Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

[HOAX] Isaac CARET - Drones [HOAX]

page: 5
185
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join

posted on Jun, 26 2007 @ 10:31 PM
link   
great lakes ... a lot of fonts now are based off of older typewriters and scripts




posted on Jun, 26 2007 @ 10:31 PM
link   
I don't think it is exact match, close but not exact, there are subtle differences. Look at the "1" the "4" the "n" the trailing serif (if thats right) have slight upturns in them. The bottoms of some serifs have upturns as well, not a function of the photocopy / scan process.


Originally posted by isitmagic
great lakes ... a lot of fonts now are based off of older typewriters and scripts


Yeah thats the thing, if it can be proven to come from a modern font >> Hoax leaning, if its different and not attributable to modern font, possibly >> Not Hoax leaning. Of course as stated there are exceptions, like created font differences by hand...etc.


[edit on 6/26/2007 by greatlakes]



posted on Jun, 26 2007 @ 10:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by keeb333
Sophismata: my point is exactly the opposite. IF this paticular disclosure happens to NOT be a hoax, then it would go a long way toward explaining some of the crop circles.


Ah! Granted, then. Putting it that way your logic works. IF this Palo Alto document is genuine and we have indeed been reverse engineering these alien things and the patterns have also appeared elsewhere (like crop circles), THEN that would lend credence to crop circles.

But that's a big IF! Anyway, I guess I misunderstood your earlier post, so my bad.



posted on Jun, 26 2007 @ 10:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by greatlakes

Definitely looks close, same type of font (family?), but not exact. My point is if this is a hoax, the person must have used a certain font in typing out the document, this font has to be able to be found, unless its obsolete, outdated, which would lend on the side of NOT HOAX. Of course a really thorough hoaxer would create modifications to existing fonts, which is in itself alot of work. You basically have to create each letter and symbols to match...

Good work BTW, I'm terrible with fonts and such
Let us know if you're continuing the search and find anything.

[edit on 6/26/2007 by greatlakes]


I'll see what I can dig up - Seeing as his work at PACL was from '84 to '87 more than likely the font would still be available. Was there a date that the report was wirtten, I may have missed it.

[edit on 26-6-2007 by stealthyone]



posted on Jun, 26 2007 @ 10:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sophismata
And let's see if this Palo Alto document guy provides corroborating evidence.


Actually, "Isaac" has provided quite a bit of evidence. Beyond his personal tale; he's also provided, no less than, 19 photos & scanned documents. As to whether or not that evidence constitutes as "proof"; that's another story, but I have yet to read any conclusive "debunking" regarding any of them. Until that time, I choose to keep an open mind. When did we, as a community, turn to a "guilty until proven innocent"/"liar until proven true" mantra. What ever happened to keeping an open, yet skeptical, mind?



posted on Jun, 26 2007 @ 10:40 PM
link   
Wow, I'm going out of my mind just trying to catch up to everyone so far, but there's one thing I can contribute:

I'm as sure as I think I can be about the fonts. The first is Palatino (used for the body text), and the second is Franklin Gothic (used for titles). Both are very old fonts that predate 1986 by quite a while. They're also common choics for reports and that kind of work (and have been for decades), so they make sense at least. This doesn't "prove" anything, but at the very least, I'm quite certain that we can't debunk it on the basis of typefaces.

BTW - for reference, I used to work in desktop publishing and have a number of graphic designer friends. So I have SOME credentials.
I'm not in the business anymore but you never forget the common fonts.



posted on Jun, 26 2007 @ 10:40 PM
link   
When I first saw the pages I thought they looked fairly modern. Back in the eighties I only got to work with dot matrix printing. Maybe the manuals were actual offset printing. But then I thought about Xerox being a leader in that area.


Adobe Systems in 1984 was a fledgling company formed by Chuck Geschke and John Warnock, two engineers from Xerox PARC (Palo Alto Research Center). While at Xerox, the pair had invented a Page Description Language (PDL) called Interpress, which was a means of mathematically describing complex forms like typefaces. When Xerox decided not to commercialize Interpress, Geschke and Warnock left Xerox PARC and co-founded Adobe Systems. Interpress evolved into PostScript and was brought to market in late 1984.


I suppose internal doc could have been quite good, print wise.



posted on Jun, 26 2007 @ 10:43 PM
link   
I found the font, it is Palantino....
which has been around since the 1940's.....



[edit on 26-6-2007 by xstealth]



posted on Jun, 26 2007 @ 10:48 PM
link   
A quote from PACL Q4-86 Report p3, "Not all recovered extraterrestrial technologies are equal . . . "

Looks like a great pull-quote for a newspaper story in the unlikely event one would be interested!



posted on Jun, 26 2007 @ 10:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sophismata

The ONLY reason you think crop circle similarities to patterns in these documents supports the genuineness of these docs is because you ALREADY believe that crop circles are not all man made. A point which HAS NOT BEEN PROVEN and is not AT ALL widely accepted outside the UFO belief and conspiracy communities.





i'm not saying that anything is proven, im just saying that some crop circles are obviously manmade and others have no explanation and give off bizarre energies and have MANY unexplained features.

As Keeb said, IF this story is not a hoax then we can truly start to draw comparisons between the drones and crop circles, perhaps finally putting some of the puzzle pieces together.

In my personal opinion, the crop circle phenomena is highly misunderstood. Most people got suckered in by the ‘two-old-men-with-board-and-a-rope’ scam and the entire issue has been put on the back burner.

But if a hint of truth is established via the drones then some of these crop circle formations could start to be understood.


BTW: I agree with SaucyRossy, we should be careful not to encouraged hoaxers too much



posted on Jun, 26 2007 @ 10:49 PM
link   
Hoax or not, it's an intriguing story.

I just did a search on youtube to see if there was any video to accompany the sprinkling of photos I've seen. I found nothing legit, only a few CGI "motion studies" on how this thing might actually move according to witnesses.

www.youtube.com...

www.youtube.com...

www.youtube.com...



posted on Jun, 26 2007 @ 10:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by alevar
Wow, I'm going out of my mind just trying to catch up to everyone so far, but there's one thing I can contribute:

I'm as sure as I think I can be about the fonts. The first is Palatino (used for the body text), and the second is Franklin Gothic (used for titles). Both are very old fonts that predate 1986 by quite a while. They're also common choics for reports and that kind of work (and have been for decades), so they make sense at least. This doesn't "prove" anything, but at the very least, I'm quite certain that we can't debunk it on the basis of typefaces.

BTW - for reference, I used to work in desktop publishing and have a number of graphic designer friends. So I have SOME credentials.
I'm not in the business anymore but you never forget the common fonts.


If you go here: www.linotype.com... and click on create sample under the sample text you'll see that Palatino is correct. The Book Antiqua was made similar to Palatino, but some of the little nuances are not there.



posted on Jun, 26 2007 @ 10:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by mbkennel
It's a dreadful hoax. Way worse than Titor or even early Serpo.
The "science" sucks and is written at a level for high-schoolers. No answering any useful question.
And 'inches'? So, they're gonna talk about in English units irrelevant crap about how big it is in the report, rather than what the physics and effects of antigravity is?


I absolutely Agree.


Originally posted by Whiterabbit29
One thing I'm slightly confused about is the censoring on some of the documents. I wonder If this is the way they were given to him, or has he done this himself?


Another very valid argument.


Originally posted by -Jaguar-
This person reveals a lot of information about themselves, enough I would think to pinpoint who they are, which leads me to believe it's fake. He works in Computer Science, worked there 1984-1987, and was promoted to management.


Exactly, yet he still is attempting to remain anonymous.

Why are people ignoring the analasys of the original drone pics from industry experts? I knew in an instant they were CG renderings, at first I thought they might be recreations but no they're supposed to be real.

Look at the first pic of the recognizable peices laid out on the floor. What scale do you think they're supposed to be? If they were of any decent size those gaps between the tiles would be canyons!! The photo would have to be taken from a ladder. The others are obviously 3d renders.

I'm not a serial debunker, I'd best be described as a believer, but this is getting rediculous.




[edit on 26-6-2007 by squiz]



posted on Jun, 26 2007 @ 10:53 PM
link   
A more significant quote from the same doc that explains much. "However, since the sudden emergence of such radically advanced technology would undoubtedly yield destructive consequences, PACL recommends a strategy of incremental dissemination in which deliberately downgraded versions of the original technology are released over a period of years or decades to soften the impact of integration with existing infrastructures . . ."

Hmm, deliberately downgraded versions. Makes me wonder if Bill Gates didn't have a mole in PACL!



posted on Jun, 26 2007 @ 10:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Evasius
Hoax or not, it's an intriguing story.


Any one read my post on page four about these kind of statements?

I really think we need to stop this disturbing thought process of "even if it is a hoax it is a great read!"

That is just the wrong way to look at things like this in my opinion.



posted on Jun, 26 2007 @ 10:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by solarwind
Hmm, deliberately downgraded versions. Makes me wonder if Bill Gates didn't have a mole in PACL!

I just had to reboot my deliberately downgraded computer
and my deliberately downgraded version of windows XP



posted on Jun, 26 2007 @ 10:57 PM
link   
This is so much to think about after the GhostRaven fiasco and I can see where placing faith in anything outlandish could be a stretch right now. But we just can't come here and post up HOAX!!! with no real reasoning behind it, especially when such great evidence is given.
I agree that it seems most of us would now try pulling the mask off an aliens face if were standing right in front of us, and still finding a way to claim fraud over it. How is disclosure ever supposed to happen if you shoot down everything after one glance?
I think that if someone has nothing better to say than a damning statement with no support, then the statement just shouldn't be made. Save it for when you have something to damn it with.



posted on Jun, 26 2007 @ 11:03 PM
link   
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]



posted on Jun, 26 2007 @ 11:08 PM
link   
The "Linguistic Analysis Primer" graphics are very cool looking pieces.
They don't look like they contain a heck of alot of information. But they are great linework.

Very Alien Technology looking.



posted on Jun, 26 2007 @ 11:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by SaucyRossy

Originally posted by Evasius
Hoax or not, it's an intriguing story.


Any one read my post on page four about these kind of statements?

I really think we need to stop this disturbing thought process of "even if it is a hoax it is a great read!"

That is just the wrong way to look at things like this in my opinion.



Fine. we'll do things your way here. We'll continue to hem & haw about whether it's real or whether it's fake for 80 pages until the hoaxer or Springer sets us straight. Sounds like fun indeed, however answers would be nice. Do you have any?





new topics

top topics



 
185
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join