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: 91
185
<< 88  89  90    92  93  94 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 9 2007 @ 08:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Razimus
One of the pipe pigs looks very close,

the fact that it was ever taken seriously by anyone is what astounds me far more than any of the photos.

--- Razimus


They do look similar, but then the drones themselves look vaguely similar to a ceiling fan. The three asterix shapes on the long arm are in the exact same position as the three bolts holding the arm on a fan in my house. The central circular section also looks vaguely similar but it doesn't mean much, it's possible any technology invented in the future could be described in terms of being similar to something that pre-existed.

"Attack of the Killer Ceiling Fans" coming to a cinema near you, this is just the VMC for it !

Are you saying that a pipeline pig could have been just the inspiration for a CGI or that it could have been used as a base for a CGI ?

Would it be easier to start with a base or from scratch (I have no idea myself) ?

Just on your last point, I'm interested as to why you don't think it should be taken seriously ?




posted on Jul, 9 2007 @ 08:16 PM
link   
Chunder,
IMO, inspiration can come from reality.

Motivation can come from occupation.

I've seen quite a bit on this thread. Most
detailing the Chad drones.

Great stuff, btw.

I'm a bit more interested in the pursuit of
the CARET angle.

Regards,
Lex



posted on Jul, 10 2007 @ 01:58 AM
link   
Lexion, good thought provoking comments re: the inspiration and motivation.

I'm also personally more interested in the CARET documents but I'm intrigued as to the relationship between the Inventory Report photo and the drone pics.

The photo in the Inventory Report does not seem to be met with the same CGI claims as others yet it depicts parts of the (fake) drone pics.

Again I have no idea what this means - I could put forward any number of hypotheses as to possible links between hoaxers but then so could anyone. For what it's worth here's an idea.

Maybe the Inventory Report is the only "real" document and the rest is smoke and mirrors, with no evidence I can't argue that with any conviction, just an idea.

Even if all the drone pics are fake the one link I can't see is to the Inventory photo, if someone faked that on the back of seeing the drone pics then I think that shows some really clever innovation. More likely to me, if it isn't real, is that it was created as part of a storyline in conjunction with the drone pics which would mean a link between at least one of the drone pic submitters and Isaac.

If the whole thing is a hoax, I think maybe the Inventory Report photo came first and is of something real, maybe a military experimental device, and the rest was fabricated around that. I can only see one symbol on the parts in that picture, not sure what it is, but to me the parts just look too industrial - more like parts laid out in a hangar for an air crash investigation of a more mundane craft than claimed. I'm going to have a search to see if they can be identified - maybe some kind of ring gear for rotors or similar.

As I have said previously, pure conjecture, it's all I can try and add to the debate.

Just edited to add that the symbol on the parts in the Inventory photo looks the same as the symbols on the arm of the Chad picture that are in a triangle formation at the base and also in a couple of other places. The same or similar symbols also appear on the Linguistics Primer schematic. I have no idea what this means or it's relevance, just pointing it out.

[edit on 10-7-2007 by chunder]



posted on Jul, 10 2007 @ 05:56 AM
link   
Isaac,
If you're reading this, can you please post more of the CARET report? I, for one, am very interested in learning more about how this technology works. Others, as you can see, would like more chances to attempt to debunk its validity and authenticity (although from a majority of the pages here, in my opinion has been futile). Nonetheless, it has been a very interesting and fascinating discussion and has opened my mind to the overwhelming shroud of secrecy in this country. For that, and to the active participants in this thread, I remain thankful.

[edit on 7/10/2007 by pjslug]



posted on Jul, 10 2007 @ 06:45 AM
link   
Two well known scientific Isaacs...

Isaac Asimov = Robots

Isaac Newton = Gravity

Put them together and it equals, a robotic probe that floats in the air.



posted on Jul, 10 2007 @ 08:28 AM
link   
Hi,
Such an excitement to read all the thoughts and comments, grateful to be here.
And let me also put 3 cents. Just to mention, recently new witness gave an interview on Earthfiles, supporting the fact (or still the idea) that drones are the real objects in the sky.

www.earthfiles.com...

Inspite that people would think about Linda Moulton Howe, after listening to all the interviews (podcasts nr 17,18 and 19) the story could appear much more serious. Obviously the number of witnesses is growing.
In case one admits almost undoubtfully the strong possibility that drones exist as real flying objecs - all problems with the photos may seem less important. Even if some (or more) of them are fake, this thing exists and it's enough if only one photo is true. Light and shadow distortions could emanate from the object itself because it's capable of interdimensional manoeuvres. As it seems from Isaac doccuments here. So, just "working" thoughts.

Also some schemes on linguistic analysis pages reminded sacred geometry graphics dealing with the Golden ratio (golden spiral, Fibonacci number). Maybe someone more educated in the field could give any ideas about that too.



posted on Jul, 10 2007 @ 12:44 PM
link   
If you scan the posts on this forum and across the World of the internet you will eventually come to the conclusion that not only were photos less than 100% bonafide , (i'm not just talking reasonable men differ) but the story unravels also with respect to timing..(ufo roswell conference ..promoted heavily by art bell and Linda M H), a former member here posting simultanaeous utube videos across the internet ..followed by Isaac posting and a cameo appearnce of no other than an attorney buying the domain of isaaccaret on literally the same day. google random lunatic news

Now let me just say this. I have a law backgound, and in my experience if you want to kill a deal ..than get let two sides hire an attorney Todd Shwartz who also wrote a book , and has admitted he wants a piece of the action . I will let you google so you can judge for yourself.as I am convinced of Hoax. I don't want to steer you Save your self some time and go thru the above posts , and other threads on this subject.and you will see . There are PR people out there who are saving themselves a ton of money by marketing their projects thru venues like ATS
I remember when a new auto glass shop opened up in town, and right after. neighbors, windshields were mysteriously cracked and smashed. WE could never pin it on the guy. May be it wasnt him. May be it was his kid or buddies. Maybe..it was the shadow people. But there appears to be too much coordination . WE are a captive market in a way..ready to believe, but not quite ready to jump..

As for drones google using images uav , one will found that it is big business and see thousands shapes and sizes that look like alien tech if only from a distance, most military, others recreational. Tech students across the country engage in competion no ony for building, but concept and design, use of digital software, etc. I look at those and then look at l LMH took down a witness report of an admitted fan..who saw a UFO 20 feet above her house that looked organic, several feet length , and identical in shape to a sperm! I do not want to ever be abducted by a giant sperm!

Again I highy you go thru the post..it may take a while..but you will learn as I did a lot and help you narrow your searches some people did outstanding superlative work, that his been quoted on several other forums across the world.
Think of it as preparation a traing for finding the "Truth" or getting darn close to it so that you can sleep at night.

Sys



posted on Jul, 10 2007 @ 01:36 PM
link   
Just because we dont know who owns the copyright for these images doesn't permit us to make money out of them. There was an attempt to pass a law that would make it legal to use copyrighted material if the owner of the copyright cannot be found or contacted. It was the rather vocal opposition by photographers that prevented it from being passed (I hope I'm right about this part). On the other hand there is no copyright notice on the images, but it would be fair to assume that these are copyrighted works.



posted on Jul, 10 2007 @ 01:55 PM
link   
Well, there is the old naval idea of salvage that might cover these drone pictures. It could be twisted to say that since the internet is free for access to a floating ship, under the right conditions, then these images have been set adrift.

Now if you advertised for the owners of the drone photos and the Isaac documents to claim them, and they failed to do so, the right of salvage would make your claim to them as valid as any.

I live 400 miles from the sea myself.

Anyone on a boat in international waters?


[Edit to add: It might be a way to make someone come forward and identify themselves and claim the items.]

[edit on 10-7-2007 by NGC2736]



posted on Jul, 10 2007 @ 02:44 PM
link   
Dr. Keith Edwards has replied:

I have his permission to post this here.


email from Dr. Keith Edwards:

Hello all,

First off, apologies for the delay in getting back to the many mails I've received over the last few days; I've been on vacation and am just catching up with my email.

I have to say, the rash of email I've received has caught me somewhat off-guard. I want to let you all know that I'm not the "Isaac" many of you have asked me about. The comments on my website about "using alien technology" were meant to be something of a joke. Xerox PARC, where I used to work, had a reputation for working on advanced technology projects; that, coupled with my interest in Roswell lore, led me to post that comment on my page.

I'm sorry for any confusion this caused. I wish you all the best of luck in your search!

Sincerely,
Keith Edwards
Associate Professor
Georgia Tech


I absolutely believe him and take him at his word. This appears to be a dead end.

Springer...



posted on Jul, 10 2007 @ 02:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by PsykoOps
On the other hand there is no copyright notice on the images, but it would be fair to assume that these are copyrighted works.


Doesn't matter. They are still subject to copyright. That's one of the changes that was made to copyright law a few years ago. It used to be you had a statutory copyright once it was printed, but had to register the copyright with the library o congress to establish precedence for your claim. Once you got the copyright certificate you could prove it was yours by the date. Today the law has changed so that you are protected by copyright immediately.



posted on Jul, 10 2007 @ 02:52 PM
link   
I tell you one thing. That damn craft flys soo low I can put a kite in the air higher than that. I'm not sure whats going on (true or false) but it flys soo low you could throw a baseball at it.

The next person who posts a picture of this thing, better run and get a baseball bat to throw at it, or better yet get a tomahawk and chunk it at that damn thing.


Its flying lower than a telephone poll people... shoot it down!!!!!



posted on Jul, 10 2007 @ 03:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by schuyler

Doesn't matter. They are still subject to copyright. That's one of the changes that was made to copyright law a few years ago. It used to be you had a statutory copyright once it was printed, but had to register the copyright with the library o congress to establish precedence for your claim. Once you got the copyright certificate you could prove it was yours by the date. Today the law has changed so that you are protected by copyright immediately.


Yeah, that's the case in US. Internationally in most places copyright has been automatic when you create something and most places dont even have a copyright registering place. We still dont know if these were done by someone in US or not so that might be relevant.



posted on Jul, 10 2007 @ 03:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by NGC2736


Anyone on a boat in international waters?


[Edit to add: It might be a way to make someone come forward and identify themselves and claim the items.]


This could be a great excuse to finally buy the ATS Yacht!


Springer...



posted on Jul, 10 2007 @ 03:39 PM
link   
Springer, good thinking. I once worked as first mate on a shrimp boat, so holler if you need crew.


[Edit to change "hooler" to "holler.---spastic finger twitches are bad.
]

[edit on 10-7-2007 by NGC2736]



posted on Jul, 10 2007 @ 03:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Springer

Originally posted by NGC2736
Anyone on a boat in international waters?




This could be a great excuse to finally buy the ATS Yacht!


Springer...


Good idea about getting a yacht anyway, but I could do this. I'm in UK waters at the moment on a Grand Banks, International waters are but 12 miles out! What do I have to do?


Bear in mind that if you have got your legal research wrong, they have some meeeean patrol boats around here. If some MIB submarine shows up and torpedos me I shall sink in a very miffed manner.



posted on Jul, 10 2007 @ 03:57 PM
link   
karilla, try not to be MIA by the MIBs as I don't know the words to "God Save The Queen" or whatever else is appropriate for a dirge.


As to the salvage, I would think that capturing the drone images and the Isaac documents on a disk, with a time stamp and something showing your boat was in international waters when the capture was made, would be enough to make the argument that they were now yours.

You might want to google up some maritime law while you're taking that trip out to international waters. Remember, I did say I was first mate on a shrimp boat, and about all we salvaged was edibles.


[Edit to add: I'm not saying that this would hold up very well as a claim, just that it might shed some light on this subject if someone stepped out to challenge it.]

[edit on 10-7-2007 by NGC2736]



posted on Jul, 10 2007 @ 04:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by PsykoOps
Just because we dont know who owns the copyright for these images doesn't permit us to make money out of them. There was an attempt to pass a law that would make it legal to use copyrighted material if the owner of the copyright cannot be found or contacted. It was the rather vocal opposition by photographers that prevented it from being passed (I hope I'm right about this part). On the other hand there is no copyright notice on the images, but it would be fair to assume that these are copyrighted works.


So who has the copyright to alien technology? If it is real, which I strongly believe it is, it doesn't belong to Isaac as he was just telling the story. It either belongs to PACL or the military, or aliens. If someone is making money off these diagrams, it is the responsibility of whoever is the proprietary owner of them to put a stop to it, which would therefore tell us who they belong to. That could be the whole intention of putting them up for sale in the first place. If no one claims rights to them, it is considered public domain and can therefore be used however one sees fit. If it is in fact a secret military project, I doubt they are going to come out and say they can't be used on t-shirts. If this is a form of disclosure, putting them on t-shirts would be a great way to spread the word.



posted on Jul, 10 2007 @ 04:46 PM
link   
Yeah maybe, but that doesn't include images of them. Those are the works of whoever made/took them.
And as for the salvage, I doubt that it is lawful. In case it would be there's some really famous photographs I'd like to 'own'



posted on Jul, 10 2007 @ 05:25 PM
link   
Isn't the US currently under Admiralty law anyway, since the Civil War or whatever?

On the sidenote one of my specialities is business and contract/tort business law, so I would say that PACL own the copyright, and regardless of who took the images, that part of the new copyright law was undoubtedly not in effect at the time of their taking, or they were under contract to take them FOR PACL, so they would ultimately own them anyway. Also, places like NASA, etc generally have a specific copyright notice that allows any pictures they may take to become PD, so I'd guess they aren't ownable in a strict sense. If it were military in origin, then I suspect you'd get a cease-'n-desist and a NDA if you did something commercial with the pictures.

I don't think towing a rowboat out to sea and taking pictures is going to make a hoaxer come forward anyway, unless they DO start selling memberships to a site for the rest of the information, I'm still inclined to believe this is just a bit of fun, a meme sort of hoax, see it spread and the reaction to it, not any sort of research for a book/movie, or some deep cover story to making a book.

The person I'd most imagine making money out of it is LMH with her membership area on the site, once some of this blows over those old articles will be archived and then people will have to pay to read them most likely. Or, C2C's listening audience figures.



new topics

top topics



 
185
<< 88  89  90    92  93  94 >>

log in

join