It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable 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: 86
<< 83  84  85    87  88  89 >>

log in


posted on Jul, 7 2007 @ 12:23 AM
Couple of other random thoughts.

Just to expand on the security was only a deterrent comments. Isaac admitted to being made absolutely clear what the consequences would be should security be breached, and this to someone who had worked for the DoD. It is plausible that full frisking was employed at the start of the project, just to get everyone employed in the right mindset.
It's like chaining an elephant, do it when they are young with a big metal chain they can't break and when they are older they can be chained to a post with a piece of string.
It's logistically improbable that 200 staff would have full frisks leaving a place of work, maybe a visual and inside check of any briefcases or the like, but that would probably be it.
As a deterrent it's worked well enough for 20+ years even with Isaac.

As to whether there would be lots of other documents surfacing if it was true then maybe not. The number of people who would have access to documentation that could be damining would be a small percentage of anyone working on a project. Of those the number that thought the information should be given to the public would be even smaller. Of those the number that would actually risk doing anything about it would be smaller still. Maybe PACL was the first and last foray into a "civilian" type environment for this kind of research. For 1 person from 200 odd to suface with any documentation is probably against the odds.

The reasons why others from other programs haven't come forward with any evidence can be found within most of the posts on this forum.

Anyway, occasionally documents do surface that have never been able to be debunked. Whether this is one remains to be seen. Isaac indicated he would watch the reaction before deciding to forward more information. As an intelligent person surely he would welcome rational debate as to their veracity. I just hope it can be done in such a way that we don't jeopardise any future release because whatever side of the fence anyone is on that can only be a bad thing.

posted on Jul, 7 2007 @ 12:36 AM
1 word... Wow... I have been watching this since it 1st developed, I always thought it was surely CGI, Viral ad, or some Hoax. This letter... well... It has made me wonder, and if it is a fake I give MAD props to you for doing such an amazing job, going this far in-depth, and creating a comotion.

posted on Jul, 7 2007 @ 02:40 AM
A fellow named chad looked up in the sky,
And what he saw next was hard to deny.

He borrowed a camera to get a clear picture,
The resultant shot was a very odd mixture,

As to whether it’s fake or not, I cannot tell
But if you stand too near, you won’t feel well.

Chad said, “Alien probe get thee behind me”,
“Where do you come from, how’d you find me?”

He didn’t know what it was that he had found,
It hummed and buzzed with a crackling sound.

They moved fast and he snapped off a shot,
Oh so proudly he shared the pictures he got.

I feel it my duty to show this incredible find,
Truly, I do this for the good for all of mankind.

To coast to coast I’ll make a lengthy pilgrimage,
And post my genuine computer generated Images.

They rant and they rave in the ATS UFO, CARET forums,
They make loud noises like some mixed up crazy quorums.

Intricate Alien morph codes, adorn the exterior,
Human technology is completely, infinitely inferior.

So try to relax, settle down and enjoy the ride,
When the Aliens come there’ll be nowhere to hide.

Please stop trying to guess my ultimate motive,
For this is the beginning of a hostile inchoative.

I’ll be caught soon no matter how well I plan it,
Because you see, Maya is the name of my planet.

posted on Jul, 7 2007 @ 03:07 AM

Originally posted by 11 11

Originally posted by Springer
it is VERY EASY to edit exif data, thus exif data is worthless one way or the other.

I disagree. When I first heard about this hoax, everyone was saying the EXIF was fine, so I trusted it, I figured that was the first thing everyone checked, so I didn't bother. I just told everyone that EXIF data could be edited, I even posted links on this thread to editors.

Dude, we've known about freeware exif data editors for YEARS... Your disagreement doesn't even make sense?

The exif data in these hoax shots has always been screwed up, 2 MONTHS ago we pointed that out, just because you missed it doesn't mean much does it? I don't know what you are trying to say, that now, all of a sudden, that actually means something?

It means exactly nothing, at least toward trying to present these images as real.

The exif data in ANY IMAGE, that is not pristine, is BUNK and most likely so is the image attached to it, that is certainly NOT new information and predates your membership here by years.

Just chill and let this work itself out.


[edit on 7-7-2007 by Springer]

posted on Jul, 7 2007 @ 03:13 AM

Originally posted by Springer
thus exif data is worthless one way or the other.

I disagree that EXIF data is worthless. It is actually good way to tell a fake or hoax. EXIF data editors can not edit everything.

[edit on 7-7-2007 by 11 11]

posted on Jul, 7 2007 @ 03:27 AM
Exif editor can edit everything or remove everything, depending of course of the editor. Some programs alter exif data even when the image is not edited, but merely looked trough the program, or imported from camera.

posted on Jul, 7 2007 @ 03:42 AM
For understand the "isaac" writings we must focus our efforts on this:

is not "project" but "TO PROTECT"

I'm not good in english, and my vocabolary is limited, but them who speak good can try to find out something similar in the drawings...

posted on Jul, 7 2007 @ 03:47 AM

Originally posted by 11 11

I disagree that EXIF data is worthless. It is actually good way to tell a fake or hoax. EXIF data editors can not edit everything.

[edit on 7-7-2007 by 11 11]

If you rely in exif to prove between a fake and hoax you're walking on very thin waters. Exif can be so easily faked, completely. The one and only way to make sure an image is straight from a camera is to use a data verification kit.

[edit on 7/7/2007 by PsykoOps]

posted on Jul, 7 2007 @ 03:51 AM
I like where you're going with that thought - we are perhaps not looking at a substitution cipher, but just a change of the way the writing looks (its early and I can't remember what type of chipher that is right at this moment).

If we've seemingly figured out part of the writing, perhaps we can translate the rest of it; maybe we've been looking to hard through it, rather than AT it.

However, I'm not entirely sure that the Isaac documents are in fact related to the drones, I think he may just be hoaxing what is perhaps already a hoax (or if the drones are real making us believe they're a hoax because of the hoax-yness of HIS documents). I.e. he's a spook and is trying to throw us off the scent into what has become a #fest of crap information and mindless linking to absolutely anything.

The drone writing doesn't seem to be that high focus enough to make out any letters in particular, and they don't seem to be more than the odd letter here and there, whereas the Isaac, for want of a better explaination 'gravity generator', seems to have long, English sentence type writing on.

It's an avenue worth exploring when I return from my peaceful daily slumber definitely.

posted on Jul, 7 2007 @ 03:52 AM
Whoever mentioned it's probably just a joke at palco, they're probably right.
He mentioned he's into conspiracies, so he'd know this is going on.
I'd say it's just a joke to see what kind of response he'll get.
Not a wise idea I think hehe

posted on Jul, 7 2007 @ 06:34 AM
To me, looking at the colour pics that made up fig 4.4 on the Q4 86 report, the two halves do not look like mirror images.

Looking at the fins they do not appear to be symmetrical either with several "spikes" for want of a better description seemingly in the wrong place ?

I don't know how to insert a picture here so please bear with my description.

I opened the picture in paint (that's my level of CGI) and drew curved lines along each of the fins that start at the front and run back in line to help form the "panes" that each of the large characters is on. 2/3 rds of the way back the fins sprout spikes but on the nearest half of the machine they don't line up with the fins. There also seems to be a spike missing by the top "leg" of the nearest half.

The same discrepancy appears on the pic for fig 4.3. Wish I could show you my picture as it would then be obvious what I was referring to but hopefully my description is enough.

I could be totally wrong, my perception of angles etc has already been proven to be wrong earlier in this thread but if someone could take a look and give a second opinion I would be grateful.

I have no idea what it means if the above is the case.

posted on Jul, 7 2007 @ 08:05 AM
I'm with you on the writing looking similair to Project, if you look at one of the diagrams "Audit" can be seen, not sure if it's a coincedence though.

posted on Jul, 7 2007 @ 08:28 AM
I dont know if this has been posted but after reading a few pages of this thread then watching a preview on the transformer movie for a end of the world movie I kind of made the links with the symbols here. If its wrong no harm.

Heres the intro for the movie

Heres the website that has the symbols that is related to the preview. The movie is by JJ Abrams and is named cloverfield for now. You can do a search for it and these are the websites that it comes up with along with a few other related things.

My opinion I think it has something to do with the movie.

posted on Jul, 7 2007 @ 08:35 AM
Very interesting!!

I can see the "To Protect" very clearly now that you've mentioned that! Hmmmm...

posted on Jul, 7 2007 @ 08:49 AM

Originally posted by pjslug
Didn't you see the sci-fi channel program, which is now on youtube, about the guy who sold a piece of the roswell craft to a collector who sent it on for rigorous testing by 3 independent labs? Jesse Marcel Jr. even confirmed it was the material he saw originaly. They were filming the documented reports and about to air it when it was suddenly pulled from the air. Subsequently, there were people that were killed over it. So you're right, the government would not let anyone get ahold of the technology but with the recent events of the drone (if real) I have to believe that some sort of disclosure to the public is happening. I don't think it would be more than a few years at most, especially if Steorn releases their free energy device, that all this knowledge is confirmed to the public. George Bush Sr. when head of the CIA was recorded on the phone saying "If the people knew what we have done, they would drag us into the streets and hang us."

This is a new one to me, sounds a little too good to be true too. Would love to see it, please do share.

posted on Jul, 7 2007 @ 10:44 AM

Originally posted by 11 11
I disagree that EXIF data is worthless. It is actually good way to tell a fake or hoax. EXIF data editors can not edit everything.

Not to be personal but I find it hilarious you skipped over my post which explained why EXIF data is completely worthless.

* Exif data is embedded within the image file itself. While many recent image manipulation programs recognize Exif data and will maintain most of it when writing to a modified image, this is not the case for most older programs. Many image gallery programs also recognise Exif data and display it alongside the images.

* The derivation of Exif from the TIFF file structure using offset pointers in the files means that data can be spread anywhere within a file, which means that software is likely to corrupt any pointers or corresponding data that it doesn't decode/encode. This is why most image editors damage or remove the Exif metadata (particularly the MakerNote) to some extent upon saving.

* The standard only allows TIFF or JPEG files — there is no provision for a "raw" file type which would be a direct data dump from the sensor device. This has caused camera manufacturers to invent many proprietary, incompatible "raw" file formats. To solve this problem, Adobe developed the DNG format (a TIFF-based raw file format), in hopes that manufacturers would standardize on a single, raw file format.

* Exif is very often used in images created by scanners, however the standard makes no provisions for any scanner specific information.

* Photo manipulation software sometimes fails to update the embedded thumbnail after an editing operation, possibly causing the user to inadvertently publish compromising information.

These are ALL common problems with EXIF data. It's hardly a reliable source and if you brought this as evidence to any court of law, or, scientific research study you'd be shown the door.

It's also easy to post a plethora of "proofs" while nobody has had the time to gather up all the counter-evidence and post it to show you, yes, people HAVE brought up points which your "proofs" don't account for.

[edit on 7-7-2007 by Donoso]

posted on Jul, 7 2007 @ 10:56 AM
11 11
Just something that I observed:

Now see this:
And look at picture 0015, see the shadow yet?

posted on Jul, 7 2007 @ 11:00 AM

Originally posted by 11 11

Originally posted by Springer
thus exif data is worthless one way or the other.

I disagree that EXIF data is worthless. It is actually good way to tell a fake or hoax. EXIF data editors can not edit everything.

[edit on 7-7-2007 by 11 11]

I see now, where I was missing your point, we are both saying the same thing, exif data can be usefull for determining a hoax but it' s pretty useless for proving authenticity.

BTW - a good exif editor does, in deed, edit ALL the data, everything.


[edit on 7-7-2007 by Springer]

posted on Jul, 7 2007 @ 11:07 AM

Originally posted by dernailer

is not "project" but "TO PROTECT"

I'm not good in english, and my vocabolary is limited, but them who speak good can try to find out something similar in the drawings...

This is very interesting to me....

Through studying graphic design, I understand certain elements of the way typefaces are created. Now that I see the "To Protect" it stands out blatantly, and it is the only element I look at. I am not sure if it confirms or not CGI once and for all, but it does give my brain (and yours) a couple new thoughts to ponder.

1. Does this small of a sample of text provide enough 'data' to 'decrypt' the rest of the Caret texts? And also then the Drone texts? I personally would not know exactly where to start, laying out a comparison sheet of individual glyphs?

2. 'To Protect' what? The oil pipe snakes or whatever that some say this thing is similar looking to, to protect pipes in the future? Perhaps the code tells us what the 'protection' is, once we 'break' it?

Doc Moreau

posted on Jul, 7 2007 @ 11:11 AM
The Bad Robot movie (trailer shown before Transformers) may or may not be connected, but I think it's a crap shoot in any case.

There were a whole boatload of folks that were sure the 'drones' pics were a Viral Marketing Campaign for the Transformers movie. No connection was found. Then people switched gears to Halo3 - a relationship vehemently denied by the game's creators and after exhaustive study of game trailers, screen shots/vehicles/weapons/characters/text, etc - again no connection is materializing.

I see a disturbing pattern forming here. Every time a new pending sci-fi movie or video game is 'introduced' a bunch of enthusiasts jump on a viral-drone conspiracy prediction when there is not a shred of connection (nor any marketing "bang" imo) evident. That's not research or even seeking the truth really - it's merely throwing the drone issue against every wall you come across hoping it eventually sticks. I guess if one ultimately comes through you can then declare yourself a 'drone prophet' for having 'figured it out first'. Yeah, right.

Rather, I submit that if you take a shot at every fish in the barrel you're bound to be 'right' one day if the drone pics/cgi can be tied to a movie/game VMC. Good luck with that.

I have an alternate theory - kind of a hybrid of some of what has been proposed here lo these many weeks...

I believe that we are dealing with a hoaxter using a combination of cgi, inside knowledge, personal interest, technical savvy, VMC techniques, and no shortage of intelligence or ambition to perpetuate a ruse for ultimate gain.

What we may have here is a future book/screenplay in which the author started with the seeds of clever, well-thought-out cgi and then threw his bones into the insatiably "alien/ufo" hungry of ATS and related media/forums. He (or she, or they) will then absorb the collective reaction of us UFO-philes over the course of a few months or a year, further developing their plot or story-line, continually refining and polishing the work to make it more 'believable' based on the worthy and eloquent feedback from pseudo-researchers and alien/UFO hobbyists such as you all.

Ladies and gentlemen - you are writing this guy's book for him.

A perfect candidate for something like this wood be Dr. Keith. Now - let me state right off that I'm not in any way shape or form accusing the good Dr. of any complicity here. But someone like him is a good model:

A brainiac-type guy goes through the usual career path of education/internships/research and finds himself exposed to bleeding-edge technology and a possible ‘black’ component or two that intrigues him immensely. He can’t show too much interest beyond his area of expertise however because of the compartmentalized nature of the techno-security business and the ever-suspicious, even invasive routines he must follow and adhere to daily just to function and survive. It’s cutthroat and demeaning. It goes against his nature of experiencing and sharing knowledge. Over several years of rather mundane research punctuated with amazing revelations, the dichotomy and disillusionment wear him down. He wants out. He forms a plan.

He’ll disguise what he’s learned in a series of ‘images’ he’s created that only vaguely resemble some of the alien components he’s been exposed to. With his knowledge of CAD and rendering, along with a font-generator and a sprinkling of imagination and moxie, he gradually releases a few ‘snapshots’ to test the waters a bit. The UFO community, of course, eats it up, and, just as he predicted, provides instant and detailed feedback (and plenty of constructive criticism). He then modifies his releases a bit taking the new information into consideration. With a plethora of free near-expert advice from technicians/linguists/media professionals, etc, he’s able to build his gargantuan, elaborate story – all on somebody else’s dime and without having to expose himself (or his motives) to his employer, to the public, or even his to his closest confidantes. The ruse and results have greatly exceeded even his own wild, but carefully calculated, expectations.

By the end of the year he’ll have more than enough material to weave the story closed and prepare a manuscript suitable for framing to the highest bidder. Published or sold under a pseudonym, he casually informs his employer that he’s ‘resigning’ and promptly makes a graceful exit. Within weeks he’s living the good life at his bungalow in Cost Rica. A year or so later the book, video game, or movie hits the masses (or, if he’s really lucky and the public really gullible, he gets the trifecta: all three!).

The UFO-hungry get a bit of what they wanted; the disclosure-types get some of what they wanted; and Dr. Who gets what he wanted. The circle is complete.

Just a theory – but it’s mine and I’m sticking with it (at least until new evidence comes along – at which time I reserve the right to bail out to any extent desired).

Have a nice weekend, everyone! You guys on ATS are the best…

07-07-07 - Outrageo

<< 83  84  85    87  88  89 >>

log in