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: 143
185
<< 140  141  142    144  145  146 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 27 2007 @ 01:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by chunder
Fake 90% Real 10%
Hoax 50% Other 50%

Is it possible to summarise a complex personal opinion and then include it at the top of each post to help any new readers ?


I feel you man, I wish I could be one of the guys that already formed their opinion I have walk out of this. I think I'm getting close to it.




posted on Jul, 27 2007 @ 01:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by pjslug
You just showed it yourself!!! By the time I was done, I'd made out with hundreds of photocopies, as well as a few originals and a large collection of original photographs. A FEW ORIGINALS, HUNDREDS OF PHOTOCOPIES. I was right. And so were you.
[edit on 7/27/2007 by pjslug]


Ok I misread you somehow, I tought you didnt knew that he had original docs, that what I was alluding to.

You know what my point is on that issue, it just does not convince me at all.

[edit on 27-7-2007 by Bunch]



posted on Jul, 27 2007 @ 02:01 AM
link   
This sounds strange, I hope any native english speaker will help on this,

ISAAC:

5 pages from a report on our ongoing analysis of the “language” (inappropriately titled “linguistic analysis”), depicting the kind of
diagram just barely visible on the underside of the Big Basin craft


Is he refering to an ongoing analysis, are those terms in proper use? Present tense? Or maybe just me nitpicking.

[edit on 27-7-2007 by Bunch]



posted on Jul, 27 2007 @ 02:11 AM
link   
It's kind of pointless to speculate whether it's possible to do what isaac did with the documents. We dont even know what position he exactly held in caret. He may have been the guy in charge of making copies and distributing them to fellow researchers. That is if caret ever even existed



posted on Jul, 27 2007 @ 03:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by Bunch
This sounds strange, I hope any native english speaker will help on this,

ISAAC:

5 pages from a report on our ongoing analysis of the “language” (inappropriately titled “linguistic analysis”), depicting the kind of
diagram just barely visible on the underside of the Big Basin craft


Is he refering to an ongoing analysis, are those terms in proper use? Present tense? Or maybe just me nitpicking.

[edit on 27-7-2007 by Bunch]


he discusses the papers in which he explains the contents in a present tense style as if it were now because the paper was written in the present tense, they're just outdated so for us its past tense. Long story short; the english is correct.

Where are you from, if i may ask?

[edit on 27-7-2007 by shadow fax]



posted on Jul, 27 2007 @ 03:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by Arlington Acid
If you study that drone blow-up, you'll notice some odd quality to the material, with much lighter areas inside of circles are rings around circles.....what IS that? Isn't this starting to get into a degree of detail that is well outside the capacity of your garden variety hoaxer? Frankly, it's starting to look like something outside of the capacity of a government funded hoaxer! Can any of you graphics whizzes dig out the design on that part? Raise the contrast enough so that we can see the fine connecting lines in that part of the photo?


Uhhh, I guess he ran out of clear decal paper? It looks like he printed black onto white decal film, or black AND white onto clear decal film (with say an APLS 5000 printer), which would give the same effect. It's not hard to get white, its a fairly common colour.



posted on Jul, 27 2007 @ 03:32 AM
link   
White is not a color
.

In the scope of this 'language' controlling hardware, basically 'being' hardware, it wouldn't seem unlikely to use both ends of the spectrum, i.e.: black AND white, thereby broadening the extent of available options in terms of soft-hardware integration.

of course if decals were used on a model, then going to the length of printing white is quite odd. a bit too much work if you ask me. but it seems that should this be the product of someones hobby, (s)he hasn't been very shy of work anyway.



posted on Jul, 27 2007 @ 05:48 AM
link   
[url=http://img503.imageshack.us/img503/5631/equalizedpaclq486reportpm6.jpg]equalized _/url]

anyone ever noticed this? I was toying around and mistakenly hit the 'equalize' funtion in p-shop and got this. it's on all the documents and ive compared it to previously topsecret classified documents that have been released and they have no such marks. its also not the same as watermark artifacts, which just vaguely turn up..

im going to look into copy/xerox machines and see what kind of process artifacts they give documents. i work for a copying machine company (in the tech dept even) but noone here has ever seen such images come from scanned copies.

anyone have an idea?

Jay



posted on Jul, 27 2007 @ 06:18 AM
link   
Another chap has posted a bunch of images related to the chad drones, before you get excited we have already seen them, it's basically a collection of UFO community images all trying to get to the bottom of these whole thing. One image did catch my eye though and it was this:





It's from an old episode of The Twilight Zone:

en.wikipedia.org...(The_Twilight_Zone)

Could somebody who has primer knowledge see if these symbols match?



posted on Jul, 27 2007 @ 06:43 AM
link   
Here is the actual book, it's in a museum now.





I'm not sure if it's copyrighted so i'm not sure if i have done the right thing posting it here, i apologise in advance if i made a mistake

Here is the link:

www.twilightzonemuseum.com...

The story is that Earth gets visited by aliens who are very friendly initially and they carry a book full of symbols that we cannot decipher. A linguistics team set's to work on the symbols to understand the language and by the time they decipher it they realise that it's actually a cook book with instructions on how to cook us humans.

[edit on 27/7/07 by October]

[edit on 27/7/07 by October]

[edit on 27/7/07 by October]



posted on Jul, 27 2007 @ 08:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by shadow fax
[url=http://img503.imageshack.us/img503/5631/equalizedpaclq486reportpm6.jpg]equalized _/url]

anyone ever noticed this? I was toying around and mistakenly hit the 'equalize' funtion in p-shop and got this. it's on all the documents and ive compared it to previously topsecret classified documents that have been released and they have no such marks. its also not the same as watermark artifacts, which just vaguely turn up..

im going to look into copy/xerox machines and see what kind of process artifacts they give documents. i work for a copying machine company (in the tech dept even) but noone here has ever seen such images come from scanned copies.

anyone have an idea?

Jay


Oh yeah, the big "T" it has been brought up before and nothing ever became of it.



posted on Jul, 27 2007 @ 08:49 AM
link   
Final analysis

I decided to call this thing the Coin Theory in one side are the Hoaxers on the other side are the Cover-up and on the rim of the coin is Hollywood written around it.

I also decided ask Scooby-Doo what he thinks about this thing.

Newkid: Scooby, what do you think about this?

Scooby-Doo: Iduno

Newkid: Great answered Scooby lets go get snack.

Sincerely Shaggy, aka "Newkid".



posted on Jul, 27 2007 @ 09:15 AM
link   



Originally posted by bokinsmowl
i noticed these markings while examining the iff you look at the high-res you will see them in other places too...implementation of the "self-actualizing code"? or the object used as inspiration for the primers.



[edit on 7/26/2007 by bokinsmowl]


Now that you've said what you've said, please go back and re-read my post. You are agreeing with exactly what I said. Before you jump to conclusions about the nature of someone's post, I suggest you read the entire post before replying to it.



i was agreeing with you and i posted pictures. you had said that you saw the primers on the big basin drone... the quote was just to help people find the post, sorry if i chose a part more or less irrelevant to the conversation.



posted on Jul, 27 2007 @ 09:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by Bunch

Im sorry Chunder, I have been on this thread since the beggining and I think you too, I dont have the specifics posts, but if you remember when the CGI/NOT CGI was on going is was brought up that Mr.JRitzman and Mr. Biedny (both guys come with very good credentials) came to the conclusion that this was a hoax.

In addition you can say what you want about 11 11, but he does put some holes in regards to the pics and some others have done as well. Also if you go to others sites where they have CGI guys they majority has come to this conclusion, so IMO having that and with my personal experience, I'm leaning towards hoax.

Like I said I'm still open to any other evidence that can surface.

[edit on 27-7-2007 by Bunch]


You see, it's right there that I hit one of those speed bumps of life. You, and a lot of other folks I expect, take what these CGI people say as closing the matter down. Sure, I take their evaluation of the photos as correct, but they are no more an expert on the rest of this stuff than you and I.

Let me put it this way. The tire on your new car separates the tread off after just a thousand miles, and causes a wreck. Your lawyer calls in a "tire expert" to explain what happened to the tire and how it separated. But this same tire expert doesn't remain there to tell the jury how bad your case of whiplash was. He did his job when he finished talking about tires.

So when people say that Ritzman or Biedney called this a hoax it is funny to me. Do you people take your kids to a vet instead of a doctor? You could, I mean it is close to being medicine for humans. Do you have the guy that cleans the pool take a look at your teeth while he's there? After all, he does clean things. These people are experts on CGI, but that doesn't make them experts on hoaxes, or alien technology, or linguistics, or even good BBQ.

If you're going to sign off on something as a hoax, or as being real, at least do it because you think so, not because some authority figure from one field told you to. My mother used to say that "Being a fireman doesn't automatically make you a good cook." That applies to a lot of things in life.



posted on Jul, 27 2007 @ 09:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by PsykoOps
It's kind of pointless to speculate whether it's possible to do what isaac did with the documents. We dont even know what position he exactly held in caret. He may have been the guy in charge of making copies and distributing them to fellow researchers. That is if caret ever even existed


I disagree, I think in a story like this, every angle is worth analyze. He puts out a story, pics, then we have to analyze what he gives, is like me saying that we should not speculate if the pics are CGI or not, because they might be CGI but he was trying to recreate what he saw at the time.

We need to stop making excuses for the guy and just look and what he gives.

Some people has suggested that he might be in charge of security or the guy that had the keys or code for the copymachine, but in he's story he never refers to that. He makes a vague reference as to take advantage of his position and for his story you can infer that he had many of those, lets see:
1. Computer Scientist
2. Engineer
3. A manager of some sorts for the research.

He does mention the having to go to the military for CI, and all the trouble and hassle that was, he dont mention that he had easy access to it. Again thats his story, of course they can be many alternate explanation, but personally I'm not interested in making explanations for him, I'm more interested in what he had said.

Too many inconsistencies.

BTW, someone ask where I'm from, for some reason I dont feel comfortable answering that question, sorry.

[edit on 27-7-2007 by Bunch]

[edit on 27-7-2007 by Bunch]

[edit on 27-7-2007 by Bunch]



posted on Jul, 27 2007 @ 11:08 AM
link   
The timeframe and origin of the expression or phrase "MISSION STATEMENT"?

I brought this up briefly before in a thread, asking what the origin or the timeframe of origin of the expression or phrase in american or international usage, the phrase "MISSION STATEMENT".

This pertains due to the use of the phrase in the CARET / PACL document written in 1986. If the mission statement phrase did not come about until AFTER 1986 well..then...you know....


Here's the paragraph snippet from the 1st paragraph of the CARET document:


CARET Document / Isaac Caret website document, Palo Alto Research Laboratory (PACL) Mission Statement:

In accordance with the CARET program mission statement, the goal of this research has been achieving a greater understanding of extraterrestrial technology within the context of commercial applications and civilian use... yadda...yaddda...

I seem to think that the phrase :mission statement: is a relatively new phrase, but could have been in common usage long before...Anyone want to shed some light on this question???

So we're talking about the phrase used in corporate, educational, scientific or other organizations within their documents or financials or other official documentation. If anyone cites the use of the phrase before 1986, if you have the particular document handy that would be 'icing on the cake' as well (another expression lol).

ALSO: As an aside, while I'm at it, I believe the CARET version of the definition of a "mission statement" may be in error. It's my understanding that the term should describe where a company is at AT THE PRESENT TIME. The term "vision statement" describes the future of the organization, where it's going or heading...mission statement describes where you are now...

Here is wikipedia's version of the statements:


wiki mission statement....

Organizations sometimes summarize goals and objectives into a mission statement and/or a vision statement:

While the existence of a shared mission is extremely useful, many strategy specialists question the requirement for a written mission statement. However, there are many models of strategic planning that start with mission statements, so it is useful to examine them here.

* A Mission statement: tells you what the company is now. It concentrates on present; it defines the customer(s), critical processes and it informs you about the desired level of performance.

* A Vision statement: outlines what a company wants to be. It concentrates on future; it is a source of inspiration; it provides clear decision-making criteria.

Many people mistake vision statement for mission statement. The Vision describes a future identity and the Mission describes why it will be achieved. A Mission statement defines the purpose or broader goal for being in existence or in the business. It serves as an ongoing guide without time frame. The mission can remain the same for decades if crafted well. Vision is more specific in terms of objective and future state. Vision is related to some form of achievement if successful.


Some examples of some properly formatted "mission statements":

  • We help transport goods and people efficiently and cost effectively without damaging environment" is a mission statement.

  • Ford's brief but powerful slogan "Quality is Job 1" is a mission statement.

    So the CARET document seems to be confused about what a mission statement needs to be in this supposedly finely crafted document. It clearly states in the caret doc that it's referring to GOALS of the program as being the mission statement as written n this document....so WTF? or is everything a-ok with this seeming error?


    [edit on 7/27/2007 by greatlakes]



  • posted on Jul, 27 2007 @ 11:43 AM
    link   
    The concept of the "mission statement" was reverse engineered from alien technology as well, and was one of PACL's many innovcations. So no, there's no problem with their use of the term.



    posted on Jul, 27 2007 @ 11:56 AM
    link   

    Originally posted by Bunch
    We need to stop making excuses for the guy and just look and what he gives.
    [edit on 27-7-2007 by Bunch]


    You've hit the nail on the head. What keeps bothering me about this, especially since I was doing this myself up until a few weeks ago, is that I think we're making more allowances for this story's flaws than we would another story.

    Imagine for a moment that all this time we'd been discussing something far more mundane, like a low-level political scandal or even a personal matter like someone's girlfriend cheating on them or whatever.

    Just like we are with every other aspect of our lives, we'd be brutally scrutinizing in our analysis of the presented facts, and we'd have very little tolerance for things that didn't appear to "add up". If I was told my girlfriend was cheating on me, or that my congressman was accepting bribes, I wouldn't be nearly so quick to excuse the numerous inconsistencies and suspicious details that have popped up so far.

    But, this is rather entertaining story about UFOs and black ops programs and, as members of both a forum and a community that loves this kind of stuff, we're naturally more interested in the outcome of this than we are with most other mysteries. So my honest take on things is that we're just being too easy on it. Now granted, some people have been rather harsh, and I've found myself turning into quite the grizzled ol' skeptic myself, but overall, this story is still enjoying quite a bit of leeway.

    This isn't aimed at anyone in particular. My advice for all of us is to simply check our personal interest at the door and take off the kid gloves. In the end, the resolution to all of this will be much more satisfying if we reach it through brutal honesty, rather than tip-toeing around the parts we don't necessarily like. I think that once ALL of us start getting equally tough with this, the hoax theory will become even more prevalent than it is.

    Of course, that's just my take.



    posted on Jul, 27 2007 @ 12:33 PM
    link   

    Originally posted by newkid
    My 4th question looking at how they made Star Trek Next Generation they had real scientist grads working on the set, so that means they must have scientist experts, UFOlogist experts, and paranormal experts. Oh I forgot with Isaac report linguistic experts, text image experts (whatever) and PARC experts, hum that is a lot I give up ask the expert.

    Reading that, I remember a friend of mine had a manual to the Enterprise that explained in credible detail how everything worked and the science behind it
    I remember somewhat reading how the onboard computer system had some type of a warp drive processor and thinking how believable it all sounded
    It brings up the point that there is an incredible amount of good story lines with the science to back them that come out of Hollywood all the time that you could take and instead of making a movie, throw it up on the internet and claim it to be real.
    I think the argument that no one could make up the Isaac story falls way short of the reality of truth



    posted on Jul, 27 2007 @ 12:51 PM
    link   

    Originally posted by greatlakes

    I seem to think that the phrase :mission statement: is a relatively new phrase, but could have been in common usage long before...Anyone want to shed some light on this question???


    I was in business school in the early 80's graduated 1985 and the term mission statement was of common use back then.

    In the quote you provided from CARET documents, I dont see any improper use of the term "mission statement".

    Im also not saying this makes the document authentic, its just not an improper use imo.



    new topics

    top topics



     
    185
    << 140  141  142    144  145  146 >>

    log in

    join