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: 70
185
<< 67  68  69    71  72  73 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 2 2007 @ 03:29 PM
link   
Kinda already been done pages ago, I found some images that matched the feel of the object too, but it did'nt convince those who where gobbsmacked by it





Someone with good CGI skills needs to post a bunch of pics of CGI and real pics intermingled and see how well you do at picking the right ones out. Then you will be able to tell if you can see the difference.




posted on Jul, 2 2007 @ 03:37 PM
link   
Hello.

isaaccaret.fortunecity.com...
Those two shoes in the Caret pictures are greenlee pipe benders. I use them almost daily. They look ground smooth, polished and powder coated. I could be wrong but I don't think so.
cgi.ebay.com...

[edit on 2-7-2007 by Trimsin] links not working for some reason


[edit on 2-7-2007 by Trimsin]



posted on Jul, 2 2007 @ 03:55 PM
link   
nice find
another +1 to the cons..


Originally posted by Trimsin

Those two shoes in the Caret pictures are greenlee pipe benders. I use them almost daily. They look ground smooth, polished and powder coated. I could be wrong but I don't think so.

[edit on 2-7-2007 by Trimsin]



posted on Jul, 2 2007 @ 03:55 PM
link   
Trimsin, those have a similar shape but have major differences. They are not the same thing by my eyes.

The CARET ones have a 2nd lower arc and nothing below that, those other things you mentioned have no second arc, and have a bunch of stuff below the arc that the CARET objects don't have.



posted on Jul, 2 2007 @ 04:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by quick
Trimsin, those have a similar shape but have major differences. They are not the same thing by my eyes.

The CARET ones have a 2nd lower arc and nothing below that, those other things you mentioned have no second arc, and have a bunch of stuff below the arc that the CARET objects don't have.


Good observation. The pipe benders have a half-arc cross section to handle circular piping. The A1 appendages have an I-Beam cross section.



posted on Jul, 2 2007 @ 04:28 PM
link   
I don't recall saying it was the linguistics that left me feeling unease or whatever . . .

It's the spiral drawings sorts of pages that tend to do that.

But it would be great to have 100 ATS members view those pages and report their SUDS Subjective Unites of Distress 0-10 with 10=max.

I'd suggest viewing each of those pages full on the screen for 30-60 seconds--at least 20 seconds. Record the number of seconds.

then record 0-10 any subjective impression, feeling of unease, distress, discomfort and attach whatever words seem fitting to go with that feeling for you.

Post here, I guess.



posted on Jul, 2 2007 @ 04:39 PM
link   
I ONLY get queasy when I view the page from the language primer from another site, it makes no effect when I view Isaac's pages for some reason, as if my eye's need the text to be straight.

lucianarchy.proboards21.com...

In case it doesn't come out its
lucianarchy . proboards21 . com/index.cgi?board=ufosandextraterrestrial&action=display&thread=1183057365&page=1

EDIT: In some of my posts it posts the link fine, in others it hashes it, why?

I actually used it to my advantage earlier when I ate something that had gone bad and couldn't make myself sick. Ten minutes later and a screenshot of the drone language, and it was all gone


[edit on 2-7-2007 by ejsaunders]



posted on Jul, 2 2007 @ 04:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by BO XIAN
I don't recall saying it was the linguistics that left me feeling unease or whatever . . .

It's the spiral drawings sorts of pages that tend to do that.

But it would be great to have 100 ATS members view those pages and report their SUDS Subjective Unites of Distress 0-10 with 10=max.

I'd suggest viewing each of those pages full on the screen for 30-60 seconds--at least 20 seconds. Record the number of seconds.

then record 0-10 any subjective impression, feeling of unease, distress, discomfort and attach whatever words seem fitting to go with that feeling for you.

Post here, I guess.

By describing your own experience with the diagrams you are in fact predisposing people into feeling the same thing, thus rendering your experiment useless. It's like making up a story about your house being haunted, and then asking 10 people to describe their feelings while being inside. You would get pretty consistent results.

I have been looking at the images for quite some time now, and I've felt absolutely nothing but the urge to get to the bottom of this
.

[edit on 2-7-2007 by Farnswoth]



posted on Jul, 2 2007 @ 05:16 PM
link   
>1: Nothing but eyestrain and some mild headaches after conducting many consecutive hours of research on the typefaces/illustrations.

Usually a cold brewski, a good meal, and some rest cure this and I'm ready to go at it again with fresh eyes...

For die-hard researchers, follow Bugs Bunny's advice: punctuate hard, focused work with brief periods of "West and Wewaxation".



posted on Jul, 2 2007 @ 05:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Outrageo
For die-hard researchers, follow Bugs Bunny's advice: punctuate hard, focused work with brief periods of "West and Wewaxation".


Dude! That's Elmer Fudd's advice! geesh!

Oh and this drone thing is 100% CGI. I've been in the VFX for films industry for many years and it screams CG.

I can't believe so many people have followed this carrot.


[edit on 2-7-2007 by animachina]



posted on Jul, 2 2007 @ 06:11 PM
link   

By describing your own experience with the diagrams you are in fact predisposing people into feeling the same thing, thus rendering your experiment useless. It's like making up a story about your house being haunted, and then asking 10 people to describe their feelings while being inside. You would get pretty consistent results.


OF COURSE it's NOT a double blind study. Sheesh! No one pretended it was.

What is it about "eating your own" that makes that compulsion so popular around here?

Certainly there is likelihood that particularly a certain percentage of folks with a particular set of personality variables would be unduly influenced by such.

Nevertheless, IF 100 ATS members did such a SUDS thing . . . it would be A LOT MORE INFO on such a phenomenon than we have now.

And, given the fierce beligerant, dirsive, hyper-skeptical, chip-on-shoulder hostility with which a good number tend to post . . . I think the opposite might be the case . . . that they'd deliberately skew the results in the other direction just to be consistently contrary in keeping with their REACTIVE ATTACHMENT DISORDER based childhood compulsions.

It's unlikely 100 or even 25 will bother. So enjoy your conjectures.

I'll enjoy mine.



posted on Jul, 2 2007 @ 06:57 PM
link   
those drawings left me feeling..amused..


Originally posted by BO XIAN




posted on Jul, 2 2007 @ 07:07 PM
link   
If I'm not mistaken, Springer said he'd have
more info for us, today.

Rather than muddy the waters with what pseudo-
psychological effects the Isaac images may or may
not produce, I for one am eagerly awaiting what
Springer might be offering this evening !!

Regards,
Lex



posted on Jul, 2 2007 @ 08:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by wildone106
nice find
another +1 to the cons..


Originally posted by Trimsin

Those two shoes in the Caret pictures are greenlee pipe benders. I use them almost daily. They look ground smooth, polished and powder coated. I could be wrong but I don't think so.

[edit on 2-7-2007 by Trimsin]


Wildone, thanks for that, you sure know how to brighten up someones morning at the office.

First they are CGI, now they are pipe benders from Ebay.

It's not beyond the realms of possibility I guess. Maybe I have been looking in the wrong places for examples of commercial applications. Anyone seen a device you just write the instructions down on the bender radius, turn the device on and throw the pipe at it, and using anti gravity fields it bends the pipe ?

Keep them coming please, it all gets a bit too serious sometimes.



posted on Jul, 2 2007 @ 08:48 PM
link   
Reply to LEXION:

Of course we all eagerly await Springer's additional info . . . assuming he's been graced with such from his source(s).

But I'm puzzled . . .

Would you be willing and able to describe clearly

WHAT EXACTLY is a PSEUDO-psychological effect

compared to

an ?AUTHENTIC?-psychological effect?

And, further, how the two might apply to the ISAAC images and the drones etc?


[edit on 2/7/2007 by BO XIAN]



posted on Jul, 2 2007 @ 09:11 PM
link   
BO XIAN:

I spent approximately 5 minutes each looking at the various drawing pages on Isaac's site, and felt no ill effects whatsoever...just intense curiosity!



posted on Jul, 2 2007 @ 10:23 PM
link   
I echo the sentiment of others in this thread that all roads seem to lead back to Coast to Coast AM. I'm not insinuating that C2C is responsible for this CARET/drone controversy or that it may be actively participating in its creation. Not at all. Just that it seems to be a sort of nexus in all of this.

For starters, the secretive Chad who got the whole thing going states with his first photo submissions to C2C that: "We found your show with Google and I have listened for a few nights now. I have decided that if anyone can help me understand what this thing is, it is you and your audience."

So he had never heard of C2C prior to his supposed encounter with the flying kitchen utensil? Interesting. As an exercise in curiosity, I decided that if I were a neophyte UFO observer, how would I go about reporting this extraordinary encounter? Hmmm... I might do what Chad did and google such phrases as:
UFO reporting
UFO reports
UFO sightings
etc
You get the idea, I'm sure. Well, to my surprise, C2C does not show up in the first 10 pages of any of these search results. I didn't go past page 10, as after all, I would assume the first 10 would give me reliable sources for disseminating my amazing discovery with the rest of the planet.

I must admit when I read that initial explanation by Chad about how he found C2C and decided that it was the bastion of UFO mystery solving, my skeptic alarms were raised a notch. Not much, mind you. As anyone who actively follows C2C will know they receive a good many claims and photos about all sorts of curious things.

Now we have Isaac and his insistence of only dealing with C2C directly. And there's the irksome matter of parceling out of the CARET information over time as Isaac says "I'd really like to let this information “settle” for a while and see how it goes." "Settle" as in when mention of him and his CARET info falls off the front page of C2C? When discussion in the forum communities dies down? "Settle" to the bottom of the discussion heaps so he and his info could once more rise to the top with a wee tidbit more of this coveted information?

C'mon! If I were sitting on top of all that information, I would upload every last shred of it as who knows if I'd live to be able to post more? Heck, if you've stuck your neck out this far, might as go all the way. Why the teaser?

I feel like I'm watching some poorly-staged cliff hanger serial.

Le sigh...

Maybe Springer will reveal to all of us soon which side of the controversy this CARET program falls: hoax or the real deal?

Nothing would please me more than for this to be real. But from what I've seen so far, looks like I'll have to wait for something more convincing from reputable, identifiable sources.



posted on Jul, 2 2007 @ 11:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lexion
If I'm not mistaken, Springer said he'd have
more info for us, today.

Rather than muddy the waters with what pseudo-
psychological effects the Isaac images may or may
not produce, I for one am eagerly awaiting what
Springer might be offering this evening !!

Regards,
Lex


Everything I have was posted, (ahead of schedule, I might add
) last night... This issue is dead in the water from that perspective. The leads dried up and went nowhere, which is the case in 99% of these instances.

The reality is, the people who do this for a living are bound by an oath to drill down EVERY potential connection out of a fear of missing the one in a thousand (million?) that might be "the real deal".

When lives are lost by your "neglect at work" you take your job VERY seriously even if it makes you "look the fool" more times than not.

Springer...



posted on Jul, 2 2007 @ 11:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by lotusland

Maybe Springer will reveal to all of us soon which side of the controversy this CARET program falls: hoax or the real deal?

Nothing would please me more than for this to be real. But from what I've seen so far, looks like I'll have to wait for something more convincing from reputable, identifiable sources.

Nothing would please me more than to be able to present rock solid, irrefutable proof, one way or the other on these, IMHO, CGI renderings...

But alas it is not meant to be.

Many have stated their cases, experts (the best in their fields but fallible Humans none the less) have indicated why they know these are FALSE, CGI created images, many who "feel or believe" these are real alien artifacts have presented their cases elegantly and with reasoned explanations...

The fact is we are not there yet. We are not to the point where we can, as a community all agree one way or the other on this.

That's OKAY. It's actually PERFECT! The reasoned, civil debate of the pros and cons of these things is what distinguishes ATS from its peers.

Let's keep digging until we DO find the only answer that matters, the only genuinely SINGULAR answer that has no peer or rival, THE TRUTH.

UPDATE:

My son just returned from the premier of the "Transformers" movie, there were NO DRONES in the movie.


Springer...



posted on Jul, 2 2007 @ 11:29 PM
link   
OK guys, first I salute everyone of you that is actively investigating and dedicating your time for this,you guys in any side of the fence are doing an outstanding job! I have been following this thread since is started but I dont possess many of the expertise need it to contribute(like CGI knowledege, documents and the like), I'm still doing my part in a small way, checking websites out and trying to look for clues. Which bring me to my question.

Theres a lot of lurkers in this site and specially following this thread but I guess like me, since we dont know where and how to look for we dont feel that we can contribute. Does anybody has any advice on how people like me can help in any way? Sorry if some of you feel like this is off topic.



new topics

top topics



 
185
<< 67  68  69    71  72  73 >>

log in

join