[HOAX] Isaac CARET - Drones [HOAX]

the remark about using inches and pounds adding to the possiblility of this being a hoax i think is moot. i recall a problem nasa had a while back where they lost a craft because they didn't convert between metric and imperial units properly. so that lends evidence that metrics are not always used - even in the scientific arenas.

Originally posted by October
Whitley Strieber has copped hold of the news:

www.unknowncountry.com...


He's pretty gushing towards Earthfiles and Linda, not much of an opinion on the pics, if these kind of people are starting to step up to the mark with this they better be very careful, yes it's extremely exciting but if this all hits the fan and we find Isaac out to be a fraud, a lot of credibility will be lost from some of the top players. I would LOVE to hear what Nick Pope would say about it so i have emailed him to get his take.

If you wanted to debunk the big players, you have to be a better hoaxer. Each time our site is played by these hoaxers it damages the credibility of others that have jumped on the bandwagon if its real fake.

We shouldn't assume that "one" person is behind the Isaac page just because he says so. There is absolutely no evidence either way at this point.

It is obvious by now I hope that we are being "watched" and discussed by the scientific community and the government over the reaction to this information.

If anyone can get Blender in their free Linux distro, just like I can and apply some filters and simple forensic details like "hairs" and "dust," then how can we trust anything without more information.

The government will watch us squabble and sit back and laugh just like GR just did.

They have been successful in their plan to place doubt about any and all evidence presented on this site.

What I want to know is what set of frequencies disrupted the alleged device and how I might do it again and or generate that field from my HAM radio systems.

Originally posted by keeb333

In the US the standard for engineering is English Units...I'm working on a project right now involving lots of technical documents from NASA, and all of the units are English.

Thanks for the info
You've seen plenty of radiosity renders then. recognise the shadows in the scanned prints?

I appreciate your experience, but having been someone who has made copies of documents a lot in his life, I have turned many color photographs into black-white because I didnt have a color copier.


Now the photos that are color, I see your point. Unless he took those photos himself, which is probably streching.

Originally posted by Blaine91555
This really bothers me also -



Inches, Pounds and Ounces? Should be metric.

[edit on 6/27/2007 by Blaine91555]

[edit on 6/27/2007 by Blaine91555]

Yeah. Well the USA does still use Pounds and Inches, and since this seems to of been written back in the 80s I don't see why scientists wouldn't of used imperial units.

Originally posted by Quazga
I appreciate your experience, but having been someone who has made copies of documents a lot in his life, I have turned many color photographs into black-white because I didnt have a color copier.


Now the photos that are color, I see your point. Unless he took those photos himself, which is probably streching.

Agreed.

Well, I personally like to see technical documents, rather than just some general intro documents that any Joe Blow (including myself) can understand. I like to rely on experts and their opinions, and I'm a lot more impressed if somebody can produce a document that shows a level of technical expertise that is beyond my easy understanding.

Here's a sample page from a real computer science theory paper unrelated to the ET stuff:

I'd like this guy to post one of these types of theoretical papers related to solving the problems associated with these magical pieces of ET technology. Then I would like somebody with more technical sophistication than myself to comment on something like that. That would go a long way toward verifying this dude's story.

Oh, and just another question. If the pieces of the machine are held together with gravity, what's keeping that big piece in the photos together? Is it already on? Or is it all one piece?

Just curious. Since the guy didn't contact ATS directly, but rather just posted something on a free website, we can't really direct our questions and comments to him, can we?

[edit on 27-6-2007 by SuicideVirus]

has anyone noticed the giant faint blue T shape in the background of all the document scans? reminds me a little of the Torchwood T used in the British TV series.

I'm looking at each document closely to see if I can find another artifacts of interest.

What does everyone else make of the T shape?

I'm fully satisfied that Photo 4.1 to 4.4 are modern CG renders with classic CAD lighting. They were printed and scanned and then presented as the photo's. That alone means to me nothing else can or should be trusted.

That is the limit of my expertize in this so I'll leave it too others. I know this is another hoax and I'm satisfied with that.

Those reports seem to me to not contain any information which bothers me also. Why bother with a report that says nothing in particular of use? Why risk your life and career to steal these documents? I don't believe anyone did.

It would seem to me that if the Government did not want this material released they would have had a court order in hand and these pages would have been removed from Fortune City's site pronto.

Fortune City is a U.S. Corp:
New York Office - Headquarters
322 8th Avenue, 11th floor
New York, NY 10001
United States

Now there's always the possibility they "want the leaks", for the reasons described in Isaac's letter in which case the following still stands:

Isaac can come out and present all the details, it appears Uncle Sam is not worried about this at all.

I have LOTS of issues with the page layout, the "smart quotes" and other details of the word processing in these documents.

The complete lack of DOD security tags not being the least of them.

I remember well my first IBM desktop in a corporate environment in 1986 and the word processors/printers we had to work with right up through 1993. The company I was with was at the bleeding edge of what was available at the enterprise level and these documents don't jive with that, they are way too "modern" to have been produced in 1988.

The "stand alone" photos have their share of anomalies as well, the usual "CGI" stuff we've seen in the others that I don't need to rehash here.

When I take all of the above with yet another "anonymous source" I have LOTS of issues that need to be dealt with from a critical thinking perspective.

What I DO like is the back story is believable and well thought out in the context of the premise, the esoteric nature of the core technology is genius from a creative standpoint.

As far as this "costing lots of money", I don't see it. A few hundred bucks worth of software (if they're CGI) or a couple thousand in a 3D printer (of they're models) and some time is all this would take to produce.

I am hoping to get feedback from a physicist on the technical quality of the reports, i.e. is this what one would expect from a bunch of scientists reporting to military brass?

I'll say this much, it's a great read, it has the "drone images" as a two month primer and Issac comes across as a very congenial, intelligent "geek" just as I would expect him to.

Springer...



[edit on 6-27-2007 by Springer]

To respond to the picture showing peices of the main sections of the drone. First off, what is the dimensions of the pieces? It seems that after assy it should be what, 8 ft in dia? Assuming that they are sitting on a hanger floor, where's the jigs to aid in taking them appart? Where's the tool boxes? Where's the test equipment? All assy / disassembly areas are tapped off to denote eye protection required. Also, setting these "artifacs" on bare concrete floor would be an extreem no-no. Even if not on a hanger floor, but on another surface where's the ESD (electrical static distarge) controll?

Lockheed guy - chime up on this. How many aircraft would be treated like this on a DOD program?

Regards,

Boeing IDS Guy

Originally posted by Blaine91555
I'm fully satisfied that Photo 4.1 to 4.4 are modern CG renders with classic CAD lighting. They were printed and scanned and then presented as the photo's. That alone means to me nothing else can or should be trusted.

Honestly, I don't know much about CG (my background is in biochem). How does one reliably differentiate between a CG image and an image of a real object? I think that these things look remarkably realistic. How much work would it be to create something like this in CG?

Also, what's up with this symbol? I think I've seen the chevron used to describe anti-gravity before somewhere else. I know its origin is to do with masculinity, as a crude representation of the phallus, doubt that has anything to do with this though lol.

Originally posted by Chupa101
Also, what's up with this symbol? I think I've seen the chevron used to describe anti-gravity before somewhere else. I know its origin is to do with masculinity, as a crude representation of the phallus, doubt that has anything to do with this though lol.

Ha, it's a caret ^, an obvious choice for the CARET project!


[edit on 27-6-2007 by keeb333]

All of this feels like a hoax to me, though I'm well aware that if and when a genuine story comes along, it will probably share a good deal of the characteristics of this one. And I'll probably think it's a hoax too.

I think there's a faith/conviction argument here. I don't need a watertight story with incontrovertable evidence to believe in some of the things we discuss on these boards. I will never know if any of these photos are photoshopped, or CGId, or whatever - so I can't base my faith in what I believe on any story like this. At the same time I'm unconvinced by these photos, and the fact that the ones on this guy's site appear to have been shot in a studio....rather than in an equipment depot of some kind....but that lack of conviction doesn't really affect my faith.

I guess I started looking at ATS because I wanted to see proof - but actually, though I've not been here long, I'm getting a lot more out of hearing about what other people believe. One blurry video looks much like another, but it seems very rare that more than one person shares exactly the same perspective on a story...

AW

What's stroking my stoat is that he admits to being an ENGINEER and fairly intricated into computing science so why would someone who has that level of expertise in ENGINEERING, NOT be part of the project, he said himself he was a liguistics expert, err how does an engineer become an expert on type and letters?

I also find it strange that if you were an engineer, you'd have no idea of what actually goes on inside the machine. The diagram with the swirls is impressive, but does it actually mean anything? It's like a snakeoil salesman or as Randi says "don't show them the other hand" because that's where the magic is. If I were leaking documents that I supposedly removed from a secret base and was an engineer, I'd sure as hell make sure I took some of the documents that did explain it in some more depth than what appears to be just an introduction.

I'm also somewhat confused by his statement that noone knew what they were doing. Well how the hell did we get it to work then? If he says he has no documentation on how it works (a common sign of hoaxing and a get out clause), then how did he or anyone else explain the project to others. He says himself they used their "own scientific principles" to explain it, so some document must have at least a basic (in terms of theory, but not in terms of content) mathematical or theoretical look into how it works.

Sorry but again, I smell the +1 tuna fish sandwich of hoaxing, actually far more than I did with GR.

I'm also thinking if it is true, then he's not exactly leaked anything of importance has he? He's shown us photos of what it looks like, NOT how it works. If he did put up scientific formulae and blueprints, then I'd be inclined to find him, not for some generic abstract at the start of a report. Ok, we could make replicas, but without the material itself if it works on language and a type of specialist material, we can't make any or test anything.

Now I'm not much of a data miner, but could that chevron, meaning carat, have been used in the "fake name" and logo on the building, that is mentioned by Isaac?

It would be just the cute touch that would find it's way into something like this.

I have NO idea how to check for such a thing, but it would be interesting to know if some company from that time frame used a logo that had this in it.

How come in one picture (PACL Q4-86 Report Photo 4.3 ) the white text is reflected on the sides, but in the other pictures it is not?

[edit on 27/6/2007 by Cygnific]

Originally posted by SpringerAs far as this "costing lots of money", I don't see it. A few hundred bucks worth of software (if they're CGI) or a couple thousand in a 3D printer (of they're models) and some time is all this would take to produce.[edit on 6-27-2007 by Springer]

the question remains - what for? i don't think the whole thing is legit, but i'm seriously wondering why someone would pull this stunt, and can't find a satisfying answer.

Originally posted by keeb333

Originally posted by Chupa101
Also, what's up with this symbol? I think I've seen the chevron used to describe anti-gravity before somewhere else. I know its origin is to do with masculinity, as a crude representation of the phallus, doubt that has anything to do with this though lol.

Ha, it's a caret ^, an obvious choice for the CARET project!

[edit on 27-6-2007 by keeb333]

Symbol seen on the side of the UFO witnessed by Lonnie Zamora, 1964:



"Astropower" Logo, 1961: