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: 135
185
<< 132  133  134    136  137  138 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 25 2007 @ 11:19 PM
link   
that link doesnt work, please repost i want to see it




posted on Jul, 25 2007 @ 11:22 PM
link   
nevermind, i just went to 'isaacs' page to see it.

hm.

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



posted on Jul, 26 2007 @ 12:29 AM
link   
Don’t know if this was brought up yet
Fooling around here with this Isaac doc and it look like the numbers were written on the little round pieces of paper that were from the punch out



Just to elaborate on this a little
I know that the fonts on the caret docs were trying to be hunted down
What if he used a typewriter and didn’t have the fonts when it came to editing the pic , so he type them out and then punched them out and stuck them on and rescanned



[edit on 26-7-2007 by moonking]



posted on Jul, 26 2007 @ 12:51 AM
link   
I want to pursue an angle in this issue but I will need some help for guys here that live or are familiar with the area of Palo Alto and the place where this installation is located and I know that at least one member is close to the area, also people with military experience or contacts can be a great asset.

If ISAAC said that there was military personnel in that facility, it will show on their records, or base personnel manifest of that era, granted that it might not said that the tour of duty was at the specific location (CARET Laboratories), but they sure will be assign to an specific military installation, also civilians for that matter would have records. There are means to verify this, their are public access sites that you can check historical data from this installations, there are also other means, but what I need to know first is what military installations of any kind existed close to that specific area at that time, that will be a good place to start. If you know what to look for you going to find some discrepancies.

Now I truly believe that if they had military people on those facilities the more likely to be Air Force or Army, but more than likely Air Force.

This facility would had have more than at least 20 guards assign to it given the general description ISAAC gave, im sure it will be more depending on size of the building and his reference of one guard in every lab, thats a lot of MP's or SF's at one location.

It might be another dead end, but if for some reasons theres discrepancies in the records of some sort it could weight heavily agains the truth or hoax aspect of this, thats why I think is worth pursuing.


[edit on 26-7-2007 by Bunch]



posted on Jul, 26 2007 @ 12:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by Bunch

1. 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?

2. 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]


1. I have been in many American military installations particularly around the mid 80's and many times was watched in a room by a guard with machine guns while I performed the most menial of tasks.
It's actually very effective security.

2. I also have proof that this whole thing is real but don't feel comfortable sharing.

Sorry for the sarcasm but please.



posted on Jul, 26 2007 @ 01:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by moonking
Don’t know if this was brought up yet
Fooling around here with this Isaac doc and it look like the numbers were written on the little round pieces of paper that were from the punch out
Just to elaborate on this a little
I know that the fonts on the caret docs were trying to be hunted down
What if he used a typewriter and didn’t have the fonts when it came to editing the pic , so he type them out and then punched them out and stuck them on and rescanned


Hold on just a second... are you trying to say that the person(s) who put this elaborate hoax together (if a hoax at all) with incredible CGI and vector art and state-of-the-art computers didn't have a typeface so had to resort to using a typewriter?? That's so laughable that if I drank a cup of water right now it would be coming out of my nose for the next month.
Your previous posts have been very insightful, however.


[edit on 7/26/2007 by pjslug]



posted on Jul, 26 2007 @ 01:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by 11 11


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.


Baaaah !

It's the hoax believers that are using the straw man theory.

Come on then - who is the hoaxer that is part of this thread and on what do you base that assumption ?

Physical proof would be good, although not sure what I'd do with a captive drone and I would stand well back before I pressed any buttons on the anti gravity generator. Generally sufficient evidence is enough to tip the scales you mentioned, sorry they haven't overbalanced yet but please do add further weight to either side.

Woof !



posted on Jul, 26 2007 @ 01:41 AM
link   
11 11 stop making claims you cant back up. There are new readers here and if you say something like that it might distract them.



posted on Jul, 26 2007 @ 01:50 AM
link   
When one looks, one can find a variety of "caret" references. I'm going to become a "Drone-ista". LOL.

Here's one, "CARET" Computerized Anatomical Reconstruction and Editing Toolkit it's designed for interactively viewing, manipulating, and analyzing surface reconstructions of the cerebral and cerebellar cortex. It's for modeling brain surgery and mapping the surface of damaged cortex material. Hmmm. Van Essen Labs. These are the "Databasing the Brain" research crew. Trends in cognitive sciences. Sounds close.

Here's another, the IntelliDOT CAREt the wireless medical "iPod" for health care professionals here. The CAREt™ Breast Milk Matching System went "live" yesterday. OK.

Let's see? How about the Merriam-Webster dictionary? OK.

"Etymology: Latin, there is lacking, from carEre to lack, be without: a wedge-shaped mark made on written or printed matter to indicate the place where something is to be inserted "

Seems accurate. More? Wanna find Isaac? Really? Go ahead... start in St. Louis and work out.

Cheers,

Vic



posted on Jul, 26 2007 @ 01:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by pjslug
Hold on just a second... are you trying to say that the person(s) who put this elaborate hoax together (if a hoax at all) with incredible CGI and vector art and state-of-the-art computers didn't have a typeface so had to resort to using a typewriter?? That's so laughable that if I drank a cup of water right now it would be coming out of my nose for the next month.
Your previous posts have been very insightful, however.


[edit on 7/26/2007 by pjslug]


None the less, they look stuck on and there the exact size of the punch out

It’s not like the mid 80’s were the Stone Age

Hoax or not it's bizarre




and stuck on the scan not on the photo before it was scanned
notice how much brighter it is
has anyone found these fonts?
don't know what I was thinking ,the caret doc's look like they were done on a computer , still wonder what fonts they used







[

[edit on 26-7-2007 by moonking]



posted on Jul, 26 2007 @ 02:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by PsykoOps
11 11 stop making claims you cant back up. There are new readers here and if you say something like that it might distract them.


I suggest new readers committing their time to reading this entire thread if they want the answers, because the answers were already given to you all.
All of my claims have been backed up in this thread. The truth is in this thread, and I guess it takes a special skill to see it.


I still to this day have seen zero supporting evidence that these pictures, and this drone are real. All I have seen are numerous amounts of truthful CGI data and lighting calculations that prove the drone is NOT actually physically present in most of the pictures.



[edit on 26-7-2007 by 11 11]



posted on Jul, 26 2007 @ 02:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by PsykoOps
11 11 stop making claims you cant back up. There are new readers here and if you say something like that it might distract them.


The CGI claim has been backed up considerably. The shadow errors in the Raj pics alone speak volumes, and it goes a lot deeper than that. The EXIF inconstancies as well are serious issues.

For me, these have become smoking guns in your mind, but even if you aren't totally convinced, you can't say the claim isn't "backed up". It most certainly is.



posted on Jul, 26 2007 @ 02:52 AM
link   
Man, CHUNDER, am I stupid or what?
You say in #2 the following: " I also have proof that this whole thing is real but don't feel comfortable sharing."
There is a 50-50 outcome probability that you have proof or not. Good odds indeed. If you could elaborate more on why you feel uncomfortable or could steer us in a comfortable way to a better direction, then we might gain some valuable knowledge.
Or you could just be a tease!



posted on Jul, 26 2007 @ 03:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by 11 11
I still to this day have seen zero supporting evidence that these pictures, and this drone are real. All I have seen are numerous amounts of truthful CGI data and lighting calculations that prove the drone is NOT actually physically present in most of the pictures.


I just posted this in another thread a few hours ago and I think it is relevant here, too:

Have you ever noticed that no matter how strong the evidence for any given subject, if one has a strong faith or belief in something their belief will overshadow any factual evidence? One has to completely throw their ideology and belief system out the window to uncover the truth about anything in this world. I think history has proven that.

...and I don't think you have thrown your belief system out the window. We do have supporting evidence FOR this. We do have supporting evidence AGAINST it, but none based on your "evidence" which you have changed your mind about time after time after time. You can try to fool other people here, 11 11, but I am a graphic artist and everything you've posted can be argued for it is flawed. Try looking at stereo images of the drones and you will see why your arguments don't hold water. The way they move, their angle, their pitch, yaw, the way they were photographed with respect to the telephone pole, etc. would be a feat for anyone to do in CGI without first seeing them move in real life, and wooden or plastic models don't move through the sky on their own.

You have been so hell bent on this being a hoax since day one that you have never even opened your mind up to the possibility that it's real because you are looking at this through tinted lenses. You have never even taken any of the potential evidence that people have provided about the validity of the report because you dismiss this thing solely to CGI. Try looking at it from other angles. You expect people to believe what you say, yet you get condescending if they don't. Well why should anyone take to heart what you say when you don't offer others the same respect? You accuse people of signing on to ATS under different names when you have no clue of their IP addresses. You accuse people of being Isaac, you accused ME of being Isaac. There are lots of things in life I was so sure of, things I would have bet my life on that I was proven wrong about. Now, I won't come to any conclusion without weighing all the evidence -- and you should do the same. It's perfectly normal to want something to be real or not be real -- it factors in to our core beliefs -- but when your beliefs are so strong that your eyes aren't open wide enough to see what could be right in front of you then it's a bad thing. If your "evidence" was valid, I would give you all the praise you seem to be actively seeking.

[edit on 7/26/2007 by pjslug]



posted on Jul, 26 2007 @ 03:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by klatunictobarata
Man, CHUNDER, am I stupid or what?
You say in #2 the following: " I also have proof that this whole thing is real but don't feel comfortable sharing."
There is a 50-50 outcome probability that you have proof or not. Good odds indeed. If you could elaborate more on why you feel uncomfortable or could steer us in a comfortable way to a better direction, then we might gain some valuable knowledge.
Or you could just be a tease!


He said he was being sarcastic.



posted on Jul, 26 2007 @ 03:14 AM
link   
Some more food for thought for anyone's that interested...

Meme Wars: We Have an Agenda
www.realityuncovered.com...


"Yes, both SERPO and the CHAD game are "phony," but to leave it at that is to misunderstand the game that is being played. As the Alchemist said to his Apprentice: "the game may be fixed, but it's the only game in town."


This is an interesting lead and might be worth looking into...


Again, the text pages of the Report are brilliant pieces of expert summary, written by someone who has a most detailed and scholarly knowledge of present day discussions on "anti-gravity," The material in the few odd pages of the Report is very definitely Web-derived and traceable to certain Lists and sites, such as American Antigravity at www.americanantigravity.com...


AD



posted on Jul, 26 2007 @ 03:18 AM
link   
www.21stcenturyassessment.com...




The PACL is a 153-item self-report and rating measure of Theodore Millon's (1969/1983) eight basic personality patterns for use with normal adults and counseling patients. It features a problem indicator (PI) scale that taps aspects of Millon's three severe schizoid, cycloid, and paranoid styles, and may be used a measure of personality disorder


Says it all really. I really hope this is not a BS Hoax....



posted on Jul, 26 2007 @ 04:01 AM
link   



None the less, they look stuck on and there the exact size of the punch out

It’s not like the mid 80’s were the Stone Age

Hoax or not it's bizarre




and stuck on the scan not on the photo before it was scanned
notice how much brighter it is
has anyone found these fonts?
don't know what I was thinking ,the caret doc's look like they were done on a computer , still wonder what fonts they used


Actually, it's not all that bizarre. I worked in corporate graphic arts in the 80's and all of this is perfectly consistent. It wouldn't be that unusual for a well financed group at that time to actually use proto-word processing units, really a kind of electronic typesetting unit, for their reports. This would look very much like current computer printing. It would also not be unusual to have someone, a scientist for instance, use clumsy identifiers, like your punch-out dots, rather than re-sending it to a place like I worked at to do it professionally. I saw things like this *all of the time*, as teams ran into time constraints or budget ceilings. Frankly, rather than making it seem more of a hoax, it simply gives it more verisimilitude to me.



posted on Jul, 26 2007 @ 04:22 AM
link   
pjslug,

I have to agree with you in your recent post regarding 11 11.

I am getting REALLY sick of your posts 11 11, i'm sorry to all if this comes across as being offensive but time after time you post brash comments on Isaac and the images being a hoax.

We get it ok?

This is a discussion board, how can people OPENLY discuss this subject when you wade in and claim a number of things based on your own assumptions. How on earth can you claim that it is PROVEN that Isaac is posting here??? I mean really, how can you prove that? you are assuming that he is posting here but you can't prove it. I tolerated your earlier tyrades pages ago and was relieved to see that you were banned for a couple of days to cool off,and when you came back you were fine in your next few posts giving good information and then you come out and blurt the "I know best" crap again, i'm starting to dislike this thread which is a real shame because I don't know what i would do without ATS but this is really starting to annoy. My apologies for being off topic but someone has to say something.



posted on Jul, 26 2007 @ 04:29 AM
link   
11 11, I was kind of referring to your comment about someone having multiple accounts to boost this thread.
I dont agree with your analysis on the cgi front though, but you already knew that




top topics



 
185
<< 132  133  134    136  137  138 >>

log in

join