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: 164
185
<< 161  162  163    165  166  167 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 9 2007 @ 12:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by klatunictobarata
What I don't think is realistic is that a MANUAL that is supposed to be ‘Above top Secret' would be PRINTED/PUBLISHED for civilian industry-based technology development with the all too conspicuous title: "Commercial Applications Research for Extraterrestrial Technology." Isn't that title a mite too obvious? If I were a hoaxer that would sound GREAT . . . however, I do not think that the military would allow a printed and published manual like this to be released to any civilian agency no matter what.


Yes, I've always found that to be a little suspicious, too, which is a contributing part to why this whole thing sounds like a big disinfo campaign. I'm glad Lexion (the ATS member, not the C2C Lex) and hopefully other ATS members to follow suit will start to consider this possibility moreso than a direct hoax. This story and it's components have always been, in my mind way too grandiose even for one's possibly huge ego.

[edit on 8/9/2007 by pjslug]




posted on Aug, 9 2007 @ 12:46 AM
link   
ok I recant the previous statement altogether;but with skepticism based on this line from LMH

I emailed these issues to Isaac

which implies to me at least that the issues mentioned(these) were sent.
however i do see your point pjslug as to 'these' being a collective although unlisted bunch.



posted on Aug, 9 2007 @ 01:03 AM
link   
More E-mail updates

E-mail from myself to George, 10:50 p.m. 8-8-07


Hi George,
I just thought you may want to see what the website did indeed show for the whole week:

"Investigative reporter Linda Moulton Howe will share a fascinating interview with a university professor in Computer Science and Engineering, who is so impressed with the Isaac letters and CARET document that he agreed to talk about them on the record."

I have been corresponding with Lex and LMH but I thought you would like to see it, and if you had any comments to add, I and fellow ATS members would like to hear them.

Regards,
Phil


Response from George (hey, at least he's quick!
)



Nope other than your deserve an update and followup


Well, at the very least he is acting like he is concerned for my welfare. I think he is probably being sincere, but I still find it very hard to believe that he hadn't looked at his own station's website's front page for the entire week.



posted on Aug, 9 2007 @ 04:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by pjslug

Hi Linda,

Thank you for your response. It was apparently C2C's fault then for not changing their website information. It was somewhat of a letdown since many of us were looking forward to hearing a whole show about the CARET documents. I will present this information to the ATS community.

It would be very much appreciated if you could arrange some correspondence with Isaac and perhaps myself or one of the owners of ATS. We are a little confused as
to the "Isaac clarifications" that you reported. There seem to be some discrepancies with the dates of the e-mails. We are puzzled with the fact that you received the clarifications from him only a day after the initial disclosure of his info, yet you held his response for a month before reporting it to us.

If you could, I would appreciate clarification of this issue. I have been part of the minority of ATS that believes much of what Isaac has claimed, and would like to be able to further provide proof of his claims to the community.

Thank you very much for your time,
Phil


May good luck be with you on achieving this middle paragraphs goals, Phil, but I highly doubt that LMH will ever recommend, ask him or even suggest to 'Isaac' that he get in contact with anyone other then her and her affiliates. If she were to pass Isaac off to speak and deal with anyone but her then that puts her in a position to be 'less important' and even 'less of interest' to Isaac with his information because someone 'better to handle the story' may be presented and she 'needs' Isaac to see her as his valuable 'spokesperson' to the 'wanting to know more public', especially because of the paid members who dish out and waste money paying for C2C broadcasts hoping for LMH to announce new information from Isaac 'live on the air'.

If Isaac were to say speak to you or an ATS owner or anyone else other then LMH he could easily be led away from Earthfiles and C2C making those 'businesses' lose out on all the recent hype, site traffic, paid membership and new rush of popularity they have received the last few months that Isaac has generated for LMH, C2C and Earthfiles, which has simply equaled more money in 'their' pockets not Isaac's.

At best LMH will maybe consider sending Isaac some of our 'questions' we have for him but it wont be until 'she decides' on which questions he receives and only 'those she decides' to post back to us on some future breaking news update on Earthfiles and C2C will we ever see anything supposedly in a response from Isaac on what 'we' want to know.

It's a control thing and LMH has control over all the emails Isaac sends her and she controls what is posted from those emails and she controls what time and at what point those emails are posted and the 'excuse' of her waiting to post his email responses a month after she received them because she was 'waiting to see if there was going to be a live phone interview first' on a paid membership broadcast is just not right and is no better then S. Greer saying buy my DVD for 29.95 first if you want information that 'I' have been 'given'. Some disclosure that is.


Maybe Isaac is telling her what and what she can and can not say on regards to what he is disclosing to her but if thats true then Isaac shouldn't be saying things or giving things (photos, docs, etc.) to LMH if she can't do anything with them, meaning immediately show and report his information to the public when it becomes available to her. But I'm not fully believing that this is the case.

Good luck again on getting a hold of and speaking with Isaac but if Isaac was truly serious and truly truthful about what he is saying then he would already be trying to get a hold of and speaking to 'us the public' in a much better way.

All said in My opinion as I lean farther over the fence to the side of 'detail oriented hoax thats turned in the direction of how much profit can be gained'.
Bzzzzz



posted on Aug, 9 2007 @ 04:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by agent violet
chunder, so i decided to take you up on the challenge so to speak and this my friend is what i came up with (this is just one):


I realize now that I did not make this clear, but I should clarify that I am not responsible for the blacking out of the Q4-86 report.


so chunder in response to your question("can you point to any answer given by Isaac that was to a question that hadn't been asked ?") you can now see Isaac answers a question to a question that was not asked(!)
at least IMO


And this my friend is what LMH says on the same page as your quote above before explaining she emailed these issues to him.

"Other repeated criticism was that if Isaac really wanted the public to see some of the research facts behind the aerial "drones," why did he blacken some of the CARET document text?"


Edited to add: Sorry, just seen your recant above - I reserve the right to leave my post up though in response to your original.

[edit on 9-8-2007 by chunder]



posted on Aug, 9 2007 @ 08:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by maybereal11
LMH Wrote


If you read any of her other interviews, she's a bit bit of a sensationalist; she uses leading questions and or fixed questions to get the answers to the theories she prescribes to herself.

f.e. (this is my own summary but in Linda's style, just read ANY of the drone interviews to see what I mean): If someone saw say a drone, she'd ask them (of course, she loves to emphasise her questions in caps, too, so sorry Springer buddy, I gotta do it, for continuity
-

DID YOU SEE A THING WITH LOADS OF RINGS, HOVERING WITHOUT SOUND, WITH ONE OR MORE LONG BOOMS AND SEVERAL, PROBABLY THREE SHORT ONES, MAYBE NEAR A POWER LINE? OH AND WHAT WAS THE WRITING ON IT LIKE, IT WAS ALIEN WASN'T IT, YOU'D NEVER SEEN IT BEFORE HAD YOU?

That's Lindas style. I'm sorry but I just can't stand her 'investigative style' because she practically gets the interview going just from her leading-questions. What she wants to know, she ASKS herself, she doesn't let them answer, she practically programs the guest on what to say, that AIN'T journalism in my book.



posted on Aug, 9 2007 @ 08:22 AM
link   
Pj:

www.phoenixgasprices.com...

search for "Linda Moulton Howe will share a fascinating interview" and it should be on that page. It seems to be a chronicle of the interviews, dunno what its doing on such a strange, non-interrelated forum, but... meh.



posted on Aug, 9 2007 @ 10:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by Access Denied
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."

Meme Wars: **Update**
Part 2 of Colin Bennett's "Meme Wars" essay has been released and is available to read here…

www.realityuncovered.com...

Here’s a short excerpt to give you an idea of where he’s coming from…


Ufology is in desperate need of updated reconstruction. One thing is certain. The CHAD phenomenon cannot be dealt with by the boiler-house science of the Victorian Station Masters who dominate Old Ufology. CHAD, being a UFO, represents the debut of a New Model Ufology. Yes, CHAD is a synthetic UFO, but "real" UFOs might be equally synthetic from quite a different point of view. If we are ever to begin to understand both artificial intelligence and possible alien psychology we had better start thinking right of that very box and not keep on piling up case-histories like some gone-mad grocer out of a Norman Rockwell painting of Old American grocery store.


The matrix has you.


AD



posted on Aug, 9 2007 @ 12:18 PM
link   
Thanks, AD...

For a downloadable .pdf of the Part 2 article and a complete discussion on the meme-angle regarding the CARET/Drone story on ATS, see the CARET/Drones Debunked? thread....

Thanks for all the interesting commentary...



posted on Aug, 9 2007 @ 12:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by BuzzingOn...if Isaac was truly serious and truly truthful about what he is saying then he would already be trying to get a hold of and speaking to 'us the public' in a much better way.


Not neccesarily. Recall that Isaac's intentions were to send up a trial balloon of sorts to test the waters of public response to his alleged disclosure.

His prerogative is to wait out that response, perhaps indefinitely, as he sees fit. He gave himself that out in his presentation.

This all assumes he's legit, of course.



posted on Aug, 9 2007 @ 06:17 PM
link   
Esteemed colleagues, please help me out. I could not find any answers and seek your opines:

#1. Isaac says he did not blacken out (redact or censor) the lines in the PRIMER/RESEARCH REPORT. Well, who exactly did? CARET administrators? Military censors? This goes against his claim that: "CARET shined in the way it let us work the way we were used to working. They wanted to recreate as much of the environment we were used to as they could without compromising issues like security. That meant we got free reign to set up our own workflow, internal management structure, style manuals, documentation, and the like. They wanted this to look and feel like private industry, not the military." FREE REIGN WITH THESE ABOVE TOP SECRET CONCEPTS? Where are these 'style manuals'? What documentation could they create that was not as sensitive as the PRIMER/REPORT itself that would allow for ‘free reign'? Seems to make no sense...no consistency.

#2. CONTRADICTION: Isaac states that "They knew that was how to get the best work out of us, and they were right." as quoted in #1. above. YET, Isaac also comments that "you were never far from the barrel of a machine gun." Well, military security doesn't have M60 fully automatic machine guns on tripods (especially in close quarters), and he surely knows that sentries and guards carry sidearms (Beretta 9mm semiautomatic pistol or the .45 cal. M1911 Colt Automatic) and possibly either an M16 variant (assault-type rifle or carbine) or a more compact 9mm HK MP5. Since Isaac is a stickler for details, I think he slipped up on this description of his so-called work place. Also, weapon inaccuracies aside, even the THOUGHT that these were menacing machine guns would be anathema to a scientific worker's productivity - which the military and PACL were trying to maximize.

Any thoughts; did I miss something?



posted on Aug, 9 2007 @ 06:32 PM
link   
Oh, I forgot to ask you all a final question I had:

Were we given a reason that C2C/George Noory seemed to allow LMH/EARTHFILES to pick up ISAAC's ball and run with it? Isaac initially contacted C2C and NOT LMH, so I was wondering why George Noory let LMH take the point, so to speak. I wonder if George Knapp was given a crack at this...or Stanton Friedman, who is a real rocket scientist.

Perhaps Mr. Noory isn't an investigative journalist and passed this gem to Linda as a courtesy, but she is not really an impartial journalist now is she? Truth be told? Once again I am thinking that both LMH and Noory make money off of website subscriptions and books, so naturally they would want to control the flow of this information for their own benefit and not necessarily ours.



posted on Aug, 9 2007 @ 07:28 PM
link   
The point about a machine gun would suggest that isaac doesn't have military background. Suprisingly many people think that any kind of serial firing gun is a 'machine gun'. He maybe into details, but maybe only on things that are of his own interest and if he doesn't care for the military scene that description could mean a rather large variety of weapons.



posted on Aug, 9 2007 @ 07:56 PM
link   
Originally posted by klatunictobarata


Any thoughts; did I miss something?


No disrespect intended.

I think you did/have missed something.

About the weapons.

Scientists of Isaac's nature don't normally carry
weapons. They have no need.
(and in said environ, they'd not be able to carry,
anyway)

That said, the way he contradicted himself may
very well be a clue to what we seek.

His inclusion of armed military guards may suggest
that although they had free reign as far as what
was theorised and brought to fruition, the reality
of military (?) retaliation wasn't a stones throw
away.

I'm just guessing, here.

But, people in situations similar have been known
to insert information like this, to give hints to
outsiders.

Regards,
Lex



posted on Aug, 9 2007 @ 08:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by klatunictobarata
#2. CONTRADICTION: Isaac states that "They knew that was how to get the best work out of us, and they were right." as quoted in #1. above. YET, Isaac also comments that "you were never far from the barrel of a machine gun." Well, military security doesn't have M60 fully automatic machine guns on tripods (especially in close quarters), and he surely knows that sentries and guards carry sidearms (Beretta 9mm semiautomatic pistol or the .45 cal. M1911 Colt Automatic) and possibly either an M16 variant (assault-type rifle or carbine) or a more compact 9mm HK MP5. Since Isaac is a stickler for details, I think he slipped up on this description of his so-called work place. Also, weapon inaccuracies aside, even the THOUGHT that these were menacing machine guns would be anathema to a scientific worker's productivity - which the military and PACL were trying to maximize.

Any thoughts; did I miss something?


Yeah, you did.
He says they were "never far from the barrel of a machine gun." That doesn't imply that they were aimed at his head from two feet away. It could mean that the MPs were in the hallways, or even in the rooms with them but I guarantee that they weren't standing right beside the employees.



posted on Aug, 9 2007 @ 08:21 PM
link   
No offense taken.

I wanted to point out that Isaac's long narrative was replete with details that were not consistent with what he presented to be factual.

Regarding the weapons description, Isaac went on at some length to show how the military went through great pains to provide them with everything they would ever need to achieve their goal. He seems to indicate a fear of sorts of machine guns and guards. Wouldn't this put a cramp into the scientific efforts there? ALWAYS being watched by GUARDS with MACHINE GUNS? Wouldn't CARET/PACL/military recognize this and make some adjustment to rule out or reduce any intimidation factor to optimize the workplace?

[edit on 9-8-2007 by klatunictobarata]

[edit on 9-8-2007 by klatunictobarata]



posted on Aug, 10 2007 @ 01:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by klatunictobarata
He seems to indicate a fear of sorts of machine guns and guards. Wouldn't this put a cramp into the scientific efforts there? ALWAYS being watched by GUARDS with MACHINE GUNS?


I have worked inside military installations under cover of guards with machine guns. Don't read anything into that - it was carrying out minor routine maintenance stuff.

As the other posts say I call them machine guns but wouldn't have a clue whether that is what they are actually classified as. They looked like they could cut a wall in half. They are not pointed at you and generally remained shoulder slung with one hand holding them close to the body with the hand near the trigger. The guard stands some way from you, to avoid being rushed I guess. I don't even know whether the safety (if they had one) was off.

First time it's a novelty but it soon wears off and you get used to it. It's a deterrent and doesn't put you off what you are doing - just stops you thinking of being curious and opening the cupboard door.

I guess it's akin to passing through airport security with armed guards around - you don't take much notice unless you are doing something wrong.

The way Isaac has worded comments about the working arrangement makes me think he has had some exposure to military security, especially from that timeframe. Whether that relates to his claims or not is an entirely different matter.



posted on Aug, 10 2007 @ 01:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by klatunictobarata
What documentation could they create that was not as sensitive as the PRIMER/REPORT itself that would allow for ‘free reign'? Seems to make no sense...no consistency.


They could create any amount of documentation that was not as sensitive. I assume you mean that they could create documentation considered equally if not more sensitive.
They would then have free reign over how it was produced and what it looked like. They would not have free reign over where it went and who saw it.
I can't really see any inconsistency there but please expand if I have missed the point.



posted on Aug, 10 2007 @ 01:50 AM
link   
What I wanted to know is this: WHO did Isaac attribute the blacking out or redacting of the many lines of essential document text to? He states he didn't do it, but who did, and WHEN? Why would the military censor the Report/Primer before the civilian workers had access to it? How could the civilian workers use ALL of the available extraterrestrial knowledge to find solutions and applications if the REPORT/PRIMER was censored to begin with?

I was trying to figure out, from Isaac's literary narrative, where were the strengths or weaknesses in his presenting of the so-called facts. If there are more strengths than weaknesses, that goes to reinforce the truth and veracity of Isaac's story.

So . . . who did the censoring, and when?



posted on Aug, 10 2007 @ 02:06 AM
link   
Who blacked it out?

He said it was already done in the later interview questions from LMH. It was a couple of pages back the link (somewhere like 155-160), I'll find and edit post.

EDIT: www.earthfiles.com...




1) I realize now that I did not make this clear, but I should clarify that I am not responsible for the blacking out of the Q4-86 report. Most of the copies I was able to make came from documents that were already archived, which meant that they had already been censored for use by outside parties that needed access to some, but not all, of CARET's information. I'm trying to share this information, not hide it, but if I did feel that if a given topic was too sensitive for some reason, I would make it clear that I had personally covered it up and probably try to give a reason why.


[edit on 10-8-2007 by ejsaunders]



new topics

top topics



 
185
<< 161  162  163    165  166  167 >>

log in

join