mentioning of a 'antigravity generator' which is fairly small. This battery/magnet type device(presumably), has the ability to not only provide antigravity but also project antigravity onto other parts of the craft itself; therefore the parts do not repel, but attract (as would opposite side of magnets and vice versa). Next, the author speaks of the I-beams which also attract when within close enough proximity, although it is not stated the actual range needed for this. But apparently when in a certain range, the I-beam's and I quote, "fly" into precise positions on the generator. What concerns me is the term fly. How do you suppose this flying looked? Was it on the floor gliding, or did the I-beams and rise into the air and 'fly'? Exactly how fast was the rate of speed these I-beams flew towards the generator? Again why doesn't this government document not clarify the details? If one was making a manual on an extraterrestrial artifact would they skimp on the details or elaborate on every minute detail?

I will post a follow up regarding the rest of the document later in the week.

edit for spelling error.

[edit on 25-7-2007 by agent violet]



posted on Jul, 25 2007 @ 10:55 PM
link   
I was just going over
PG 4 section 2 paragraph 3
4.2.3
where he talks about RIGID SPATIAL RELATIONS where object A1 is able to focus its antigravity effects on a specific object rather than a large area
and it sounded so much like the Hutchison Effect. Did anyone else feel the same thing? I wonder what would happen if Hutchison turned on his equipment with these foreign materials present...



posted on Jul, 25 2007 @ 11:05 PM
link   
Yep. Hutchison found that heavy objects levitated which I believe he stated he used ions in some way to do this. He also invented Q cell batteries.

But other than that I don't know much about him.



posted on Jul, 25 2007 @ 11:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by agent violet
There are some things that have striked me within the PACL 'manual'.

Another section which arises suspicion is 4.2.1
within this section there is mentioning of a 'antigravity generator' which is fairly small. This battery/magnet type device(presumably), has the ability to not only provide antigravity but also project antigravity onto other parts of the craft itself; therefore the parts do not repel, but attract (as would opposite side of magnets and vice versa). Next, the author speaks of the I-beams which also attract when within close enough proximity, although it is not stated the actual range needed for this. But apparently when in a certain range, the I-beam's and I quote, "fly" into precise positions on the generator. What concerns me is the term fly. How do you suppose this flying looked? Was it on the floor gliding, or did the I-beams and rise into the air and 'fly'? Exactly how fast was the rate of speed these I-beams flew towards the generator? Again why doesn't this government document not clarify the details? If one was making a manual on an extraterrestrial artifact would they skimp on the details or elaborate on every minute detail?

I will post a follow up regarding the rest of the document later in the week.

edit for spelling error.

[edit on 25-7-2007 by agent violet]



If you look at picture #4.4 here is the link to it:

isaaccaret.fortunecity.com...

it clearly shows the I Beams hovering "flying" in position, (this is one of the pictures that was "debunked" by the CGI "experts" because it looked like the I Beams were "floating in mid-air"

supposedly this is the position on the ship where they belonged.

edited for link screw up...sorry

[edit on 25-7-2007 by darkheartrising]



posted on Jul, 25 2007 @ 11:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by agent violet
There are some things that have striked me within the PACL 'manual'.

The first being within the section labeled 1. Overview;
within this section I find it peculiar how it is stated that "the goal of this research has been achieving a greater uderstanding of extraterrestrial technology within the context of commercial applications and civilian use"
That sentence reads as though it was written in the past tense (ex. has been).Also, I am a bit confused how a government sponsored(I presume) laboratory and research team would have made their goal be towards civilian use, especially when it regards extraterrestrial technology.


Excellent post! Glad to have you aboard!
I don't think this was ever intended for civilian use. I think it was a front to get these engineers to reverse engineer alien technology for military use only. However, most engineers would have no desire to create extraordinary devices for an element of the government whose interests include death and destruction. One look at the Manhattan Project will confirm why no sane person would ever do something of that magnitude again. The government has no concern for the welfare of the people and advancing civilization to such an extent that a person would have no need for their government. They like to keep things very orderly; repressing society works well for them.



Another section that has me somewhat puzzled is labeled 3. Executive Summary of Q4-86; what I have found is listed as sub-note "2." It basically states that the recovered artifact has the ability to project 3D images. Which I find very brief; being as that, would the image have to be recorded in order to be projected? Or say, would the artifact be limited to projecting what was stored internally at the time of creation? Are the images projected in color, if so what about contrast and lighting? Also what is the range of projection ability, 10 miles, 10 yards, 10 feet?
I find it too vague for a document of such value.


This report was supposed to be a summary for management, not a detailed "Encyclopaedia Britannica" of the mechanics and intricacies of alien technology.



Within that section it is also noted that not only were these artifacts recovered in the U.S between 1966 and 1986, but that the antigravity that
the artifact implements is already outdated. Furthermore it states that this newer, more advanced artifact "appears to undoubtably be the product of a different and more andvanced source" which leads me to believe that there is a whole array of extraterrestrial artifacts that the PACL team had encountered during their short span.


Sure. It has been said (noted in the Disclosure Project as well as other sources) that 57 races of EBE have been catalogued, with up to 100 possibly visiting us. This could just be an artifact from a race that had never crashed on our planet before.



new topics

top topics



 
185
<< 131  132  133    135  136  137 >>

log in

join