[HOAX] Isaac CARET - Drones [HOAX]

reply to post by Siddharta


Oh dear Lord, that's even more childish than I would have imagined.

By the way, rockets only explode due to malfunction, which is of course far too frequent. Explosion is not part of the design. Duh.

[edit on 4/8/08 by Double_Nought_Spy]

[edit on 4/8/08 by Double_Nought_Spy]

[edit on 4/8/08 by Double_Nought_Spy]

Originally posted by Siddharta
The FAQ-document clearly shows, what result the DRT expects from the research.

Clearly expects? Where was that stated?

They are not too much interested in Isaac's version, but already invented their own one. No, this is not military, it even isn't human. Isaac overestimated his work. It is pure E.T.!

We are very much interested in Isaac's version and he never stated that the military made the drones, We have invented nothing, Isaac stated that CARET was studying ET technology, and we have provided our own proof of that claim. Isaac never overestimated his work, he was studying ET technology, and as far as anyone like you or me know, he never replicated that technology.

Please provide a sane explanation of human technology that is capable of what the drones are claimed to be.

Is it man-made?
We have ruled out the possibility of it being man-made. Modern science only has three methods to keep
objects afloat:
1. Wind, like a propeller based aeroplane
2. Explosions, like a rocket
3. Displacement of air, like a balloon
The photographs and witness testimony exclude all of the above.

Maybe you should have quoted the section that you where referring to about not being military, instead of another unrelated section. Here is the section that you are referring to:

Is it a military device?
The Isaac report states that the Extra-terrestrial device was being examined by a branch of the Military in 1984. There is no evidence that the military was capable of learning how it works, only how to turn it on.
If the military or any responsible organization was in control of this device, it seems unlikely that they would fly it over populated areas for people to see or potentially be harmed by if it crashed into electrical wires. Testing of secret military projects is usually performed on secure air-force bases.

Originally posted by Double_Nought_Spy
Oh dear Lord, that's even more childish than I would have imagined.

By the way, rockets only explode due to malfunction, which is of course far too frequent. Explosion is not part of the design. Duh.

Thank you for your very adult imaginings.

Have you ever imagined what happens inside your internal combustion engine? What makes those little pistons move about?

reply to post by onthefence55


Rockets are now driven by pistons? I guess maybe I'm a little behind on my Rocket Science!

Edit: Here is a good page about rocket thrust. Note that you will not see the word "explosion" anywhere on the page.

exploration.grc.nasa.gov...

Aircraft make use of two forces, known as Thrust and Lift, to perform their miracle of heavier-than-air flight.

Balloons use Buoyancy to float.

Kites make use of Wind in order to stay aloft.

You are most welcome! I don't want to see y'all eaten alive by the first scientist to read your Report. I'd rather it dragged out a while.

[edit on 4/8/08 by Double_Nought_Spy]

The only truth I C here is what DRT sez from the Gitgo . An Indisputable Fact. They is separate from OMF. They has Money Separate from OMF. and they will publish what they see fit.. That was said or wordz to that effect at OMF , which they use as their base for free. Thats their right. and I will fight to the def to defend their right.

Now, that being said. We is separate from them, we has higher standards for proof than they do, or they would not accept tampered evidence because of what that has HISTORICALLY led to. Hoax. We do not withold evidence like the TY pix, because of what things like that HISTORICALLY lead to, lies.
Now if OTF wants to push a new science of propulsion on us, he needs to put it at american antigravity or NASA who will check it out his theory , or a new theread here.They have no witnesses on this Caret case, just emails, fake ones at that most of them. I is sure if it was a Joe dimaggio Koffe pot in the pix, makin the same sound, floatin, fade in and fade out, He would based on HIS knowledge which is limited. Because then I would include Mirage, you is drunk, or somebody doin a hologram, and yeah possibly a |HOAX|

He dont have to explain to us, nor we we convince HIM. His_ mind_made_ up. Like 1035 .Aint no on the SUPER MARIO BROTHERS FENCE Federation Neutral Zone, ah ah, . Its made up or HE wouldna did what he did ignorin them to ignore what they have in their hands to PROVE a case. IIz a non sequitur Sir. One dont follow from the other.Thats the truth, unless you --albeit--STRETCH it like rubber. Thats what you all done. at the DRT. So nothin we say will change that.
Now dont you go wastin YOUR time here with us, cause we is diggin into this whole mess from the beginnin, and that piece UNCLE Sidharta found is jus for starterz. The holdin back by 1035 on that Chad thang , starterz. Dr.Dils thang, Tat was one Loooong Kukumber , for starterz. You wanna push ET ..thatz Kewl..IM dawg Sirius but doos it in ur sandbox, and builds your own castle, cause it wont stay up for long in this one.
We will stay here and keep it Honest and and the whole truth and nothin but the truth which is what it is, and why YOU and DRT are all strugglin with understandable problemz to Pzz up a rope. ^_^


welcome back to ATS,
Have a good Day


PK


[edit on 8-4-2008 by PhrozenKrew]

[edit on 8-4-2008 by PhrozenKrew]

I am afraid in a very real sense what you say is true PK. Any time one person can convince an entire group that what they are looking at is an optical illusion as 1035 and ROH did renders anything presented by such an individual and his group, highly suspect., particularly when there are several separate incidents involving statements that facts themselves would be witheld if contrary to the goal, and or supressed.

The integrity of DRT is further suspect when not the possibility, but the VERY HIGH PROBABILITY of willfull tampering is ignored, something Ottoth a former member would not tolerate and left.They enjoy the mystery of the PIcture and musing. Musing after Musing. That is fine if the title were, Musings and possibilities of Caret and Drones. But its not.

Having failed to establish minimum for evidentiary collection and vetting and corroboration, as no one can cross examine emails, it is my opinion that the product to be brought forth, will not be worth the parchment its written on, OTF. you know that. WE know That. Lets not go in circles here. And pretty charts, and angular measurements, or how many pixels compared , as 1035 did to UCB, will not make it so.
What the DRT has is a gold plated turkey OTF pretty but inedible.
and what the PIs did with recent Cam witness, did not make it any more believable or edible.

You are a good person, and I enjoy your wit and thoughts. But this one, No need to waste our breath. PK is correct.

Go in peace old friend.





[edit on 8-4-2008 by Sys_Config]

[edit on 8-4-2008 by Sys_Config]

[edit on 8-4-2008 by Sys_Config]

Hi OTF,

thanks for responding here directly.

Originally posted by onthefence55

Originally posted by Siddharta
The FAQ-document clearly shows, what result the DRT expects from the research.

Clearly expects? Where was that stated?

In the FAQ.

They are not too much interested in Isaac's version, but already invented their own one. No, this is not military, it even isn't human. Isaac overestimated his work. It is pure E.T.!

We are very much interested in Isaac's version and he never stated that the military made the drones, We have invented nothing, Isaac stated that CARET was studying ET technology, and we have provided our own proof of that claim. Isaac never overestimated his work, he was studying ET technology, and as far as anyone like you or me know, he never replicated that technology.

Issac never overestimated his claim, but I think the DRT did. You wanted wo have even more than he said, is there.

Please provide a sane explanation of human technology that is capable of what the drones are claimed to be.

I always provided you a sane explanation, as Reader at OMF and as Siddharta at ATS. You are not open for a sane explanation at all.

Is it man-made?
We have ruled out the possibility of it being man-made. Modern science only has three methods to keep
objects afloat:
1. Wind, like a propeller based aeroplane
2. Explosions, like a rocket
3. Displacement of air, like a balloon
The photographs and witness testimony exclude all of the above.

Maybe you should have quoted the section that you where referring to about not being military, instead of another unrelated section. Here is the section that you are referring to:

Is it a military device?
The Isaac report states that the Extra-terrestrial device was being examined by a branch of the Military in 1984. There is no evidence that the military was capable of learning how it works, only how to turn it on.
If the military or any responsible organization was in control of this device, it seems unlikely that they would fly it over populated areas for people to see or potentially be harmed by if it crashed into electrical wires. Testing of secret military projects is usually performed on secure air-force bases.

Thanks for quoting this, too.

Now a word from man to man: Why are you so upset today? Why did you attack Chunder? He was just an observer here at ATS and at OMF and tried to be friendly with erveryone. Why did you . you personally - attack him as soon as he asked questions?
Why did you call him a silly armchair-researcher? Because you are sitting in Canada and watching the world through your monitor.

You hope. the IPs will save you. They won't.

Work with me, brother, or sleep well. If you are searching for some kind of relief, you'd rather accept my hand, than run after fantasies.

I offer you friendship. Take it or dream on.

That was most interesting Sid, I was surprised too. perhaps I can make him smile . I have edited to fit the new Reality and circumstances.




I still laugh when I think of this. It was that good. It gives me a glimpse of the soul.
Thanx OTF



[edit on 8-4-2008 by Sys_Config]

WOW, something new every day, right gang?

@SYS . . . great new pic of the kings' scepter; a drone wing appears in the kneeling knight's sheath, too!

@PK . . . now you are talkin' 100% you got it right. We are keeping it HONEST!


@otf55 . . . What goes on in an internal combustion engine is just that: combustion. It is normally a controlled burning in a confined space. Explosion is not desirable in an engine, hence, we do not use internal explosion engines. Fuel/air detonation is the undesirable ‘pinging' sound you hear and can destroy an engine unless it is manually controlled or computer controlled in modern vehicles. Diesel engines don't operate off of explosions either, just compression ignition sans sparkplug.

reply to post by Siddharta


Thanks for the kind words regarding the timeline Sys, Sidd & Double.

I’ve been raking about and were you aware that OTF arrived at the same conclusion Sidd?





Edit to add (OTF)




[edit on 8-4-2008 by DrDil]

Hi Dil,

no I wasn't. But these examples are rather bad, aren't they?

The DRT would have overrun me, if I used these.

reply to post by Sys_Config


Yes, I liked that one, too.

Wasn't this back in the times, when they accepted open minds at Open Minds?

@DNS ... Thanks for helping to make the FAQ better. It has been updated with your suggestions.

@sidreader ... I'm not here for man-holding, just searching for the truth, and am glad that the people here including you can help bring it out, and also help update the DRT FAQ with answers to frequently asked questions. Please carry on with your suggestions, all constructive comments will be implemented.

@PK, ... Yo PhrozenKrew! greetz tu ya'llz! IIz not bean tryin to ram anytin down ya, ur free tu thinkz what ya'llz like. Thankz for ur commentz!!

@Uncle SYSCO ... Funny carrtoon! Looked a bit familiar though

@kaltu & DNS ... Thanks for the science lessons. As Benny would always say "learning all the time".

hahahaha,I knew you would rememember! I hope you liked the edit, and I know it bought me many moments of good cheer. Thats from the heart.

Peace!

Fellow Seekers of Truth:

I need your help:

Could anyone here give me the link or url for the Cam photo showing her alleged house skylight?

I looked all over OMF and googled but to no avail.

And remember:

Anything that doesn't kill us makes us stronger!

Originally posted by klatunictobarata
Could anyone here give me the link or url for the Cam photo showing her alleged house skylight?

Open Minds Forum :: UFO Related Topics :: California Drone Images / CARET Documents. :: NEW DRONE REPORTED IN SCOTTS VALLEY MARCH 31, 2008

Go to page 4

reply to post by Sys_Config


That kitchen window picture should be one click away, on the link here. It's in a message from Sys, a few pages back.

reply to post by onthefence55


Thanks a heap oft55! I will try to locate it there.

And Double-Naught....SYS didn't post that particular link; it was a link to a different but most excellent drone timeline site.

Thanks again !

Congratulations Double ( you were right at the spot 5955 )and Fellow seekers and Plunderes. we have surpassed Serpo as the most active thead topic of all time. What that in laymans terms means, its taking a long time for dummies (speaking for myself of course)to solve this mystery.hehehehe. I predict when we get to 6,666 Lev will make an appearance with the fleet of Satanic drones. Heaven help us.

Anyway its been a long haul for sure.
I ran across some a reposting of UFC and OM discussion today that started last september,about just how good CGI has gotten, and more importantly learning if something is blown up it will show jaggies, especially CGI. so if you see them on an object, next to others that dont, if I understand correctly, its a pretty good indicator of cgi. But I was impressed at this 3d sculpters work Wayne Robins, not wayne the whipping post at fortune city. So this is not to rekindle old dicussions, but how to tell. So know challenges to anyone or grandstanding please.

My thanx to Marvelous Marvin Sqt and OTF Ark, and anyone else I failed to include, as their mames are cutoff. Marvin, ark, and OTf are primary speakers I believe, in the discussion.

Edit: Uh just saw that you corrected it. Now I see what you are talking about. Thanks!

I agree that the Drone can be replicated in CGI. For me it's obvious. With more or less time almost every digital image can be recreated in some way in CGI. The problem rests in the program used and in the habilities of the digital designer (and the available time). With a good program and a talented guy with plenty of free time, someone CAN create a perfect replica.

And I'm 100% sure someone right now is working in his own drone to later try to publish it as being real, a new sighting etc. MSN is covering you know...

Regards
Ark


You will notice on Chad's photo above... the thin lines (I call feelers) are jagged… but the tree branches that follow the same size and the same shape are not jagged, but smooth.
A camera can not show what it does not see.

Can one really have jagged lines and call it moiré patterns or noise, when is does not exist next to it… or on any other object except the drone?

This is highly suspicious, to say the least.

The experts tell me, this is due to being CG.

dashdotslash.net...

There is no doubt this has been a learning experience for all of us who stuck it out.


Pisces update, seems they were a little stiff with someone who visited and asked them about our missing spirals, the mimzi girl.

Pisces Associate
Joined: 09 Mar 2006
Posts: 146
Location: Los Angeles CA
Posted: Sat Apr 05, 2008 12:37 pm Post subject:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dear Sys Config / Razor911 / whoever your going to be next,

the person who logged here as Spirals is a graphic designer based in Melbourne Victoria. It's up to her what she posts and where.
---------------------------------------------------------------------

Well I guess She told poor Razor a thing or two....







[

[edit on 9-4-2008 by Sys_Config]

Originally posted by Sys_Config
My thanx to Marvelous Marvin ...

Thank you for spreading Marvin's query for all to examine. It has now been adequately answered in the updated FAQ ver 1.4 with two graphic examples of the effect called aliasing that naturally occurs in all digitally sampled images.

Feel free to look up aliasing on wikipedia, or browse the many free real images on GoogleImages for comparisons to draw your own conclusion. Better yet, take your own digital photo of a scene with wires and trees.