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: 165
185
<< 162  163  164    166  167  168 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 10 2007 @ 02:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by klatunictobarata
So . . . who did the censoring, and when?


Why don't you pick up the phone, call him, and ask him?




posted on Aug, 10 2007 @ 03:26 AM
link   
Compiled complaints sent to C2C and Earthfiles

Here is the text file (uploaded to the ATS member space) that I sent to C2C and Earthfiles. This is what I have compiled so far. If more are posted on ATS, I will include those in a second e-mail to C2C and Earthfiles. I hope everyone was okay with it, as that seemed to be the impression I got.

Make sure you scroll all the way to the right to view all of it. I'm not sure why it reformatted like that on the webpage.

The first thing on the document was a disclaimer about re-using the posts without permission. I felt it was important to state, and also listed a referral to the ATS T&C.

Text file with disclaimer sent to C2C and Earthfiles

P/L/L
PJ Slug

[edit on 8/10/2007 by pjslug]



posted on Aug, 10 2007 @ 10:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by klatunictobarataI wonder if George Knapp was given a crack at this...or Stanton Friedman, who is a real rocket scientist.


Stanton Friedman wrote to me that he wasn't currently interested in the case and presumably was not directly approached regarding it.



posted on Aug, 10 2007 @ 04:23 PM
link   
Mucho thanks to you, ejsaunders and srb2001.

pjslug, since you are in my opinion one of the more of the intellictually verbose on this site I expected more ... (:-



posted on Aug, 10 2007 @ 05:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by klatunictobarata
pjslug, since you are in my opinion one of the more of the intellictually verbose on this site I expected more ... (:-



posted on Aug, 10 2007 @ 08:55 PM
link   
...pjslug, I expected your opinion and comment on some of the questions or comments I posted, not just a glib answer with smiley-faces. Ha-ha, and so much fun, eh?

If you are impatient with me, or simply do not tolerate my contributions, I would appreciate NO response from you. We all know how knowledgeable you are. I get the message: I am not worthy. There are others who apparently see some merit in my questions or who at least are very polite in showing some tolerance and actually attempt to contribute to what I was posting.

[edit on 10-8-2007 by klatunictobarata]



posted on Aug, 10 2007 @ 09:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by klatunictobarata
...pjslug, I expected your opinion and comment on some of the questions or comments I posted, not just a glib answer with smily-faces. Ha-ha, and so much fun, eh?

If you are impatient with me, or simply do not tolerate my contributions, I would appreciate NO response from you. We all know how knowledgeable you are. I get the message: I am not worthy. There are others who apparently see some merit in my questions or who at least are very polite in showing some tolerance and actually attempt to contribute to what I was posting.


I haven't the slightest clue what you are talking about. But whatever your issue is, you sound overly paranoid to me. When I use "happy" emoticons, they are used to imply a light-hearted and kind-hearted response. They are in no way representating a feeling of ill-will or a sarcastic and hateful response. It sounds to me like you are assuming one or some of my responses was targeting you in a bad light. I assure you, I respond to your comments no different than I do to anyone else. And I certainly have nothing against you, so please try to reevaluate your premature conclusions. This is certainly a conspiracy site, but there is no conspiracy against you or your posts.

[edit on 8/10/2007 by pjslug]



posted on Aug, 10 2007 @ 09:30 PM
link   
pjslug, sorry, I thought you were people-savvy. I guess I am speaking in tongues. Please ignore me in the future then if I am expressing things you cannot ken. Thanks.



posted on Aug, 11 2007 @ 01:30 AM
link   
My guess is that he's on about the questions he asked on the previous page, which have for the biggest part remained unanswered.



posted on Aug, 11 2007 @ 03:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by srb2001

Originally posted by klatunictobarataI wonder if George Knapp was given a crack at this...or Stanton Friedman, who is a real rocket scientist.


Stanton Friedman wrote to me that he wasn't currently interested in the case and presumably was not directly approached regarding it.


The day george learned about it he called Stanton, he said it looked like a lawn sprinkler and dismissed it as a hoax, basically he's smarter than all of us, because he doesn't waste time talking about it, I totally agreed with him, it's a poor hoax, only considered well done by the naive. I haven't followed this case for a while, it should be dead by now...



posted on Aug, 11 2007 @ 05:37 AM
link   
Thanx, OMEGA and RAZIMUS, for your comments and understanding. And RAZ, that was a great link you gave. I have been going nuts trying to find machine shapes in current or past designs that resemble the drone/parts inventory photos. Gracias, otra vez!



posted on Aug, 11 2007 @ 02:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by errorist
i wonder if this professor is the same guy that showed up here for a while (techguy or sth) never to be seen again. I believe it was a day prior to LMH announcing the interview. Many believed he was/is the hoaxer.


If so, he clearly would be.

Greetings!

Sid



posted on Aug, 11 2007 @ 02:50 PM
link   
May I drop a wrench in the gears ?

For the record, I believe Chad, Raj and BB
to be pure hoax.

I believe Isaac to be disinfo, sprinkled with
a "diamond in the rough". Caret may = Carat.

A stretch, I know. But, bear with me.

The Chad, Raj (ad nauseam) photo's are thrown
into the public realm. LMH grabs the ball and runs.

Part 1 is a success. "They" have our attention.

Then Isaac pops up and supplies some (difficult)
evidence that the airframes are a tech. that has
been worked on since the 80's.

Let's separate the wheat from the chaff.

Chad, Raj (ad naseam) can be discarded.
Hoax.

Isaac on the other hand supplies some great (if
not quite believable) reasoning that these may
actually be flying.

Why ?
Why now ?

Why give this information to a community that
is already bickering about some CGI photos ?

Reaction, my dear readers.

What will provoke.
What will splinter the community.
How will differing sides react.

Ponder what I've said.
To me, it makes sense.

With the Isaac release, there were (possibly) a
few kernels of truth.
But, they were lost in the shuffle, so to speak.

Part 2. Success.
"They" can show us some truth, wave it under
our noses and we're too busy arguing about CGI.

Ponder, my friends. Ponder.

Regards,
Lex



posted on Aug, 11 2007 @ 10:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by -0mega-
My guess is that he's on about the questions he asked on the previous page, which have for the biggest part remained unanswered.


Actually for the most part they were answered - not that anyone has the right to assume anything they post here deserves a response.


Edited to add - Lex, you could be right, I guess the only way to find out would be to expose whoever is forwarding the material and LMH and C2C hold all the contacts. If they are not going to investigate the roots they should hand over the contacts to a group that will.

[edit on 11-8-2007 by chunder]



posted on Aug, 11 2007 @ 10:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Razimus
The day george learned about it he called Stanton, he said it looked like a lawn sprinkler and dismissed it as a hoax, basically he's smarter than all of us, because he doesn't waste time talking about it, I totally agreed with him, it's a poor hoax, only considered well done by the naive. I haven't followed this case for a while, it should be dead by now...


Damn, all that time wasted and all along it could have been dismissed because it looks like a lawn sprinkler.

Whilst I am offended by being called naive I guess by your logic though I am actually a genius because by not contributing anything to all of the other threads on ATS (i.e. not wasting time talking about anything) I am smarter than everybody.

Imagine what I also do not contribute to the rest of the world at large !

Looking forward to reading Stanton Friedman's next book, although it sounds like it will be one blank page between two blank covers !



posted on Aug, 11 2007 @ 11:39 PM
link   
What I would like to see is some form of protocol for debunking. My worry is that black program operatives have a clear advantage here.

Black Op Programs or special access programs in the us government are directed not just to deny the existence of a given operation or program, but also to conduct disinfo. To provide misleading and innacurate information to make any revealed evidence appear a hoax, innaccurate or witnesses not credible. They are directed to do so. There are public documents that specify this. This is how these operations work. In the end I think hoax, but the question remains...disinformation is standard practice with SAPs, so we really need to be thorough and thoughtful in analysis.

We have also demonstrated to whoever is watching how to discredit/debunk evidence. It is a tutorial for anyone that specializes in disinformation.

The question is...Do we have a thorough and regimented process to allow for the real deal to survive when disinfo is thrown on top of a genuine sighting or evidence or do we just sieze on clear evidence of a hoax in a given data set and throw the baby out with the bathwater? Just an intellectual excersise.

Even if we haven't thought about process, I am sure that there are those in the shadows of our government who are getting better at there trade.



posted on Aug, 12 2007 @ 12:31 AM
link   
Yeah, but Stanton Friedman is/was a real rocket scientist!

Funny how some posters here LOVE to make wise-ass answers here in an attempt to be cool.



posted on Aug, 12 2007 @ 12:44 AM
link   
Oh, yes, and chunder, you said (about my questions/comments): "Actually for the most part they were answered - not that anyone has the right to assume anything they post here deserves a response." Well, you don't really know me and can't know if they were answered, so please don't place and assumptions on me, OK? As for me assuming you or anyone else would be a decent person and answer my questions or contribute further, why don't you just ignore me and pretend I didn't ask anything, all right? If I am too novice for you or not grandiose enough, just block me out. Thank you very much.

[edit on 12-8-2007 by klatunictobarata]

[edit on 12-8-2007 by klatunictobarata]



posted on Aug, 12 2007 @ 05:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by klatunictobarata
Oh, yes, and chunder, you said (about my questions/comments): "Actually for the most part they were answered - not that anyone has the right to assume anything they post here deserves a response." Well, you don't really know me and can't know if they were answered, so please don't place and assumptions on me, OK? As for me assuming you or anyone else would be a decent person and answer my questions or contribute further, why don't you just ignore me and pretend I didn't ask anything, all right? If I am too novice for you or not grandiose enough, just block me out. Thank you very much.

[edit on 12-8-2007 by klatunictobarata]

[edit on 12-8-2007 by klatunictobarata]


I don't need to know you - I can read the posts - if someone asks a question and I can read the answers I can say what I did without placing any assumptions on you so no, not ok.

If you read back you'll see that I and several others did answer your questions, it's not a matter of being novice or grandiose, just sticking to the subject instead of speaking in tongues as I believe you put it. What's the point posting on here and then asking everyone to ignore you.

Unfortunately my post above does not contribute anything to this discussion (mods please delete if appropriate) but then just lately there have been a few like that.



posted on Aug, 12 2007 @ 05:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by klatunictobarata
Yeah, but Stanton Friedman is/was a real rocket scientist!

Funny how some posters here LOVE to make wise-ass answers here in an attempt to be cool.


I know who Stanton Friedman is, or at least I thought I did. If he dismissed this as a hoax because the drones looked like a lawn sprinkler then I obviously didn't.

To avoid the possibility of being called a wise-ass I'll leave your second comment alone.

Otherwise, in your post above, what exactly is your point ?

[edit on 12-8-2007 by chunder]



new topics

top topics



 
185
<< 162  163  164    166  167  168 >>

log in

join