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.

 

Drone Explained

page: 1
21
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 26 2007 @ 05:09 PM
link   
Please check out(isaaccaret.fortunecity.com...)
the wierd drone that has been shown on the net lately all over, has been tracked down by Linda Howe!
go to the above site for explanation and many inside pics and schematics!
Finally!
I knew it was real!i knew it!heheheh
bergle

Mod Edit: All Caps – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 26/6/2007 by Mirthful Me]




posted on Jun, 26 2007 @ 05:33 PM
link   
That was interesting bergle.

I was drawn to this and saw it as some type of ET technology at work. I also know there will be thousands of you yelling hoax till the cows come home. Again, to me that is just plain ignorant, or malicious as others put it.

Face the facts people....they are here, and have been for thousands of years. For some reason we don't want to know the factual truth.

The real problem is why are Governments trying to cover this information up? What have they got to lose?



posted on Jun, 26 2007 @ 05:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by bergle

Please check out(isaaccaret.fortunecity.com...)
the wierd drone that has been shown on the net lately all over, has been tracked down by Linda Howe!
go to the above site for explanation and many inside pics and schematics!
Finally!
I knew it was real!i knew it!heheheh
bergle


Wow just WOW bergle! amazing find, this thread doesn't have much activity yet...cmon now..

Great find


*sigh* another one to research...

[edit on 6/26/2007 by greatlakes]



posted on Jun, 26 2007 @ 05:47 PM
link   
Think I might have beat you to it on this Bergie


www.abovetopsecret.com...

Very Interesting though can't wait to hear people feedback on this!



posted on Jun, 26 2007 @ 06:05 PM
link   
So... the drones run on MAGIC WORDS? I'll give the guy credit for originality, at least.



posted on Jun, 26 2007 @ 06:19 PM
link   
Incredible Find!!!



Congratulations! This is something everyone should read.



posted on Jun, 26 2007 @ 06:39 PM
link   
I'm conflicted on this one, personally. While I'm incredibly blown away by this and want to believe it, there's also that part in my mind that's saying "You know, despite being elaborate, this could also be faked".

I'll definetely flag this and keep an eye open. Can't wait to hear some other's opinions on this.



posted on Jun, 26 2007 @ 06:55 PM
link   
it looks like 100% BS to me. I bet it's one of those viral marketing things for the upcoming Transformers movie (July 4th!).

The text description reads like something a screenwriter would produce, not an engineer or especially a physicist.

The true key to all these hoaxes is that there for some reason isn't EVER any description of the actual underlying physics in any remotely sensible way.

The diagrams are incomprehensible mumbo jumbo with 'crop circle clip art' or something, with uninformative captions. Not something which is supposed to explain. The tedious description of 'rigid body motion' and broomsticks is something you'd tell 8th graders, not scientifically trained engineers.

They never provide the equivalent of "Newton's three laws" or whatever. Never say what they mean by the "field", or any of the obvious questions any normal Earth scientist would think about. That's because the writers wouldn't know how to do so or even what the parameters are. There's one giant thing that any physicist would ask about effects of a supposed ET "antigravity" device that I've never seen shown or talked about in a movie or whatever.

As usual these things talk about the 'obvious' with a few inexplicable tantalizing pictures or mentions of 'stuff' and somehow all the REALLY IMPORTANT parts (the equivalent of Physics 101) never come through.

At least Bob Lazar is clearly more scientifically educated and his story is alot more real, and conveniently unverifiable since the magic 'element 115' doesn't exist on Earth in any stable configuration. (His explanations of the underlying gravity and power source has some big physical flaws too but more subtle.)



posted on Jun, 26 2007 @ 06:57 PM
link   
Holy crap! Thats awesome! Those blueprints look very very legit to me. Great find.



posted on Jun, 26 2007 @ 07:00 PM
link   
What is JUNE official hoax month at ATS or something?...



posted on Jun, 26 2007 @ 07:01 PM
link   
I have the gravest doubts that a scientific report, even one written twenty years ago, would use English instead of Metric units. Other than that, damned nice job!



posted on Jun, 26 2007 @ 07:38 PM
link   
How do they prove that these pictures and reports were actually created 20 years ago and not in preparation for a hoax? These pictures can just as easily be taken by whoever made the models, either physical, or computer generated for this possible hoax. I need to be point to what part of this seems convincing at all. Why do these dates and files prove anything? And no mystic/shamanic responses please. "It's obviously real" or "Why do you doubt what's in front of your eyes" are not appropriate responses to skepticism regarding the validity of a source.



posted on Jun, 26 2007 @ 08:11 PM
link   
I'm must call BS on this one simply because of the following images:

PACL Q4-86 Report Photo 4.1 - 4.4

These are pure fabrications and the dead giveaway is the noise in the "photos" and the blue-ish tinted soft shadows. Images were most likely rendered in a 3D program using one of the available Global Illumination rendering engines, possibly with Monte Carlo statistical computation turned on (Final Gathering method produces less noise than Monte Carlo method, so my bet is on MC but who knows, noise might have been done in the post as well since some imags have scratches and hairs, trying to dupe scanner being involved)

This fine noise made by MC method is what many CG artists admire because it makes the renderings look more real. But there's absolutely no reason to have that noise if this was photographed in broad daylight 20 years ago, outside, during a clean blue sky, with a studio environment setup (white tarp edge to edge, which looks fake anyway, the surface is too perfect, flat).

To make matters worse, shadows have the blue tint to them suggesting the hoaxer had used skylight illumination. The whole overexposed feel reeks and has fake written all over it.

If these were real photos, images would've been perfect, especially if they were prepared for some documentation, thus need for finest detail - noise obscures details.

Nice try either way, but I think it could've been done much better...



posted on Jun, 26 2007 @ 08:13 PM
link   
I can not find that Palo Alto Caret existed or exists....

anyone want to research the evidence before making any conclusions?



btw it would be nice if we could combine these two threads because i hate cross reading/posting.



posted on Jun, 26 2007 @ 09:30 PM
link   
I think it's more likely that more evidence was fabricated to support some of the claims put forth on C2C. How can CGI images suddenly appear in a real sky and then dissapear?



posted on Jun, 26 2007 @ 09:40 PM
link   
are we all becoming a little too sceptical??

i've been lurking ATS for years and rarely see anyone discussing something seeming and why it could be real. but there is ALWAYS a reason to be deemed fake, what if, just for once - something was actually real... would people still find ways to label it a fake?

I'm no expert but i just dont see why anyone would waste so much time in putting this together if only a fake.

but either way it makes for an intresting read and certainly gets the mental gears chruning



posted on Jun, 26 2007 @ 10:05 PM
link   
I never really believed in the C2C drone things, but I really wanted to believe this.

I don't know why, but I'm hurt.
I never thought a hoax could do that. (But I suppose having your hopes to high will do that to you.)

I knew it was to good to be true. That's usually a dead giveaway.

Frontkjemper.



posted on Jun, 26 2007 @ 10:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Frontkjemper
I never really believed in the C2C drone things, but I really wanted to believe this.

I don't know why, but I'm hurt.
I never thought a hoax could do that. (But I suppose having your hopes to high will do that to you.)

I knew it was to good to be true. That's usually a dead giveaway.


What gave you that idea that it was a DEFINITE HOAX? Its still in the air, this new piece of info adds another facet to the story...

BTW this thread is superceded by this one:
www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Jun, 26 2007 @ 10:10 PM
link   
The complexity of the story, pictures/models, detailed explenation of what he knew. Their are alot of others in the other thread blasting the informant for not going into the detailed science and physics of the device. The informant did state however that His job was in the linguistics analysis. he never stated he knew how everything worked. As a matter of fact it sounded just like every other program.Compatmentalized!!!!!!
I'm on the fence for this one. Without the rest of the information and such it is really hard to tell if it is indeed a hoax. I'll be watching this pretty closely.



posted on Jun, 26 2007 @ 10:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by bergle

Finally!
I knew it was real!i knew it!heheheh
bergle


[edit on 26/6/2007 by Mirthful Me]


LOL But it isn't! WAHAHAHAHA! This is only real in the mindsof the same people who believed GhoastRaven!



new topics

top topics



 
21
<<   2 >>

log in

join