[HOAX] Isaac CARET - Drones [HOAX]

Originally posted by organelle

"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.

I have been reading this topic since it was created and haven't felt the need to add to it until now. I think it is very important that when you rip somebody's writing apart you must first understand what words mean. Piqued means (among other things) to excite ones curiosity or interest. Where Isaac uses this in his statement it is in perfect context with what he is saying.

Check out the dictionary here...

I don't recall Isaac saying that he wrote the document, unless I'm much mistaken?

I don't think grammar and spelling can really be used as a factor to prove, one way or another, the genuity of this. I am sure there are some spelling and grammatical errors in this report, but by and large it is clearly written and easy to understand. I've found far worse spelling in all sorts of documents, from internal memos through to business reports and public documents (not necessarily to do with ET's or UFO's, just generally). I don't think anybody's head would have rolled over a couple of spelling mistakes.

Originally posted by GrimUK

I have been reading this topic since it was created and haven't felt the need to add to it until now. I think it is very important that when you rip somebody's writing apart you must first understand what words mean. Piqued means (among other things) to excite ones curiosity or interest. Where Isaac uses this in his statement it is in perfect context with what he is saying.

Check out the dictionary here...

"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."

Yes, but either the word is supposed to be peaked or the word was is missing, as in my interest was piqued.

There are a number of better ways to formulate the same sentence, starting with And isn't generally accepted for a start. You also wouldn't say "and my interest was piqued with my first exposure to a Tixo", it actually makes more sense for it to have been peaked when with is next.

Minor grammatical errors maybe, the meaning is still there, but this guy supposedly has a grounding in linguistics. Also, after you have sat with stuff for 20 years you wouldn't then make a snap decision in publishing it and not proofread the covering statement.

Chunder,

I disagree, to me it sounds fine. I'm no expert in the english language but I would consider myself to be pretty good.

Can you point out where he states that he has roots in linguistics? As far as I can remember (haven't read it for a couple of days) he only says he was interested in the the linguistics of the object?

My point is that just because he has some spelling mistakes and a few grammatical errors in his letter, doesn't make this a hoax. I work with a large number of electrical engineers who have a brilliant understanding of electrical systems but couldn't write 'good' english.

[edit on 3/7/07 by GrimUK]

Originally posted by corda
I don't recall Isaac saying that he wrote the document, unless I'm much mistaken?

I don't think grammar and spelling can really be used as a factor to prove, one way or another, the genuity of this. I am sure there are some spelling and grammatical errors in this report, but by and large it is clearly written and easy to understand. I've found far worse spelling in all sorts of documents, from internal memos through to business reports and public documents (not necessarily to do with ET's or UFO's, just generally). I don't think anybody's head would have rolled over a couple of spelling mistakes.

Isaac supposedly wrote the covering statement, not the documents. It's not just the spelling, although I would try and get that right if I was publishing something like this on the internet, it's more the composition and structure.

You're probably right in that it won't lead anywhere, it's just one of the few tools available to deconstruct the info we have.

[edit on 3-7-2007 by chunder]

Minor grammatical errors maybe, the meaning is still there, but this guy supposedly has a grounding in linguistics. Also, after you have sat with stuff for 20 years you wouldn't then make a snap decision in publishing it and not proofread the covering statement.

Oh, give me a break already with the spelling errors. All of us make spelling mistakes because we type fast and typos will happen. If you are assuming that this was a coordinated hoax and carefully executed, then sure he would have proofread it. But if he was simply trying to disclose what he knew, or it was written by a government agent as a form of dissemination, the purpose was to get it out to the people to share what he knows -- not to win an essay contest.

admin edit: Removed off topic, personality focused comments.

Pjslug, you would be well served by focusing on the topic and not the members, the quip I deleted could very easily be reversed and said about your position.

[edit on 7-3-2007 by Springer]

Originally posted by GrimUK

Can you point out where he states that he has roots in linguistics? As far as I can remember (haven't read it for a couple of days) he only says he was interested in the the linguistics of the object?

My point is that just because he has some spelling mistakes and a few grammatical errors in his letter, doesn't make this a hoax. I work with a large number of electrical engineers who have a brilliant understanding of electrical systems but couldn't write 'good' english.

[edit on 3/7/07 by GrimUK]

He doesn't, I was wrong, thanks for pointing that out and no it won't prove it's a hoax.

Originally posted by pjslug
If you are assuming that this was a coordinated hoax and carefully executed, then sure he would have proofread it.

But if he was simply trying to disclose what he knew, or it was written by a government agent as a form of dissemination, the purpose was to get it out to the people to share what he knows -- not to win an essay contest.

Well then, whether the spelling is correct or not might have a bearing.

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 expert opinions discrediting the CGI and reality 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

The C2C DRONE INVASION was an episode of the American internet drama anthology series Aliens and UFO's at AboveTopSecret.com and was performed as a Independence Day special on over a course of three months leading up to July 4th, 2007

The live, 3 month broadcast, presented mostly as a series of news bulletins, frightened many listeners into believing that the Elite were beginning an actual Drone invasion.

Many people missed or ignored the opening expert opinions on CGI, and in the atmosphere of growing tension and anxiety in the days leading up to World War THREE, 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 c2c Drone broadcast was actually
A PSYCHOLOGICAL WARFARE EXPERIMENT

Originally posted by Sri Oracle

As the story was repeated by word of mouth, rumours began to spread, and these rumours caused some panic.

Rumors and speculation yes, but I wouldn't say it was causing any panic.

It has been suggested in recent years that the c2c Drone broadcast was actually
A PSYCHOLOGICAL WARFARE EXPERIMENT

Possibly. Maybe.

But your points are taken.

Much like I take anything else from this, or any other website; with a heaping grain of salt.




edit = bbcode

and clarity

[edit on 7/3/07 by Mechanic 32]

[edit on 7/3/07 by Mechanic 32]

I agree there is way too much animosity on this thread.

Chunder has made some very good points, whether you agree with them or otherwise. We have to question all angles and the same is true of the spelling and grammar. Any intelligent debate should be welcomed, no matter how much you disagree with it.

After all, if everybody agreed with each other, there wouldn't be much to talk about.

Originally posted by corda
I don't recall Isaac saying that he wrote the document, unless I'm much mistaken?

I don't think grammar and spelling can really be used as a factor to prove, one way or another, the genuity of this. I am sure there are some spelling and grammatical errors in this report, but by and large it is clearly written and easy to understand. I've found far worse spelling in all sorts of documents, from internal memos through to business reports and public documents (not necessarily to do with ET's or UFO's, just generally). I don't think anybody's head would have rolled over a couple of spelling mistakes.

I totally agree with you. I work in a highly sensitive area. I see things the general public rarely gets to see. My first day on the job, I read our "Procedure Manual" and the first thing I noticed was that it was labled as "Procedure MANUEL". I thought to myself that it was funny that it said "Manuel" because thats my fathers name. So misspellings really dont mean anything. It just means that someone just can't spell very well. My spelling is horrible.

Originally posted by GrimUK

Originally posted by organelle

"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.

I have been reading this topic since it was created and haven't felt the need to add to it until now. I think it is very important that when you rip somebody's writing apart you must first understand what words mean. Piqued means (among other things) to excite ones curiosity or interest. Where Isaac uses this in his statement it is in perfect context with what he is saying.

Check out the dictionary here...

I was wondering what the fuss about this word was too.
I consider my english quite good, and I would have used that word in the same way. I'm not sure where the error is there.
I do find myself surprised with what I don't know about english sometimes though. oh well.
Either way, it's no big deal in my eyes.

Gee, this thread has more twists and curves than a snake crossing a hot Texas road at noon.

Chunder, I wouldn't worry too much about the deleted posts. A lot of things get the axe in a big thread. It's mostly just housecleaning. Posts that have no real connection to the thread, and are aimed towards other people, get deleted.

There are times I agree with a poster, yet later disagree with that same poster on another aspect of the thread. There's nothing personal, at least for me in this. To agree or disagree is a way of looking at all sides of a subject, and not a referendum on the posters worth or lack thereof.

While this thread has cooled down some, in the sense that it has regained a climate of civility, it is easier to follow the ideas presented here. I'm so glad that folks are getting their emotions under control on this issue.

Good reading all.

Originally posted by Frankenchrist
So misspellings really dont mean anything. It just means that someone just can't spell very well.

Well then, it means something, if only that the person can't spell very well.

If we carry on long enough we'll have a complete profile of Isaac the hoaxer or Isaac the brave.


PS Still waiting for the deletion.

ORGANELLE:

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 often feel like--given some hyper-sensibilities hereon--plus the formal strictures . . . I have to comment within the air gaps within the weave of a horrendous straight-jacket . . . . that just because i make a direct connection with a major component of my reality and drones . . . someone else may not. and if they wail about their sensibilities being offended, then my connection with the drone realities and that corner of the dialogue gets trashed, censored . . . disappointing. . . anyway]

I strongly agree with the quoted paragraph above.

I still believe that the drone phenomena are at least some sort of incremental dinking with public consciousness and realities.

I don't know that it matters, in SOME respects, whether it is a deliberate staged incremental disclosure . . . or a hoax . . . or a mixture . . . the public consciousness is being altered to some degree in some quarters by the phenomena.

I think it will become INCREASINGLY ESSENTIAL to have trusted folks we can assess UFO related realities with in coming months and years. I think the drone phenomena will be eventually seen as some level of a turning point. Maybe not . . . but at 13 witnesses and counting? . . . it's different than any similar phenomena that I can recall in the last 60 years.

1. Your not going to debunk this by looking for spelling errors. Even firefox has spellcheck!

2. If we could use anti-grav at all 20 years ago, that means today our hummers could be floating above land mines. ("BUT BLOWFISH THATS TOO EXPENSIVE!") Not really when you don't have to FUEL it with anything. You would actually save money. Same for Jet fuel, etc.

3. Who drew those crazy diagrams? Photoshop brushes, custom fonts, and more. Very elaborately hoaxed, would have taken a very long time to draw without custom fonts and brushes, but less than a day with these tools. * Who would've been able to decode a computer language beyond the comprehension of bill gates in 2007? The answer is Nobody.

4. "But maybe it's real and he wanted the world to see it!" If he stole these 20 years ago, after already working for several years in a highly classified government project, he woul dhave to be over 40 years old. WHAT TOOK THIS LONG?!?! He could've posted it during the (dot)com boom and made bank off of advertisers.

Originally posted by blowfishdl
1. Your not going to debunk this by looking for spelling errors. Even firefox has spellcheck!

2. If we could use anti-grav at all 20 years ago, that means today our hummers could be floating above land mines. ("BUT BLOWFISH THATS TOO EXPENSIVE!") Not really when you don't have to FUEL it with anything. You would actually save money. Same for Jet fuel, etc.

3. Who drew those crazy diagrams? Photoshop brushes, custom fonts, and more. Very elaborately hoaxed, would have taken a very long time to draw without custom fonts and brushes, but less than a day with these tools. * Who would've been able to decode a computer language beyond the comprehension of bill gates in 2007? The answer is Nobody.

4. "But maybe it's real and he wanted the world to see it!" If he stole these 20 years ago, after already working for several years in a highly classified government project, he woul dhave to be over 40 years old. WHAT TOOK THIS LONG?!?! He could've posted it during the (dot)com boom and made bank off of advertisers.

1. What's your point ?
2. So if we had anti-grav 20 yrs ago we would have Hummers now ?
You also underestimate the power of the petro-chemical industry.
Do you understand what effect just the admittance of the existence of an anti-grav device would have, even if no-one can get it to work, on life as we know it.
3. Isaac explains who drew it and the manpower involved.
4. He is older than that, he has explained why the documents have been released now and I don't understand what you are talking about with the .com boom.

PS Still waiting for the deletion.

Yes, but either the word is supposed to be peaked or the word was is missing, as in my interest was piqued.

Looking at that sentence, I would say that "piqued" is the word that he meant to use. The fact that he missed out "was" is hardly conclusive proof that the document is fake.

I was wondering what the fuss about this word was too. I consider my english quite good, and I would have used that word in the same way. I'm not sure where the error is there.

Actually, Organelle and chunder are absolutely correct in this regard. If he intended to use the word "piqued", then there very definitely should have been a "was" before it. My argument is simply that people make spelling mistakes and grammatical errors all the time, particularly when posting stuff on the internet.


[edit on 3-7-2007 by Mogget]

[edit on 3-7-2007 by Mogget]

[edit on 3-7-2007 by Mogget]

Wildone, 11 11 and others with CGI experience (this is a serious request, no catches).

Would the technology have been available in 1986 to create through CGI at that time the photograph used in fig 4.4 ?

No models, pure CGI. The answer isn't going to lead to any astounding revelation, at least not from me, would just be helpful to a train of thought I am following.

PS Still waiting for a deletion.