[HOAX] Isaac CARET - Drones [HOAX]

Originally posted by Springer

UPDATE:

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

Springer...

I thought that came out the 4th?

Did the 3 amigos get special screenings ????
(joke , would be cool though right?)

My stepsons gonna be poed told him it was on that date from all the places I seen on the net.

Anyway what about halo 3 could they be in that ?
or maybe a newer Half-life?
just a thought

Has anyone already posted this?

www.coasttocoastam.com...

That is really cool...Halo 3 is the best possibility or else we are in the first 20 minutes of a Micahel Bay flim....

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

Springer...

That blows my guess out of the water, I was going with the Transformers viral ad as the answer. That was my only best guess, I don't have a backup theory to replace it with. Thanks for the info, I was dying to know if there were any drones in there!

I have a friend on the Halo3 art team..he's made no mention of such a campaign to me.

Originally posted by esdad71

Has anyone already posted this?

www.coasttocoastam.com...

That is really cool...Halo 3 is the best possibility or else we are in the first 20 minutes of a Micahel Bay flim....

I don't know how many times I've come out and said that the Drones have nothing to do with the Transformers, as a hardcore Transformers fan, there's just no link to it that I can see. I've gone out and purchased a lot of the movie related books, comics, games, toys, etc. There is no Drone connection.... the movie will be out in a day... and the Drones will most likely continue beyond that.

If it's a hoax or even if it's real it will most likely go on past Halo and any other thing people might think it's trying to be via viral marketing.

I suspect that if it's a hoax, and can keep it's base in interest and fine lines between reality and fantasy... it could go on for a long long time if not caught.

I don't know if this has been said...

But does this c2c drone thing not remind you of War of the Worlds, H G Wells.

1938

wikipedia:

The War of the Worlds was an episode of the American radio drama anthology series Mercury Theatre on the Air.

Directed by Orson Welles, the episode was an adaptation of H. G. Wells' classic novel The War of the Worlds (1898), and was performed as a Halloween special on October 30, 1938.

The live, 60 minute broadcast, presented mostly as a series of news bulletins, frightened many listeners into believing that an actual Martian invasion was in progress. There was public outcry against the episode, but it launched Welles to great fame.
[]
Many people missed or ignored the opening credits of the program, and in the atmosphere of growing tension and anxiety in the days leading up to World War II, took it to be a news broadcast.
[]
As the story was repeated by word of mouth, rumours began to spread, and these rumours caused some panic.
[]
It has been suggested in recent years that the War of the Worlds broadcast was actually
A PSYCHOLOGICAL WARFARE EXPERIMENT

I am,

Sri Oracle

Its already 'caught' but people keep on giving the hoaxer more chances to fool them!

Originally posted by promomag

I suspect that if it's a hoax, and can keep it's base in interest and fine lines between reality and fantasy... it could go on for a long long time if not caught.

I just got home from Transformers also(We had an 8pm and 10pm showing here in WV of all places), and there is nothing in the movie even close to the drones...The transformers do have a form of alien language in the movie but again doesnt match any of the symbols on the CARET stuff. On the other hand it was a very fun movie and recommend you all see it.

I would have bet money that it's not viral marketing for that movie, or any other movie/game for that matter.
It's a huuuuuuuge stretch to suggest so. This is different from other viral campaigns we've seen. It's more your classic hoax/mysterious story.

Originally posted by Bunch
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.

Hello from me and I'll answer from my perspective as a previous interested lurker.

You may not be an expert in CGI or believe you are in anything, that's good because the only thing you can guarantee when you put two experts together from the same field is that they will argue with each other.

You will have unique knowledge of some subject that may prove to be beneficial to the discussion. The most important thing you can bring is an open mind and the fact you are still around after 70 pages probably proves that's the case. Logic and rational thought help, politeness and recognition of others right to opposing views and then evaluating any info provided before making up your own mind will help also, together with varying degrees of patience and passion.

Doesn't matter whether it is searching the web or any kind of research or digging. Just pontificating with oneself may bring the breakthrough that is needed.

If you are then prepared to be pilloried, vilified and insulted for your comments jump into the discussion at any time (only joking).

For a debate to occur opinions are a pre-requisite. An informed debate is one step further if those opinions are based on the evidence, welcome.



[edit on 3-7-2007 by chunder]

Originally posted by esdad71

Has anyone already posted this?

www.coasttocoastam.com...

I don't buy his (saladfingers123456) theory of how it is supposed to move. If you take a look at one of the first pics that surfaced, it is clearly in very close proximity to a telephone pole and power cables. If it did move like that it would have come into abrupt contact with the pole and/or cables.

But a nice render on the vid, nevertheless.

Greetings,

I have followed this phenomenon for some time, and have a variety of interests in it which go far beyond 'is this a hoax' or not. As I have mentioned before, what is at play here, for us, is actually a chance to develop and exercise whatever degree of group intelligence we may possess or be able to assemble.

This, in fact, is priceless — because we can be certain that we will face similar and probably far more elaborate challenges in the future, both authentic and forged. My suggestion is that we use this phenomenon specifically to develop these assets of relational or group intelligence, and that we continue push the envelope of what our experience and beliefs would limit us to.

•••

I have been examining Isaac's text in close detail for some days now. It evinces a variety of interesting and sometimes conflicted features, which I do not feel are topical enough to post here at length. There are a few things I would like to specifically mention, however. Yes, there are objections to each of them which one might reasonably form. Nonetheless, regarding the 'viral marketing' aspect, I wish to point out a few things.

Firstly, it is (in part) my experience that people with a new technical phrase are like kids with a new toy. They always want to bring it out and play with it. 'Viral Marketing' (as if there was ever any other sort) is really just a way of saying 'new underground marketing'. What I am trying to get at is that seemingly novel concepts have a charge of attraction that invites us to attempt to include more and more phenomenon (or things) in their umbrella. This isn't necessarily bad, in itself, but when we're unaware of it the process can get out of hand.

But here's the primary reason why I doubt the 'viral marketing' hoax angle: the bad writing. I don't mean sort of bad, I mean explicitly bad. Isaac's writing, misspellings, and focus are bad. They aren't the result of a marketer's work. They might be the result of a team, but no one in the team appears to know how to write English very well, or convincingly, except perhaps the person who wrote the fragments of the Q4-86 report. It does appear that some care and consideration went into the composition, but the author does not appear to be acclimated to communicating coherently in writing.

Now, sure, someone could -decide- to write the accompanying emails and materials poorly on purpose — but this decision would also be likely to present certain forms of evidence of itself upon close examination.

The puzzling thing is why someone who would go to the (admittedly moderate) trouble to concoct the Q4-86 material would -also- write Isaac's 'PACL Diary' so poorly. Additionally, if this was actually important to Isaac (which he claims it is), wasn't it important enough to craft carefully, and proofread? Apparently not — and this is the sort of problem with internal consistency I am talking about.

"And I had always been interested in computer science, which was a very new field at the time, and my interest piqued with my first exposure to a Tixo during grad school."

Consider the above sentence, with its incoherent use of 'piqued'. Either the author omitted the term 'was' previously (possible), or the author meant that their interest peaked. The other possibility is more startling: that an electrical engineer could mistakenly exchange 'piqued' for 'peaked'. I would argue that this term, having many important uses in electrical engineering, is not likely to be confused with 'piqued' by someone steeped in that discipline.

There are many other tidbits throughout his letter that are confusing, suspicious or conflicted. In some ways it appears to have been written by more than one person. Perhaps we will eventually be able to validate or falsify some or all of this story, but until then... my eyes are on the skies.

pax

slightly OT, but something i was wondering ... is it normal in the usa that you choose road numbers in adresses more or less randomly, like "coyote hill 3333" for xparc (coyote road is very small, certainly got no 3000 adresses there)? and if you look at that address on a map, it's basically in the middle of a road, no buildings or anything whatsoever.

Originally posted by wildone106
Its already 'caught' but people keep on giving the hoaxer more chances to fool them!

Caught by whom, exactly? You? That's laughable. 99% of the people in here acknowledge that it has not been proven or disproven. How can you be so blindsided to think that it has when you have not shred one iota of irrefutable evidence stating it has been disproven? You and 11 11 have continuously recited these "it's absolutely CGI" comments which means either A) you are in some delusional fantasy whereby you think this is the definative answer, B) you are a government disinfo agent, or C) you perpetrated the hoax (which frankly I don't believe is in the realm of your capacity, because the compilation of these documents, photos, diagrams and backstory are quite brilliant, or the truth). And I'm not trying to be rude, but quite serious as the two of you, from the beginning of this thread, think you know something that we are all ignorant to.

[edit on 3-7-2007 by pjslug]

Originally posted by Lamâshtu
slightly OT, but something i was wondering ... is it normal in the usa that you choose road numbers in adresses more or less randomly, like "coyote hill 3333" for xparc (coyote road is very small, certainly got no 3000 adresses there)? and if you look at that address on a map, it's basically in the middle of a road, no buildings or anything whatsoever.

Think of the streets as a grid. Whatever street it is parallel to, in both north and south or east and west directions, it will have the same number. So even if the street is only a block long, it will have the same number as the address on another street which you could run a perpendicular line through. I hope that makes sense.

But here's the primary reason why I doubt the 'viral marketing' hoax angle: the bad writing. I don't mean sort of bad, I mean explicitly bad. Isaac's writing, misspellings, and focus are bad.

Sorry, but I disagree. Whilst there are a few spelling mistakes and grammatical errors, the use of the English language in its written form is pretty good as far as I am concerned. How you can state that it is "explicitly bad" is quite beyond my ability to understand. The article is extremely easy to read, and this guy's "focus" and descriptive ability seem perfectly fine to me.

Anyway, it's not as if this article is official documentation. He quite clearly states that it is a response to the discussion regarding the "drone" sightings. In my opinion, that makes it more akin to an internet forum post (and you can read what you like into that statement), and we all know how grammatically correct the majority of those are.


[edit on 3-7-2007 by Mogget]

Originally posted by pjslug I hope that makes sense.

do i understand now? yes. does it make sense? no

edit: and thanks for clearing that up for me!

[edit on 3-7-2007 by Lamâshtu]

And we still have the possibility that Isaac doesn't speak english as his first language, dont forget that

Very good points, I am (please note not I AM), amongst a few other things (I say this only because I do not work in that area anymore) a qualified electrical engineer (not claiming to be an expert) and can confirm that anyone who had received formal training, probably in any engineering or scientific discipline, is not likely to confuse the two words.

It also cannot be argued that Isaac is just a bad speller or has a poor understanding of English because the word piqued, along with many longer words in the document, is not that commonly used and is spelt correctly.

I guess it could have been written in an extreme hurry, although that seems highly unlikely given the other information to hand.
A spellchecker could conceivably change a closely spelt word to that and the text could have been dictated or transcribed to someone else but then surely it would have been proofread.
If deliberate then to what end, it would hardly help disguise identity considering some of the other words used.
If multiple authors, what possible reason to allow the finished document to contain the errors.

It is clear that if Isaac is who he says, these mistakes should not have been present. I can only think of a few possibilities, I imagine there are more.

The mistakes were deliberate and there is some meaning to them.

Someone other than who Isaac says he is authored the cover piece, inserting words, sentences, phrases etc from other sources to make it seem as if they were Isaac (could the other sources have been the blacked out sections of Q4 86, from the other material they have or from conversations overheard, perhaps whilst they carried out their more menial duties at the facility housing CARET).

Pure conjecture I know but maybe it will trigger a chain of thought somewhere.


[edit on 3-7-2007 by chunder]

Originally posted by Mogget
Whilst there are a few spelling mistakes and grammatical errors, the use of the English language in its written form is pretty good as far as I am concerned.

Anyway, it's not as if this article is official documentation. He quite clearly states that it is a response to the discussion regarding the "drone" sightings. In my opinion, that makes it more akin to an internet forum post (and you can read what you like into that statement), and we all know how grammatically correct the majority of those are.


[edit on 3-7-2007 by Mogget]

Whilst generally pretty good for someone with the skills Isaac is claiming there are a few unexplainable errors.

I would have thought that when guys like Isaac and of his era converse, they tend not to make grammatical errors, which these are, rather than shortcuts or sloppy mistakes, as in an internet forum.

Where it does appear to be written (copied ?) by someone with Isaac's claimed background there are no mistakes.



[edit on 3-7-2007 by chunder]