[HOAX] Isaac CARET - Drones [HOAX]

Sounds like a no lose deal to me. The big question is will they do it?

But I say go for it, nothing ventured, nothing gained.

Originally posted by Sys_Config
What I would like to suggest is if ATS pick a top graphics like cal tech or any of them and ask their graphics dept to proof them as a student project. if they agreed we can settle this thing. the Graphics school that agreed would get exposure on ATS and news web links. This will also raise our credibility and break the stereotype that we as a community bite at anything. The same can be done with a Document specialist..same advertisement and increase his exposure. If legit we win if not we still win.

we would then have an inhouse resource all the time and can discourage hoaxters.

SyS
^i^

I LOVE this idea, does anyone have contacts at a first rate University?

I will gladly handle the introductions and "swing the deal" to get this done.

While we(ATS) have some incredible contacts in the Graphics Arts Community they are all BUSY professionals who simply don't have time for "things like this".

Get me some contact information for an Associate Professor or Grad student at a TOP SHELF University and we might even work out a Grant Situation and fund the bloody research ourselves!

Springer...

Gee Thank you Mr.Springer

I am right next door to Coastal Carolina University, and Horry Georgetown Tech in South Carolina I will go there tomorrow and see what I can do. I work as a librarian for the County so I will not have a problem talking. The tech school has beat out some top tier schools in computer science competition.
I will try as best I can and pray it works. I think this will work out really good for them if they go along. ATS is perfect site for recruiting just on the caliber of stuff I have seen generated across the board.
I will post what I get tomorrow. I hope others will pull too and walk the walk together and take us to the next level

Have a blessed day!

SyS
^i^

Originally posted by -Jaguar-
This person reveals a lot of information about themselves, enough I would think to pinpoint who they are, which leads me to believe it's fake. He works in Computer Science, worked there 1984-1987, and was promoted to management. A lot of work went into it, some it's probably some kind of viral marketing.

My friend just suggested to me that, they might not care if the government comes after them since it was 25 years ago. They were probably in there 40's working there. So, now they are in their 60's or 70's now.

[edit on 26-6-2007 by -Jaguar-]

apparently you didnt read the part where he acknowleged the amount of detail he was leaking.did you get that he figured at best they could narrow it down to maybe 50ish people? or did that just slip by you? also, please try to keep in mind that he left around the same time (allegedly) as nearly a third of the researchers in pretty much ever field represented. who do you think knows better about how much info it takes to get made? you? or the guy who was in the trenches? (so to speak ofcourse).

Originally posted by Amberite

Originally posted by carot
This drone is CG work i found this on youtube, you can flag this like HOAX!!!!!!

www.youtube.com...

Sigh..

not necessarily, anyone skilled enough could lift the image from another source and cgi it into a background like so. the isaac caret page isnt affiliated by any means and this vid is not whats in question of being hoaxed or not. its the man and his technology that we are still debating over. try not to be so impulsive in coming to a decision and do try to stay on the subject at hand instead of a branch of it that he (isaac) takes no credit for in any way.

Originally posted by xstealth
I can not find that Palo Alto Caret existed or exists....

anyone want to research the evidence before making any conclusions?

maybe this is just me but why on earth do you think the military would allow any proof that their alien research projects however civilian employed (it was still classified and labled a black project then and i wouldnt be surprised if it stays that way for an indefinite amount of time) existed? they threatened these researches with any means necessary to suppress the info they worked on and you think theyd treat the paper trail of their progress any differently? use your noggin friend.

Originally posted by Smugallo

Originally posted by xstealth
Yeah this smells funny to me, I don't buy it at all.

Writing on a metal makes it perform? Come on now, thats the most far fetched unbelievable crap you could ever come up with.

Agreed, it does seem 100% unbelievable, plus the craft looks to, err well, too CGI actually.

are you actually going to stand by that? wow. first off, thats just you saying you wont believe it. you leave no opportunity for the possibility of it being far above your comprehension, and to be honest, assuming it was real you wouldnt seem the type from your comment there, to be able to comprehend it anyways.
secondly, technology that is anti gravitational in nature, how do you expect it to look? if it is alien in origin, then what do you think they think of our technology? assuming that it is all quite real i would be willing to bet theyre children wouldnt even comprehend our technology for the fact that compared to this example of "reverse engineered", anything we could muster must look grotesquely archaic, and thats at best.

Originally posted by Averysmallfoxx
...you leave no opportunity for the possibility of it being far above your comprehension, and to be honest, assuming it was real you wouldnt seem the type from your comment there, to be able to comprehend it anyways.

Careful, this is a very large thread, which makes mods much less lenient in the ways of the poking people with the ban stick; that sounds like a personal attack (insulting the man's intelligence).

Also, most of your comments have been already discussed earlier in the thread, there are reasons for and against everything so far. And, as far as finding CARET is concerned, there's a few people here looking for somewhere it might have been - Isaac said it wasn't inherently disgused, so I see no reason not to search for it. Plenty of 'black project' contractors have public buildings in the area - not every project needs an A-51 mystique.

Originally posted by Averysmallfoxx
not necessarily, anyone skilled enough could lift the image from another source and cgi it into a background like so. the isaac caret page isnt affiliated by any means and this vid is not whats in question of being hoaxed or not. its the man and his technology that we are still debating over. try not to be so impulsive in coming to a decision and do try to stay on the subject at hand instead of a branch of it that he (isaac) takes no credit for in any way.

As EJ says careful friend.
Whether the drone pics are fake or not has total relevance to the Isaac docs considering that the Inventory Review photo shows parts of the drone and the writing is similar to that in the Q4 report. Recognising the writing is the reason Isaac came forward.
If the first published Chad drone pics are proven to be CGI or otherwise fake then Isaac's claims are also likely fake as what would be the probability of co-incidence that a fake drone actually looks exactly like recovered ET technology. There are a couple of other remote possibilities, as discussed previously on this thread, but the drone pics do have a direct relevance to the subject at hand.

To me, with these particular pictures, it appears that they centered the camera on something else besides the drone, which supports that CGI is being added in later
If I saw this drone and had my camera, I’d be pointing right at it in every shot



[edit on 18-7-2007 by moonking]

Well. I'm a bit surprised, and would like confirmation of something I have found. I have found a hair! Not just anywhere, but on the CARET images. Namely: pacl-q486-photo-3-fullsize.jpg

It is the image of the two curved pieces shot from above. If you look at the background between the two pieces, level with the top of the first "readable" text on the right piece, and closer to that piece than the other. Its actually just above dead centre in the image, and it was sharp before size reduction. There is only one possible explanation that I can think of: That the image in question WAS scanned from a photographic print. That hair is either on the scanner bed or the print itself. It is definitely not part of the original shot.

Of course it is possible that Isaac outputted the 3D render to a super high quality (not inkjet) printer and then scanned in the image, but is it likely? The grain, which looks better than CS2's filter, is one thing, but adding hairs for veracity??

I would have included the image, but my copy of Photoshop has crashed and won't start up now. Vista sucks.

Anybody interested will probably have the shot on their hard-drive anyway, so please check on those. At least it will remove the possibility of me adding it in!

I'm going hunting at 500% zoom on picture viewer!

Edit to add: There are loads on that image! All sharp, all on the print or bed. I think I am going to stick my neck out and say: No CGI. Not on this image anyway.

[edit on 18-7-2007 by Karilla] - Isaac is a brunette! There is also a white, acrylic looking fibre on the left hand piece near the top. And before you say "Photoshop's dust and scratches filter!" It doesn't do hairs.

[edit on 18-7-2007 by Karilla]

Karilla,
I posted about that exact piece of hair way back hereand it was all but ignored. That's a signifigant find, but many people are looking for the hardest explanation. So I verify your find, and agree it is extremely difficult to duplicate.

P.S. Vista does suck.

Thanks, Jhanks. You get a star! I have just read your post, and I would agree about Google being a pointless tool in this case. In order to track down CARET and PACL, surely the best way would be to track down the funding. How would one go about that, I wonder. I suppose we'll have to wait for the Americans to wake up to answer this one, it must be about 5am there at present. The only way I would be able to replicate these image using a £D render as a starting point is to output to a film writer, but then the depth of field and the softness of the shadows. Nope, I'm still leaning toward them being real images.

Also I have just noticed that the image of all the "drone" elements lying on the ground in the report, for which there unfortunately isn't an original, one of the pieces in the bottom right corner is broken in two. That sort of detail is convincing, given that they were supposedly recovered from a crashed vehicle.

[edit on 18-7-2007 by Karilla]

Originally posted by Springer

Get me some contact information for an Associate Professor or Grad student at a TOP SHELF University and we might even work out a Grant Situation and fund the bloody research ourselves!

Wow. Talk about putting your money where your mouth is. It is a potential win-win-win situation for everyone involved. Although I don't have any contacts of my own, I can perhaps offer the idea of getting board members involved with the grant aspect. Maybe offer an exclusive item in the ATS store where a percentage of the proceeds helps fund the grant or a "donation" link of some kind? Just a thought. Great idea all the way around either way

I had to post before I finished reading to get a few things on the table.

1. The difference between CGI and RL (real life) is in the textures on the objects. CG is very obvious EVEN and continuous pattern in texture, while RL is much more chaotic or not noticeable due to the small size of the molecules that create the texture. trying to make this as "layman" as possible. these pictures lead me to believe that they are real for this reason. The shadows seem phony, etc. but the patterns/textures are imperfect to my eyes, making them RL in my opinion.

2. A lot of the symbols look like the things falling through the screen in all the Matrix movies. There used to be a screen saver and font for the movie. can anyone provide them?

3. Upon printing the color images, I noticed a strange ghosting on the image. It looks like a watermark almost. anyone else notice this or is my printer wacky?

4. If you are going to make a point and try to make it sound intelligent, well-planned, or even respectable, learn to spell and choose words correctly. I have seen so many homonyms in the wrong context, and sad attempts at writing vocal slang. ("would of been" or "would have been"?) you get the picture. If your point is to sound smart, try to appear smart in your writing. the last thing i will believe is someone trying to sound smart, but who doesn't realize that "their" is different from "there", and "then" is different from "than".

sorry for the long post. back to reading....

Originally posted by 12SeVeN34
I had to post before I finished reading to get a few things on the table.

1. The difference between CGI and RL (real life) is in the textures on the objects. CG is very obvious EVEN and continuous pattern in texture, while RL is much more chaotic or not noticeable due to the small size of the molecules that create the texture. trying to make this as "layman" as possible. these pictures lead me to believe that they are real for this reason. The shadows seem phony, etc. but the patterns/textures are imperfect to my eyes, making them RL in my opinion.

2. A lot of the symbols look like the things falling through the screen in all the Matrix movies. There used to be a screen saver and font for the movie. can anyone provide them?

3. Upon printing the color images, I noticed a strange ghosting on the image. It looks like a watermark almost. anyone else notice this or is my printer wacky?

4. If you are going to make a point and try to make it sound intelligent, well-planned, or even respectable, learn to spell and choose words correctly. I have seen so many homonyms in the wrong context, and sad attempts at writing vocal slang. ("would of been" or "would have been"?) you get the picture. If your point is to sound smart, try to appear smart in your writing. the last thing i will believe is someone trying to sound smart, but who doesn't realize that "their" is different from "there", and "then" is different from "than".

sorry for the long post. back to reading....

1. Thanks for your opinion.
2. Read some earlier posts.
3. Read some earlier posts.
4. Thanks for the advice - some advice for you - read some earlier posts and when you have something to add to this debate come back.

Mods, sorry, but there does appear to be a few people sticking around who have been here from the start and are progressing matters. Anyone just coming on here is obviously entitled to an opinion but not to go over old ground.

I expect this post will be deleted but in the hope it isn't anyone else wishing to join in, good, we could do with the help, but only if you are up to speed and have done the hard yards like everyone else left.

Speaking of opinions LOL !
If you think along the lines that this a hoax, wouldn’t “Isaac” giving away his scans”They are available as high resolution scans that I am giving away free”, And knowing that no one would step forward to claim copy rights on the photo’s because you’re the one behind it, clear the way for who ever would be behind this to then claim to be a third party to it and do what they would like with the material?

Just a thought

Originally posted by Karilla
I have just read your post
[edit on 18-7-2007 by Karilla]

Most of us read it at the time, it was absorbed, evaluated and where pertinent discussed.

There has been some great work here recently by some people moving this debate / investigation forward. I'm not sure though that even the great "American" public are going to be able to identify funding to a black project when it's beyond the capability of Senators and Presidents.

Mods, apologies again, I know MY post is pointless and therefore please delete.

Edited to add - and it's a good thought moonking too, in the absence of any further material good thoughts are all that will move this debate on, hopefully to a conclusion one way or t'other.

[edit on 18-7-2007 by chunder]

Chunder: I have been on this thread from the beginning. I missed the post to which I referred, out of almost 2,500. If I had seen it at the time I would have checked for the dust and hairs (which are on all the images and vary from small black specks to hairs and fluff) earlier. this seems to me to be strong evidence that the images were scanned from photographic prints, not even digital prints as the dots, even extremely fine inkjet prints, would not give rise to he grain seen. I have scanned images from high quality prints in the past and it is always pretty obvious. I have also spent enough time removing dust and hairs from scanned images to recognize that that is where these came from. Sorry if you think I have detracted from the debate. And the Americans here would surely have a better idea of how to use freedom of information requests for their own country. There must be a trail of some kind left behind.

Moonking: On the other hand, if you suppose for a moment that the images are of real alien technology, the symbols have a connection to the oldest know Human script, proto-canaanite or old Negev.

Now this may be reaching a little, but bear with me...

The following image is taken from this Viewzone page:
www.viewzone.com...



If there is a connection, even if tenuous, exposure to these symbols in the distant past could explain the advent of Humans using writing. Perhaps the first use of these symbols were not to record information, but an attempt by Humans to recreate the "magic" that the "visitors" used. By carving these symbols in rock in certainplaces they hoped to achieve effects along the lines of Isaac's software/script.

Here are a few quotes from the same page:

Another interesting and important feature of this ancient writing system is the use of what are called ligatures. Since the symbols are often made from basic geometric shapes, they can be combined in visually interesting ways to form words.

Dr. James Harris has noted that, in the Sinai desert, certain symbols are sometimes enlarged, rotated or inverted to indicate the end of a word or phrase. He also has recognized that many archaic symbols, called ideograms, appear to add meaning to the script.

From page 2

Of the hundreds of panels located at this particular site, south of La Junta, Colorado, most were grouped in long, horizontal rows. Some of these rows extended almost 60 feet.

What do you think?

[edit on 18-7-2007 by Karilla]

[edit on 18-7-2007 by Karilla]

Of course it is possible that Isaac outputted the 3D render to a super high quality (not inkjet) printer and then scanned in the image, but is it likely? The grain, which looks better than CS2's filter, is one thing, but adding hairs for veracity??

The hairs were noticed and noted before, but these days that is not proof. It costs only a few cents to get printouts on photographic paper, made from digitally created images, at your local Walmart.

-------------------------------------------------------------------

However, some hundred or so pages ago someone wrote about the punchholes on the "analysis primer" pages not matching, and that as being a sign of a fake: I disagree with that.

That the booklet is copied page by page, supports the claim by "Isaac" that he photocopied the original.

I, however, disagree with the age of the photocopies. Digital watermarks on photocopiers,which are clearly visible, was invented after the year 2000. And not in 1980something.

And I have a hard time to believe that a copy of a copy of a copy could be as crisp as the scans. Try this with your photocopier and a fresh dollar bill.