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: 76
185
<< 73  74  75    77  78  79 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 3 2007 @ 11:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by GrimUK
Chunder,

I wasn't having a pop at you and if you feel this way then I apologise. I was merely referring to the fact that I felt that what pjslug said about looking for spelling and grammatical errors are pointless in trying to debunk this, was a good point.


Thanks for the apology (accepted) and explanation.
I disagree of course, I think it is no more or no less pointless than deconstructing the images or following up on domain names. Who knows where a breakthrough will come from, but you are entitled to your opinion and we can agree to disagree.




posted on Jul, 4 2007 @ 12:15 AM
link   
Its a CGI rendering..I promise you.


Originally posted by RING0
The pictures of the "assembled" green object look like an actual model, (versus a CGI model.), could it be the result of a Rapid prototyping machine I am not certain if they are capable of making models with sufficient detail to look like the one seen in the photograph and if true would mean the scale of the object could be measured in inches. With this in mind, looking at the picture, it does have a look of a small scale model. These machines are quite expensive and this could point to an elaborate and expensive infrastructure being utilized by the perpetrators.



posted on Jul, 4 2007 @ 01:42 AM
link   
At the risk of appearing as a conspiracy nut -

www.paloaltodailynews.com...

Seriously though, I can't help thinking that there may be enough clues to locate where such a facility as described by Isaac could have existed.



posted on Jul, 4 2007 @ 02:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by chunder
At the risk of appearing as a conspiracy nut -

www.paloaltodailynews.com...

Seriously though, I can't help thinking that there may be enough clues to locate where such a facility as described by Isaac could have existed.


I would say sure, it's possible for them to have set fire to a building, but not that one. It is on the second story and Isaac said he was in a one story building with underground offices. It would be unlikely for any company to work on top secret projects such as those in offices atop someone else. Besides, work on those types of devices (especially ones that float in the air) would need lots of space to move around. Most likely, lots of power would have been required to generate the electricity research for those projects in addition to the ventilation and lighting systems to facilitate 200 employees plus military staff.



posted on Jul, 4 2007 @ 02:22 AM
link   

Palo Alto Daily News

A four-alarm fire that gutted the University Avenue offices above the Walgreens drug store and Subway sandwich shop


Wow, maybe Subway is in on it!? I hope they saved some of the (now toasted) wheatbread



[edit on 4-7-2007 by Frootloop]



posted on Jul, 4 2007 @ 02:32 AM
link   
What if this drone-mania is just a brilliantly crafted diversion?

Think about it, the mainstream media doesn't provide information to people smart enough to question authority....the internet does.

So maybe this is CARET stuff is a high-dollar diversion to keep the intellectual and inquisitive folks occupied with something other than the state of affairs today in the US or the upcoming election.

Could this drone be the thinking man's Paris Hilton??????



[edit on 4-7-2007 by kimmunism]

[edit on 4-7-2007 by kimmunism]



posted on Jul, 4 2007 @ 02:35 AM
link   
Going back to the facility, let's take a look at PARC as it is today.
Check out their research department.

Here is one that stuck out as particularly interesting:

Perceptual Document Analysis Area
www2.parc.com...



posted on Jul, 4 2007 @ 06:31 AM
link   
Regarding earlier posts from me about text and spelling etc, I have looked at this again and realised that some of the errors I saw were because of U.S. spelling and that aside from breif, eligable, armged and albiet the rest is ok.
I still have an issue with why any spelling errors but will leave it at that.
There are also minor punctuation and grammar errors and a couple of words missing but overall I do now believe the composition to be consistent throughout.
I couldn't spot a single spelling error in the Q4 report and I now know what centroid means which I didn't before (centre of mass).
None of the above means anything either way, just an observation.

There is something I don't understand in the Q4 report which I will mention later but in the covering statement, to me, Isaac is trying to disguise the location of the facility as well as his identity.

"PACL was hidden in an office complex owned entirely by the military but made to look like an unassuming tech company."

You can't just create an unassuming tech company of that size, at least 200 people is stated. In whatever field it unassumed, it's competitiors and rivals would want to know all about it. The only way I can see this working and to be able to explain away security is to use an existing company name and call it an R&D Centre or have it understood it was working on a military contract. There would have been no suspicion what the contract actually was, and why not have an above board contract anyway, isn't this how black projects are supposed to work.

According to Col. Philip Corso technology was given to existing company's. Why go to the bother of setting up a civilian project under military control in a military owned office complex when you can have the same in an existing "civilian" owned complex. If we can find the facility we can find the company and if we do that we should see some commercial applications and/or breakthroughs directly related to the subject matter (except anti gravity maybe) feeding into the mainstream over a period from 85 onwards.



posted on Jul, 4 2007 @ 07:37 AM
link   
In the Q4 86 report page 3 Item 4 the operation of the antigravity device is mentioned.

An impenetrable field is described, around a craft, protecting it from ballistic weaponry.

It then states that the very components within the craft are held in place, in relation to one another, exclusively by antigravitational means, a partial explanation for lack of rivets and adhesives in the construction of the crafts.

It strikes me then that the anti gravity device has to be switched off before you can enter the craft and that the moment you switch it off the craft would fall apart as it isn't held together by anything.

Ok you say, the different modes of operation, field and component, are described later. However, in order to extract one of these devices from a craft you would have to have both modes switched off.

I suppose you could have a few of these devices in each craft, each operating under different modes, one for protection, one for navigation and one to hold the craft together. However, it is stated that the device is capable of multiple modes of operation, it doesn't actually say at the same time but that is the inference. Of course, if you have antigravity weight in a spacecraft isn't an issue, in fact, considering their importance, if I was popping over to Alpha Centauri I would probably take a couple of spares.
However you have a device, capable of all 3 modes of operation, you would think it would be used in that fashion.

If the RSR is incapable of being broken then either the device shown had only one purpose in RSR mode, to hold the two I beams where they are, or the effect dissapears if parts are moved a distance away whilst the mode is switched off.

Either way, the whole thing seems a bit of a chicken and egg situation in relation to holding the craft together and removing the device.

Edited to add that even if I have interpreted what is stated correctly, that does not make it a hoax. There are a number of other explanations. The impenetrable field could alter in size according to the situation, it might just kick in when the craft moves. They could have just been plain wrong in the report. It could go like this - field mode fails - craft crashes (which means the field mode must have failed otherwise the craft shouldn't have actually hit anything) - craft retreived - component mode fails or is switched off and the task of removing components for study is then much easier. Maybe that's why no-one can get the technology to work very well, I've got a phrase for it - the Humpty Dumpty paradox.


[edit on 4-7-2007 by chunder]



posted on Jul, 4 2007 @ 08:56 AM
link   
YAY! I finally caught up with the thread hehe.

QUESTION:
What GREEN Object are people talking about? I only saw black objects, did i miss a pic? Thx.



posted on Jul, 4 2007 @ 10:26 AM
link   


QUESTION:
What GREEN Object are people talking about? I only saw black objects, did i miss a pic? Thx.


That would be my thread, there is one object shown "assembled" it has a very dark almost military green color, although not the official Olive Drab, it is green. I just thought it had the look of a miniature sized model shown in a close up shot to make it look large. But it is most likely a CGI rendering, Isn't it amazing that we are at the point where you cannot tell if an object is real or rendered? I know I can't point out any one thing that would prove it one way or another.



posted on Jul, 4 2007 @ 10:41 AM
link   
Maybe I read it wrong, but if this device is "pure" antigravity, why would it need to be / look so aerodynamic? Couldn't it just as easily been designed as a block of metal? If the writing is as functional as the claim states, why would antenna arrays, wings, contouring be necessary at all? Granted, I can see the logic behind pointy bits as maybe focusing points, but why all the aesthetics for an intelligence so advanced, or a device whose sole purpose seems to be functionality?

Another question: has anyone toyed with Photoshop recently? The diagrams in the language primer can be done with rectangles and the polar coordinates filter. I was thinking of the bits that resemble UPC bar code, in particular. Erase a chunk here and there, and convert rectangular to polar, and tadaa, circle-ly thing. Matter of fact, most of the swirlys and such can be done with either a distort or pen tool.

Finally: Omniglot.com - has just about every writtten language known online - some of them match the text almost perfectly, though it does look like a mish mash of a couple. (Klingon, Daedric, and at least one other - maybe Zodiac).

Just a thought. I think.



posted on Jul, 4 2007 @ 11:15 AM
link   
This post was taken from ufocasebook.com and was made by 'watching waiting'
If i'm not allowed to paste here, mods - delete it or fix up the quoting please.
I've followed this thread quite closely and haven't heard it put this way before. I feel it's quite valid.
Though if i were a clever hoaxer I would be aware that my scans would look a little too good for its time. XPARC would be the perfect company background to explain these scans.
But as it stands, i've always felt the same way as this person states things here.

Final note: Wow the people are so civil and nice to each other there. I guess I kind of got numbed to all the bickering that carries on here... but when it's not there you really do notice it. Kind of sad really -_-'


www.ufocasebook.com
'To all of you junior typestyle detectives, I'm tired of you guys assuming the world of computers revolves around PC/Windows and Mac. Desktop publishing was not invented on the Mac or PC.

Ever heard of a little term called WYSIWYG? Any guess where that came from? I'll tell you. WYSIWYG, or What You See Is What You Get, originated at Xerox PARC and was first commercialized in the Xerox Star in 1981 and by 1985 had been improved in the Viewpoint 6085.The new hardware provided 1MB to 4MB of memory, a 10MB to 80MB hard disk, a 15" or 19" display, a 5.25" floppy drive, a mouse, Ethernet connector and a price of a little over $6,000.

Let's not forget laser printing. The laser printer was invented where? Yep, you guessed it, XPARC.

Hmmm... XPARC... XPARC... Where did I hear about that recently? Oh yeah, the freakin' Issac dude talked about it.

"XPARC served as one of the models for the CARET program’s first incarnation..."

"A couple of my co-workers were plucked right from places like IBM and, at least two of them came from XPARC itself."

"One of the best examples of the power of the tech sector was Xerox PARC, a research center in Palo Alto, CA. XPARC was responsible for some of the major milestones in the history of computing. While I never had the privilege of working there myself I did know many of the people who did and I can say that they were among the brightest engineers I ever knew."

The CARET project was working on the most advanced technology on the planet, albeit extra-terrestrial in origin. Isaac stated they were using super computers, probably Crays at that time. They had the "brightest engineers". Don't you think they'd have the best word processing/desktop publishing platform of its day which was the Xerox? They probably had something better than the commercially available Viewpoint 6085.

More than you ever knew you wanted to know about the Xerox Star is at members.dcn.org...


BTW, I have done computer support for decades and in as late as 1995, when I left and went to a different company, I had a VP that had his secretary using a Xerox word processing computer because that VP felt it surpassed all programs on Windows or Mac.'

[edit on 7-4-2007 by Springer]



posted on Jul, 4 2007 @ 12:40 PM
link   
Argo - please review the following posts. These are just a few of many on ATS regarding this subject. We've been down the Katanaka/Klingon/Enochian path many times already...

Drone Text

Drone 1

Drone 2

Drone 3

For many more links on ATS that talk about the drone's text, just type "C2C Drone" into the search field at the top pf the page.



posted on Jul, 4 2007 @ 12:46 PM
link   
REPLY TO: SYS_CONFIG

I find your statements below

1. Quite perceptive
2. Quite thoughtful
3. Quite fitting

4. impressive--particularly compared to all the debunking compulsions so evident on the thread.

5. productive--in that they are open-ended, perhaps somewhat hopeful of all this leading to somewhere more informative and interesting.

6. Evidently quite reality based . . . at least in terms of my construction on "reality."

7. A joy to read.





I feel sorry for him as in a way he is a martyr if he goes down. I think he is still alive because he does a an ace up his sleeve, knowledge he may have given others and is secreted somewhere.


I have a faint 'memory' of such in his postings. Is that true?



This material is by far even more revealing, and taken in context with the Gary Mckenna story, means this person Isaac (name of ancient Prophet) has placed his life in jeopardy or he was authorized to release it. I think it was the latter. from his scans it appears he was in a rush.This may be a test for us, the public.



I'm also expecting that it will eventually turn out that he was instructed to release all this in this way. We shall see. Certainly not a DEFINITE probability but a quite plausible one, to me.




I'm glad some people are downloading this stuff. If its not the latter than the man has snapped. Some secrets are just too big, and he may have been left out of something he felt a part of..like his job or promotion.. who knows what triggered but he should know the IRS is the least of his problems.


You could well be right. Though I suspect . . . given all the noise, nuances of incremental disclosure stuff eeking out, oozing out, breaking out . . . it just may be the case that he outted this stuff on his own . . . and then that the powers that be decided it fit well enough within their own incremental disclosure agenda . . . to leave him alone.





But this really looks fabulous. I wonder if the recent Japanese work with integrating the brain or reading is tied into this stuff as the hardware shown may very well need that can of input . Thats going to be some programming. Not long ago they purchasedd the Skylark of Valeron series by EE doc smith. This is Pre PC days, when slide rulers ruled, where the ships operators brains interfaced with the ships. But I never heard anything else.



I consider it a fact that the UFO's were controlled by thoughts via a headband apparatus. It's at least quite plausible that these drones are similarly controlled by a remote operator with some sort of similar headband.

Thanks for your refreshing post. It's a delight to read a thoughtful, reality based post that is not all bound up in the poster's underwear, ego, biases, rants about photoshopping etc.

The thing may turn out to be a bunch of CGI stuff. But I doubt it. Too many diverse witnesses, to me.

But I guess I just find the CGI stuff weary-ing.

And maybe, too much of the . . . "LET'S DOGPILE ALL OVER EACH OTHER PROVING WHO'S IS LONGER ABOUT CGI, DEBUNKING SMARTS IN GENERAL . . . " and other chronic bouts of naysaying negativism. Gets wearying.



posted on Jul, 4 2007 @ 01:20 PM
link   
Just posted some Transformer VMC comments here:Transformer movie/Drones .

Didn't want to re-type everything (or multiple post - seems like we have a dozen Drone threads going simultaneously as it is), so if anyone's interested, follow the link.

Probably best to reply there if you have your own comments and have seen the movie - I'd be interested in your thoughts...



posted on Jul, 4 2007 @ 03:07 PM
link   
Is it just me, or does that written language seriously resemble this:





posted on Jul, 4 2007 @ 03:43 PM
link   
I've been looking through these threads and on other boards and though I might of overlooked it, who has noticed the fact that the panels on the craft in this image, resemble the 'language primer' from Isaacs' website?

I could be wrong, it's not the exact same construction or whatever you want it to call it, but it this look simillar. I also might be completely repeating the whole point....






[edit on 4/7/2007 by LoDGiKaL]

[edit on 4/7/2007 by LoDGiKaL]



posted on Jul, 4 2007 @ 03:46 PM
link   
It would be best if you just stopped researching the language and characters, because it is absolutly non existant and has no meaning. It will make you run in cirlces for years, because this language was designed by the hoaxer to be "not from this world", meaning that it has absolutly no man made meaning.

Example:

adfj a3-290rlq fafda-0pq4rf a fdasdf32qr dZSdfq23rasdfv zWEr

The above has no meaning what so ever.



posted on Jul, 4 2007 @ 03:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by 11 11
It would be best if you just stopped researching the language and characters, because it is absolutly non existant and has no meaning. It will make you run in cirlces for years, because this language was designed by the hoaxer to be "not from this world", meaning that it has absolutly no man made meaning.


I quit researching them. The only fealing that you to do keep getting is that it does resemble a programming language, indeed in some way related to the languages we use. There seem to be alternative paths between the groups, sometime connecting to characters enclosed in other characters whiich resemble ( and ). Almost like functions, or if statements.
I don't believe further analasis is really possible without more reference material.



new topics

top topics



 
185
<< 73  74  75    77  78  79 >>

log in

join