posted on Jun, 26 2007 @ 11:03 PM
p.s. sorry if my grammar is horrible, I'm just bad at it.
If this is a hoax, then I put my hat down for the mastermind, he's one heck of a great fictional writer, and should focus his energy in the
entertainment industry, but I have a feeling he's already it, that is if he's a hoax.
I swear I seriously think this guy just set up a whole new standard of hoaxing - that is if this is one - and I think future trolls, though I hope we
don't have anymore, would have to meet, before they can post here.
Right now, I'm borderline with everyone else. Its always good to play spectator. Anyways the reason why I'm borderline as I'm sure so many people
mentioned it before:
Images of the drone looked very CGI. If this is a hoax, its a very elaborate and professionally made one, I mean what hoaxs can afford to pay someone
to make a very well made CGI drone.
Which comes to my second point, if the hoaxer(s) can afford and/or has a connections with a CGI artist, what makes you guys think (he or they)
couldn't have paid or have a scriptwriter create Issac's "letter."
A conceptual model designer could have created glossy plastic models of those contraption found in Isaac's "PACL Q4-86 Report Photos", and a
photographer to use an old camera to create the noise photographs and then scan it.
The "Linguistic Analysis Primer" images can easily be created by a graphic designers.
The template of the PDF report looks like a generic "peer-reviewed journals" templae. Which can either be created or bought online. Also I'm aware
that usually different journals have different template or format, so people might want to look into that. I think I will if I find the free time
tomorrow. My college allows me to access several databases of a varied types of journals.
P.S. I KNOW SOMEONE MENTIONED THIS, but the symbols...looks japanese, then again, the Japaneses could have adopted the alphabets from the E.T, I'm
not kidding either, I just remember there was a correlation between the two on the History Channel's UFO Files. Then again there are probably hard
evidence that historians and social anthropologists can discredit this claim. But who knows.
[edit on 26-6-2007 by skyblueff0]