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.
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.
I emailed these issues to Isaac
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
Nope other than your deserve an update and followup
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
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
Originally posted by maybereal11
LMH Wrote
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."
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.
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.
Any thoughts; did I miss something?
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?
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?
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.
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.