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: 377
185
<< 374  375  376    378  379  380 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 26 2008 @ 05:16 PM
link   
“A delusion held by one person is a mental illness, held by a few is a cult, held by many is a religion.”

As it's a little quiet I thought I'd post this.....

It’s no secret that I’m as interested in the *how’s & why’s* of belief/disbelief in the Drones as I am in the motivations of the people who released the images & reports, here’s some information I found quite interesting:


Cult: Typically refers to a cohesive social group devoted to beliefs or practices that the surrounding population considers to be outside the mainstream.


Compact Oxford English Dictionary.
Current English Definition of “Cult”


1: A system of religious worship directed towards a particular figure or object.
2: A small religious group regarded as strange or as imposing excessive control over members.


It is hypothesised that three ideas are essential to the concept of a cult.

1) Thinking in terms of us versus them with total alienation from "them."
2) The intense, though often subtle, indoctrination techniques used to recruit and hold members.
3) Charismatic cult leader. Cultism usually involves some sort of belief that outside the cult all is evil and threatening; inside the cult is the special path to salvation through the cult leader and his teachings.

The indoctrination techniques employed by cults are many and varied but most notably include, “Social disruption, isolation and pressure,” and not surprisingly the, “Control of information.”

=============

Communal Reinforcement
Communal reinforcement is the process by which a claim becomes a strong belief through repeated assertion by members of a community. The process is independent of whether the claim has been properly researched or is supported by empirical data significant enough to warrant belief by reasonable people. Cult leaders know the importance of communal reinforcement as when combined with isolating cult members from contrary ideas then the resulting environment is more conducive to achieving the desired results. Cults generally provide a safe haven completely insulated from the outside –and real- world and consequently shielding its followers from all opposing viewpoints and beliefs.

=============

Coercive Persuasion
Coercive persuasion comprises social influences capable of producing substantial behaviour, attitude and ideology change through the use of coercive tactics and persuasion, via interpersonal and group-based influences.

=============

I've long been of the opinion that, “UFOlogy” in the strictest sense has never been about the study of UFOs. I say this as obviously Ufologists don’t have any UFOs to study, UFOlogy is about UFO reports, the people whom witnessed and submitted these reports, the circumstances surrounding them and the researchers who are ultimately involved in investigating and disseminating the available information.

Indeed, from a personal point of view UFOlogy and its fragmented hierarchy presents as much of an intrigue as the UFOs themselves, as do possible cultural influences and the sociological implications that permeates the belief.

I am fascinated how seemingly reasonable people can believe in such unreasonable scenarios. I also admit I have a certain respect for those who hold dear such an unwavering belief in a preferred alternate-reality, a belief which often has no basis in fact or in what is currently accepted as reality. And this belief is often accompanied with what can only be described as a religious fervour that manifests itself as an absolute conviction in the reality of the respective belief that is as ‘literal’ and ‘fundamentalist’ in nature as that of the most devout religious fanatic.

Cheers.




posted on Jul, 26 2008 @ 05:22 PM
link   
reply to post by DrDil
 





posted on Jul, 26 2008 @ 05:49 PM
link   
No wonder that little devil NicLev is over there at the DRT forum! Didier has all the things, he doesn't have and vice versa!

So both together could make it!

Like Chip & Chap and Mickey & Goofey and Stan & Olli...

I only see one problem: The NicLevs say they are nine... That could lead to internal democratic conflicts some time.



posted on Jul, 26 2008 @ 07:37 PM
link   
I wonder why Lev wants to be more Kris so much, is that why it takes 9 ?
He uses The IC, as if to say Isaac Caret. perhaps he wants to be like Isaac too. Even going so far as to in useing that terabc123 on flikr, which if you rearrange give b caret.

This is like a group comprised of rebels looking for a cause, to satisfy different needs. They want structure, security, and a strong father figure, and something bigger than themselves to aspire to, in this case the drones, They have given it the ability to not only cloak, but to morph so as to include anything ring shaped, which is not far from any little light seen in the sky.The closer to God like powers it has the better. The pictures are sacred relics, 2 of which have been false. That is why this argument takes the dimensions it does, and they trust no established experts. They came forth with that email, because walter would have posted it elsewhere if no answer came forth. They had no choice. Plus it helps give them some credibilty anyway.

I believe he sent them to LMH, but she said nothing,
per walts email:

The Oregon drone was 2 minutes in Illustrator and 2 minutes in Photoshop...and it looks like it. The 'Michigan' drone was the same...Illustrator and Photoshop. I contacated LMH regarding said items, but never heard back
as she did not do with Tom aka MarsAve, in the Locations, given to her by marsave nearly a year ago. To me Her nose there grows longer and longer with each drone, it may need a tripod on wheels soon. She has no interest, imo, in protecting the publics interest, or providing it the real facts as she comes across them.
Yet, she continues the charade. I would ban her from every microphone and keyboard in the country if I had the power to do so.
I wonder what what kind of Halo surrounds her and will C2C announce that she and whitley were seen walking on water with a Drone looking down, Behold, these are my fans, in whom I am well pleased , Lev.2007 1:1:

. That would make a nice CGI.






[edit on 26-7-2008 by Sys_Config]

[edit on 26-7-2008 by Sys_Config]

[edit on 26-7-2008 by Sys_Config]



posted on Jul, 26 2008 @ 07:54 PM
link   
The wannabe cultmaker? In the age of Mick Jagger? Let's ask him for some show than...



posted on Jul, 26 2008 @ 10:04 PM
link   
I am a member of OMF but it has become a folly. The whole Issac thing is nonsense. I don't know what the DRT investigators are being paid but I have seen nothing of any real significance from them. All I see now are what appears to be a bunch of juveniles (or juvenile minds) that have formed a cult. As for Lev... talk about someone craving attention! Now he's sucked the DRT into his fold. As far as I am concerned (like who cares anyway) the DRT and Lev have become a bigger joke than Caret.

JB



posted on Jul, 26 2008 @ 10:07 PM
link   
I think the population of NicLev, like the DRT's witness count, has been exaggerated by a factor of 10 or so.



posted on Jul, 28 2008 @ 12:17 AM
link   
reply to post by rwiggins
 


Yeah....I have one thing to say about your comments on Isaac's credibility. Hello? The documents were written in 1986, and probably by the military. Of course, the military is going to write documents that can be understood clearly, so that there are no misunderstandings.
Overall, it should not matter if he wrote his letter in vernacular, he did that on purpose so that everyone can understand the information, not just a select few.

Sorry, but not everyone is a living, breathing computer like you
like that guy from the film "Grandma's Boy" who talks like a robot all the time



posted on Jul, 28 2008 @ 12:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by Sys_Config
To me Her nose there grows longer and longer with each drone, it may need a tripod on wheels soon.



Lol!..perhaps it's finally morphing into the long arm of the drone..all complete with the vacuous centre of her lacking integrity



posted on Jul, 28 2008 @ 01:11 AM
link   
reply to post by OEAOHOO
 


OEA I never thought of that! She could very well be the Drone Queen, and the hive is just getting started!
That was great



posted on Jul, 28 2008 @ 01:40 AM
link   
reply to post by greatlakes
 


not even close, I am a CGI compositor and I believe that those photos are genuine, I can obviously tell the difference between your CG and the real thing. If he really was playing everyone.. Why would he do so and then never come clean to claim his CG crown of greatness? Im sorry, but all I see in this forum is people in denial. Im telling you right now, when I see CG its like visiting my mother. I dont even have to think about it, I know its her. and this picture, trust me, its not my mother.
Ok, heres a perfect way to see what I am talking about. Go to the nearest airport, and take a photo of a plane (passing low) make sure that the lighting conditions are more or less the same as that on the photos. Look at them side by side and tell me the Drone picture is not real.
What I am here to tell everyone is that, yeah CG can look real, but not that real. As was mentioned in a previous posting. When you see something that is CG, you get that feeling that something is off, and as a professional I say that it is real and I will explain why. Example, that video of the WTC UFO? that was a fake, I looked at the exact second where the motion blur occurs in the shot, and thats what gave it away CG motion blur has that uniformity throughout, a real motion blur does not have uniformity, you may see a patch of blur on one side but not the other, yeah I know you can try to achieve that effect in Photoshop, but it wont be the same, even the best cannot achieve that kind of authenticity.
Actually Ill leave this bit of room to retract if it is in fact a fake, Ill say that if this guy really did composite these photos, I will bow down to him as the greatest compositor in the history of CG.



posted on Jul, 28 2008 @ 02:15 AM
link   
reply to post by DrDil
 


Steve Hawkins had a theory about black holes, of course, at the time he had no solid proof to back his claim, just numbers and equations. But after many years of skepticism, there was suddenly "proof", a black hole. They observed a black hole consuming a star.
Now consider this, are black holes real? was that image in the telescope just a figment of Steve Hawkins imagination? or perhaps there is mass psychosis in the scientific community, because they see something in a telescope and automatically they assume its a black hole, what if its not? what if its swamp gas?
Anything that you can say to argue against my point can be said can be said for UFOs. UFOs are a phenomena that can be observed, measured, and photographed. Is that not true.
Yeah, its true that ufologists don't have a UFO to work with, I'm sure if they could they would just pick one out of the sky, unfortunately whoever or whatever is piloting those vehicles do not stop for anyone. Steve Hawkins doesn't have a black hole just sitting in his garage, he has to observe it and take pictures from afar.
The problem with ufology is that people for some odd reason feel that these people should be labeled crack-pots, instead of scientists. UFOs are real, where they come from? I don't know, but it is a fact that they are seen all over the world. Pictures are taken, there are witnesses, some UFOs are said to be large, others are said to be small.
Overall, just don't be too quick to judge people. ufologists study UFOs for a reason, they didn't just wake up one day and decide they were going to go chase lights in the sky. Im sure they had their own experiences, and they want to solve the puzzle.



posted on Jul, 28 2008 @ 05:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by MPARTS0
reply to post by DrDil
 

Steve Hawkins had a theory about black holes, of course, at the time he had no solid proof to back his claim, just numbers and equations. But after many years of skepticism, there was suddenly "proof", a black hole. They observed a black hole consuming a star. Now consider this, are black holes real?


Yes, as you’ve just said: *There was suddenly "proof"*


Originally posted by MPARTS0
reply to post by DrDil
 

Was that image in the telescope just a figment of Steve Hawkins imagination? or perhaps there is mass psychosis in the scientific community, because they see something in a telescope and automatically they assume its a black hole, what if its not? what if its swamp gas? Anything that you can say to argue against my point can be said can be said for UFOs.


“Argue your point,” what are you talking about?

Firstly, why would do you think I would want to argue anything with you? This is merely a discussion board, with this thread in particular being used to discuss the Drone hoax.


Originally posted by MPARTS0
“Anything that you can say to argue against my point can be said can be said for UFOs”


What kind of ridiculous logic is that?

How about the fact that there is (as you pointed out) the fact that there is *proof* of the existence of black holes and their measurable effects?


Originally posted by MPARTS0
reply to post by DrDil
 

Yeah, its true that ufologists don't have a UFO to work with, I'm sure if they could they would just pick one out of the sky, unfortunately whoever or whatever is piloting those vehicles do not stop for anyone. Steve Hawkins doesn't have a black hole just sitting in his garage, he has to observe it and take pictures from afar.


Seeing as you appear intent in fixating on and misrepresenting the work of Stephen Hawking to prove a point what do you think of his statement that:

“UFOs only appear to cranks and weirdoes.”

Or as well as a multitude of other logical fallacies are you also employing selective reasoning & observational selection?

For instance: “I'm sure if they could they would just pick one out of the sky, unfortunately whoever or whatever is piloting those vehicles do not stop for anyone.”

Is Plurium Interrogationum or a, *Fallacy of Many Questions*.

Firstly you assume that UFOs are vehicles and that they are piloted, these should be separate questions, shouldn’t they? I can’t really respond to your statement without accepting your presuppositions as fact, can I?


Originally posted by MPARTS0
reply to post by DrDil
 

The problem with ufology is that people for some odd reason feel that these people should be labeled crack-pots, instead of scientists.


Look, you’re spectacularly missing the point, we’re not talking about UFOs. We’re talking about mechanical looking aerial objects allegedly photographed by five members of the public over a period of 5 weeks in the summer of 2007.

Furthermore, these objects that HAVE BEEN IDENTIFIED by Isaac in his CARET explanation & PACL documents. And of course objects that have never been photographed before or since.

We’re NOT talking about UFOlogists in general.


Originally posted by MPARTS0
reply to post by DrDil
 

UFOs are real, where they come from? I don't know, but it is a fact that they are seen all over the world. Pictures are taken, there are witnesses, some UFOs are said to be large, others are said to be small.


Yeah they’re a lot like intellect and individual reasoning power in that respect.


Originally posted by MPARTS0
reply to post by DrDil
 

Overall, just don't be too quick to judge people. ufologists study UFOs for a reason, they didn't just wake up one day and decide they were going to go chase lights in the sky. Im sure they had their own experiences, and they want to solve the puzzle.


Whoa, back up there a bit!!

Whom was I judging?

We’re NOT talking about all (or even most) UFOlogists.
We’re not talking about ANY UFOs.
These objects HAVE been identified by Isaac!!

I’m talking about a very small & select group of people, not UFOlogy in general, why are you attempting to diminish my comment by applying it to the broader phenomenon and using it as a circular argument to tout your preconceived notions by answering questions that the comment was never intended to address?

Incidentally the pictures which you claim are 100% not CGI are for the most part irrelevant as far as I am concerned. They are but a small cog which is part of a much larger machine, before the pictures are considered as proof of anything then there should be witness repudiation which can easily be confirmed and presented to the community without necessarily foregoing the calls for anonymity, the first account that set the ball rolling has since found was an entire fabrication, even down to the specific location and massively different surrounding geographical terrain.

(Edit for spelling)

[edit on 28-7-2008 by DrDil]



posted on Jul, 28 2008 @ 05:53 AM
link   
reply to post by MPARTS0
 


I respect faith, but doubt is what gets you an education. ~Wilson Mizner



posted on Jul, 28 2008 @ 08:28 AM
link   
Nice work, Doc. I just love it when the DRT comes over here incognito and shows off its intellectual horsepower! I think it's partly my fault, for mentioning the straw man fest at that other forum. Kind of a "speak of the devil" thing, I guess.



posted on Jul, 28 2008 @ 08:33 AM
link   
reply to post by DrDil
 

Hmm, Show him a cgi expert who can replicate that and he will "bow down" and do what? he hasn't gotten around very much and if he searched he can find parking lot full of artists , who will drop their shorts to accomodate him and a whole lot more who will just yawn.He won't even have to yodel for a crowd. A bunch of the photos in many so called 'stock' photo galleries have been found to be just that. CGI.
go figure. Dr.Dil, sorry you had to waste keystrokes responding to that.


Many dont realize that fakery and counterfeiting have consequences whether its someones national currency, or a museum art piece, or reputation , commerce and even international relations.
As one website owner who deals in actress pictures said,

I hate fakes. They clutter up the Internet. Some people have tried to convince me that they are "fun" or that I should appreciate the artist's talent in making the fake. The reason I don't buy this comes down to the reality of what happens. These fakes are oftentimes passed off as real pictures. Therefore, when someone requests a picture of an actress they like, these fakes are usually the ones posted (either intending to trick the recipient or when the sender doesn't realize they are fake). Thus, real pictures become hard to find (Try requesting pictures of Gates McFadden in a newsgroup and see how many real pics people post). Perhaps the only "fakes" I can appreciate are ones that are free-hand drawings of an actress, not photographs, because that actually requires some artistic talent, unlike the cut and paste jobs we usually see.


I don't blame you bubba!
www.cgexplorer.com...
www.hard-to-find-actresses.com...
guides.macrumors.com...
jeremywagstaff.com...
www.tmz.com...
www.contactmusic.com...

Compare those above with the JUNK we were handed ImpartSo. because no forensic lab will take them because of the garbage they are. Even the witnesses agent wont release the rest out there.. Thats right, their Business Agent and guardian..Those Experts that do comment have said over and over..Garbage. You are a professional?, put your name out like The ones you say are in "Denial" have and see who stays in business.
So, please don't anyone tell me what these artists can or can't do with CGI and cut and paste. Go to a movie, pick up an Ad, go to amuseum, look at an oil painting, get the picture? get a life! There plenty of them doing it for a plethora of motives. Why would anyone lie and not take credit ? what kind of question is that, did you ever fib in your life and admitted right off the bat? Now who is not being realistic here?

note
I hope Springer can increase the size of the hoax letters and make them flash in Orange! as some just don't seem to see or get it!!









[edit on 28-7-2008 by Sys_Config]



posted on Jul, 28 2008 @ 08:41 AM
link   
I'm still trying to figure out who this Steve Hawkins is. There is a real estate magnate and custom home builder in the Dallas area, or the WMU basketball coach, and some others of course, but it sounds like the guy must be a physicist or something.


At least we know it wasn't Numbers this time. I'm pretty sure he has taken Stephen Hawking's name in vain before. If it's Numbers being extra sly, then he is even more desperate than we thought.

Heh, it's also funny to think about Hawking's comments about UFOs here, too.


[edit on 7/28/08 by Double_Nought_Spy]



posted on Jul, 28 2008 @ 10:31 AM
link   


IT WASN"T ME!!
I SWEAR!!
I have more sense than that, and the least Sys could do is post up some some nice cgi girl penguins, Then I might pay attention to him and his silly irrational remarks, yours too!
It gets cold and lonely over here, you know what I'm talkin about.



[edit on 28-7-2008 by Sys_Config]

[edit on 28-7-2008 by Sys_Config]



posted on Jul, 28 2008 @ 11:15 AM
link   
Ah, yes, Sys!

This is what I like about UFOlogy... All those pretty pictures...



posted on Jul, 28 2008 @ 11:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by Siddharta
Ah, yes, Sys!

This is what I like about UFOlogy... All those pretty pictures...

yes , me too Sid, and it is very important they have a woo woo factor. Sadly, It seems to me there is an inverse relationship between the woo woo present and the probability. The more woo woo the less probable real.


Lany is the top girl and Kaya our soldier girl 2006 models, Which one should I take home home to meet mama? I can fold both of them and put them in my pocket, and sneak them in the house just like the caret ships. I have an entire fleet now you know. I really do.






[edit on 28-7-2008 by Sys_Config]



new topics

top topics



 
185
<< 374  375  376    378  379  380 >>

log in

join