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: 63
185
<< 60  61  62    64  65  66 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 1 2007 @ 12:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Springer

In any case it appears it's a bad time to be hoaxing UFO/Alien stuff on the internet unless you don't mind having some very serious people looking for you.

[edit on 7-1-2007 by Springer]



hahaha god i know huh. Serves them damn right too.
If we ever do find out what happened to them, how about we post a section of 'Look this is what has happened to previous hoaxers' to try and deter future hoaxers. Especially the larger ones such as these. ( if they are
)

Will be interesting to see if this wave of annoying story tellers stops or not.




posted on Jul, 1 2007 @ 12:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by blowfishdl
Also, if it was classified data, why is there so much that is blacked out? That only happens to de-classified data.


Not necessarily - as I said before, when we were working on stuff in the lab it was all pristine (mostly because it was laminated) but completely viewable. I admit, I've never held the highest security clearance, but it was of national importance as far as I was told. Whenever anything was sent to say an overview or filed parts would be blacked out in the copies. I'm not sure what ever happened to the original documents.

MOST of the stuff that was of daily importance was kept on computers with no drives or printers (dumn terminals) and the data was edited on the server, very few people had any sort of 'clearance' to print anything.

It, for me, adds to the weird suspicious nature of the whole document. Isaac might have seen FOIA information and thought it would add an air of mystery, as would binding it, but he IMO has never set foot into anywhere that actually does security for a living - he's watched James Bond and some History Channel documentary perhaps, but his view is skewed as to why those parts would be blacked out.

It makes it appear as if there is something that is of national importance or of commercial interest, but looking objectively at the surrounding material, there would have to have been a BIG difference in the language for it to have any real importance. Its like reading through a children's book and finding degree level management accounting in the odd paragraph, its just not something that would occur naturally.

For me, if there had been formulae intertwined, then that would have been just as 'weird', so perhaps he wrote it all out, and then proof read it and decided to black it out because he thought people would see through it? Seems that way to me personally.



posted on Jul, 1 2007 @ 12:40 PM
link   
I, too, have seen an example of the "writing" found on these artifacts. I have wondered what it was for years and now, at least, I have some idea. Neat to find this thread and the link to the document images.



posted on Jul, 1 2007 @ 12:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by blowfishdl

Just a couple of things to take into consideration..
(I was warned for my comment before against C2C possibly creating this themselves so it might happen again now..)


No you weren't you were warned for calling those who think this may be true "fools"



Originally posted by blowfishdl

1. 1,000,000 page views a month can be worth over $10,000 a month with the right amount of advertisers, and big business. Also, it doesn't say if the hits are unique hits or just plain hits. Unique hits (obviously) are worth much much more. Let me state right here though, they are doing a poor job of advertising and are not pulling anywhere near $2,000 for the site alone.


Not a chance. Money is paid for IMPRESSIONS, one Impression could generate 7 or 8 "hits" that's why nobody uses "hits" anymore for anything.

I know what C2C's eCPM is and it's no where near $10.00 per thousand, it's closer to $2.00 per thousand and that's why it's only worth $2,000 a month to them.



Originally posted by blowfishdl
2. It not only promotes their 1,000,000 hit website, but it also promotes their $1,000,000 radio show. I personally, had never heard of C2C until now, and its a name that all of ATS readers now know.


You've never heard of C2C?! Wow... Then I guess you don't realize they have the BIGGEST overnight radio show on the planet with an average of 10 MILLION listeners a night. THere's just no way they would risk their business for this.

Additionally, MOST ATS readers have been listening to C2C for years.


By the way, how many "hits" do you think ATS gets a month?


Springer...

[edit on 7-1-2007 by Springer]



posted on Jul, 1 2007 @ 12:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Springer


By the way, how many "hits" do you think ATS gets a month?


Springer...



[edit on 7-1-2007 by Springer]


I couldn't even begin to imagine....



posted on Jul, 1 2007 @ 12:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by blowfishdl...Also, if it was classified data, why is there so much that is blacked out? That only happens to de-classified data.

That has been bothering me since I first saw the documents. Why would you do that on a document you and your team created? That would only happen if they wanted to make them public, wich CARET clearly didn't. Remember that Isaac had to steal them by hiding them in his pants. And if it was Isaac that censored it in order to protect sensitive data, he was dumb enough to do it on the originals, not the copies.

The most simple explanation for me is that this guy just printed out the pages on his PC, blacked out a couple of spots, and photocopied them.



posted on Jul, 1 2007 @ 12:52 PM
link   
Depending on what you consider the size of a normal photograph..
(or what the sizes were in the 1980's)
We might find evidence in the actual size of the high-res scans of photography.

The picture seen here:
isaaccaret.fortunecity.com...

Sized down is equivalant to 6x3.917
(6"x4" is the generic size of todays printed photographs)

HOWEVER.. from my research I have found that in the 80's much photography was printed in 5"x3.5"

The image at that size comes out to be: 5"x3.264 which is much further off then the 6"x4" comparison.

Leading us to believe that this picture was sincerely intended to be real, however it doesn't match the photography of the time.

AND FURTHERMORE...

If these photographs were truly scanned in they were cropped by fractions of an inch. Further evidence of the poster to be using photoshop. Also, the original pictures of "big basin" and what not are clearly not the original size, but instead much much smaller leaving very little photographic evidence to forensically investigate.



posted on Jul, 1 2007 @ 12:55 PM
link   
ATS must get a good 10,000,000 if your not talking about unique hits. I can't even imagine with all the refresh's, new posts, breaking news, and HOW many registered forum users?



posted on Jul, 1 2007 @ 01:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by blowfishdl
ATS must get a good 10,000,000 if your not talking about unique hits. I can't even imagine with all the refresh's, new posts, breaking news, and HOW many registered forum users?


300,000,000 is more like it... On a real busy month we'll bang half a BILLION hits. That's why nobody uses hits anymore, one page load can generate 5 or 10 "hits".

Impressions are based on page views ad unique IP addresses, which is much more accurate.


100,000+ registered members here at ATS.

Springer...



posted on Jul, 1 2007 @ 01:04 PM
link   
Springer, I am afraid I disagree with some of the things you have to say.

Firstly, the link between UFO/ alien hoaxes and terrorism is ridiculous. If your insider friends are feeding you that you are being played big time. If it is seriously believed then the world has some even bigger problems than realised and this should be run as a major story on somewhere like ATS.

Secondly, do you really think it would be that easy to shut down this story on major web sites. You think the "powers that be" would take the chance of raising that red flag with the likes of Whitley Streiber and LMH.

If you believe they would shut a site down within minutes then you believe that some agency has staff monitoring web sites constantly, with the authority to act immediately.

To what end anyway - to stop REAL information being disclosed ?

Even if minutes there is a very good chance the info would find it's way somewhere - how did LMH link to it so quickly. I imagine someone pointed her to it, that someone had the opportunity to download the info for future publication first. The "powers that be" would be taking a massive chance shutting it down unless they knew they got there first.

I actually thought that somewhere the terrorism card would be played. I have to admit that I discussed with my partner a couple of hours ago that I had the opportunity to perpetuate a hoax myself. All we had to do was for my partner to register with ATS and post that I had been arrested by ASIO for terrorism, that as I was carted away I asked her to let people know via the ATS forum, and that ASIO were returning with a search warrant in 30 minutes and my partner didn't know what to do can anybody help. Then for neither myself or my partner to ever post anything else again. The goal would have been to pre-empt any intel/security announcements along the same lines and to get people to understand the importance of what we are dealing with here.

Obviously I discounted the idea, as ultimately lies would not help even if the end justified the means.



posted on Jul, 1 2007 @ 01:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by ejsaunders

It makes it appear as if there is something that is of national importance or of commercial interest, but looking objectively at the surrounding material, there would have to have been a BIG difference in the language for it to have any real importance.


I would have thought that an anti-gravity generator would be considered of national importance or of commercial interest.



posted on Jul, 1 2007 @ 01:10 PM
link   
Chunder,

You need to do lots of research on how unfriendly intelligence agencies use the internet.
Heck, even "friendly" intel agencies.

I'm glad you decided against trying to hoax ATS, it really is useless.


Springer...



posted on Jul, 1 2007 @ 01:16 PM
link   
I must admit I'm confused by what is being inferred. Springer, are you suggesting that you know of or have some clue that there may be a resolution to this shortly?



posted on Jul, 1 2007 @ 01:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Springer
Chunder,

You need to do lots of research on how unfriendly intelligence agencies use the internet.
Heck, even "friendly" intel agencies.

I'm glad you decided against trying to hoax ATS, it really is useless.


Springer...



Springer, I'm sorry, it's not my area of expertise. I imagine that even with a lot of research I probably wouldn't understand it, and I doubt anyway that the interesting stuff is readily available.

That being the case, please could you offer an explanation as to why my argument doesn't hold water. How would intel agencies go about shutting this story down ?



posted on Jul, 1 2007 @ 01:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by chunder
Secondly, do you really think it would be that easy to shut down this story on major web sites. You think the "powers that be" would take the chance of raising that red flag with the likes of Whitley Streiber and LMH.

The problem here is that neither of these fine people is a very credible journalist in the greater scheme of things. Defend them if you feel compelled, but it doesn't matter. NYT and Newsweek are not going to come calling to them or take much interest in what they say. The 'goverment' or 'intel' or 'MIB' or whatever is not risking a thing by having either of these people take an interest. After all, LMH just declared a known CGI video as a fine example of reality; and Whitley has repeatedly been kidnapped by aliens. I know the ATS crowd tends to take these sorts of things more seriously, but the point is that the rest of the world doesn't.



posted on Jul, 1 2007 @ 01:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by chunder
...Firstly, the link between UFO/ alien hoaxes and terrorism is ridiculous. If your insider friends are feeding you that you are being played big time. If it is seriously believed then the world has some even bigger problems than realised and this should be run as a major story on somewhere like ATS...

When you are conducting an investigation, you can't just discard theories just because they sound far fetched. Any theory is plausible until proven otherwise. Something that sounds ridiculous to you may make perfect sense to someone else. Besides, you don't know what evidence they may have, so don't jump into conclusions yet.

People are already making metaphysical connections to the drone sightings, and creating back stories that would even make a Santa Claus conspiracy angle seem possible.
If you want to find the truth, you have to throw all of your preconceived ideas out of the window, and follow the evidence.



posted on Jul, 1 2007 @ 01:22 PM
link   
Chunder: You misinterperate me, the report IS of national importance, all of it, if it is true, so it would either ALL be blacked out (like most FOIA articles that delve into really secret stuff) or none of it, because the surrounding information is of no use to ANYONE. You can't build one from the document, you don't know how it works, what shape it is ETC.

IF it had been a picture of a drone, then fair enough, but it looks to me like he blacked it himself, so why do that if all you have to link it to the 'real' drones is text? The drone's text is almost all straight, Isaac's documents have text that is fo the most part circular.

Its easier to make the document from the straight text, than vice versa.

No, the blacklining looks too fake IMO, but that's not to say the drones aren't real. I try and bring some objectivity to any topic I post in, and try and bring my knowledge to show inconsistencies - I believe neither one way or the other (since belief is 'true' or 'false' until I can prove conclusively. I hope something I've posted has helped others try and rationalise it in their minds as I'm trying to, but until Isaac is founding hanging from a lightfitting with a shoe full of samon roe and his trousers round his ankles on national telly, or drones are flying over my house I will remain skeptical but interested.



posted on Jul, 1 2007 @ 01:30 PM
link   
Farnsworth, point taken, you are correct in that I should keep an open mind on all theories and that I don't know what info someone else has.

Having said that, pure common sense says that any link between this story and/or terrorism is ridiculous. That is my opinion.

EJ, sorry, seems I had the wrong end of the stick. There are a few plausible arguments though as to why certain sections are blacked out.



posted on Jul, 1 2007 @ 01:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by schuyler
The problem here is that neither of these fine people is a very credible journalist in the greater scheme of things. Defend them if you feel compelled, but it doesn't matter. NYT and Newsweek are not going to come calling to them or take much interest in what they say. The 'goverment' or 'intel' or 'MIB' or whatever is not risking a thing by having either of these people take an interest. After all, LMH just declared a known CGI video as a fine example of reality; and Whitley has repeatedly been kidnapped by aliens. I know the ATS crowd tends to take these sorts of things more seriously, but the point is that the rest of the world doesn't.


Fair enough, but to take the chance the documents may surface again elsewhere, too big a risk in my opinion. You might even create an urban myth about the supposed "smoking gun" documents, any site showing them are shut down.
There are a lot of individuals interested in the field, some of them influential. Sooner or later that document is going to resurface.
More people take Streiber and Howe seriously than they would have done Salman Rushdie, but that story still went mainstream.
If there is anything guaranteed to get a major reaction it's censorship of someone's right to free speech.



posted on Jul, 1 2007 @ 02:23 PM
link   
Ok, I'll say it.

I called hoax on page one.

I got hammered because of this, but I stand by
my claim.

If the people Springer is in contact with admit
this is true, I'll apologise in a new thread.

That will give all those that think I'm a debunker
a chance to have at me.

If those that Springer is in contact with decry a
hoax, I'll smile and move on.

Regards,
Lex



new topics

top topics



 
185
<< 60  61  62    64  65  66 >>

log in

join