Jun 28 2007
|
|
Funny “Flying Thing” “Explained”
The story continues, in spite of the guffaws of most of the UFO comminity. Somone is claiming that he worked on these sorts of devices in the 1980s, and that they are alien-derived human tech. Since I’ve heard this one before as well, I’m not holding my breath, although it does flatter my prejudices against the extraterrestrial hypothesis somewhat.
The lengthy explanation brings up more project and facility acronyms, like CARET, XPARC, and PACL, which are always good attractors for webtrawlers and email spies, as well as beacons for friend and foe. One thing I find interesting is that the anonymous writer (calling himself “Isaac”) indicates that the inscrutable “lettering” on the “fins” of the object are in fact alien writing that has “magical” powers, i.e. the simple act of printing them on the airframe imbues the craft with flight characteristics. Sounds like they’ve been dipping into the world of evocational magick and sigils. Our storyteller also says that the reason it was seen was that its “invisibility” tech failed on a few occasions, allowing observers to see and photograph the thing.
If true, (which I seriously doubt) this story dips into conjuring, invisibility and other esoteric domains which have been missing from these fantastic “UFO/ alien disclosure” stories in the past. “Isaac” does not stray into esoteric physics, which may be an attempt to scuttle the problems presented in the past by things like “Element 113″ and the strange science of the planet SERPO. What this seems like is an updating of Phillip Corso’s “Day After Roswell” to the web and the 21st century. What parts of this story are true, and which are not, remains to be seen.
Update: A quick check of the web defines “XPARC” as “Xerox Palo Alto Research Center.” Hmm.
This entry was posted
on Thursday, June 28th, 2007 at 6:18 pm and is filed under Wake Up Down There, Breaking News, Eyewitness Accounts, Government Projects, UFO Sightings, UFOs On Film, Psychic Phenomena, UFOlogy. You can follow responses via RSS 2.0 feed.
You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is not allowed.
del.icio.us Digg Reddit Ma.gnolia Technorati Help
- Related News Stories:
- Howard Hughes and UFOs »
- Another IFO »
- Mind-Bogglingly Good Article on the Issac/ CARET/ Chad Issue »
- The Aztec Gig »
- The Lyme Bay Mutilation »
|
June 28th, 2007 at 10:40 pm
Well, I’m glad that’s all cleared up
I read the papers posted on Linda Moulton Howe’s website about the alleged technology behind this thing. I had to wonder how exactly it managed to use it’s anti gravity force to stick its parts together, meaning that anti gravity is also gravity…?
Also, the diagrams are very remeniscent of some of Sony Liverpool’s work on it’s PSP WipEout Pure game.
There are elements of the design that are purely for looks and nothing else. Hardly a tech schematic.
I have to say, it’s getting bad when even I can poke holes in this kind of thing
June 28th, 2007 at 11:15 pm
It is a viral marketing campaign. Microsoft are behind it:
http://www.littlemanwhatnow.com/2007/06/artistic-hoax.html
June 29th, 2007 at 10:29 pm
Maybe the hoaxer is dipping into the esoteric or maybe he is dipping into the ‘Manga’ theories of technology where a large robot can be animated with magical writings. I get the feeling some teenager with way too much time on his hands, is having way too much fun with this.
Jess
June 29th, 2007 at 11:20 pm
Charles,
I looked at your article. At the end you say “if this turns out to be correct.” “If” is not “is.” To turn things around a bit, Microsoft may have appropriated some of the imagery for their campaign.
If so, they had a good idea in any case.
July 14th, 2007 at 8:47 pm
If the atom can be split, LAZER’s invented, X-rays… etc… Why not an anti gravity device? If it is a hoax. These kinds of things almost make you want to believe them… That there is finally some groundbreaking change in the old dynamics of reality. I hope it is real! Human or Alien… the symbols are GREAT LOOKING!
July 14th, 2007 at 9:33 pm
Goliath,
I don’t quite understand what you’re trying to say, but I agree, I think.
Alas, I still think the whole thing is a big fake, even though I do have a strong suspicion that anti-gravity tech was discovered in the mid-20th century.
August 7th, 2007 at 1:27 pm
The CARET drone story is nothing more than a Microsoft Halo 3 video game viral advertisement. Has no one heard about this yet?
August 7th, 2007 at 8:35 pm
mothmanp,
It might not be. See the post on Colin Bennett’s essay. Perhaps Microsoft latched onto it.
August 18th, 2007 at 3:31 pm
This definitely isn’t a Microsoft marketing campaign. Although they have done similar things before with Halo, this doesn’t even come close to matching the same style. It’s always been very clear that it’s fiction, and never supposed to be taking seriously. And while you could assume their trying to get more interest by trying to make this look “real”, I don’t really see how that would make sense. They’re trying to appeal to the hardcore UFO conspiracists? Seems unlikely, they’re the type of people who would only be upset by this.
Also, the style of the ships and language don’t match what we’ve previously seen in Halo, which have always been more rounded and purple. Changing the style for the sake of a marketing campaign just doesn’t make sense.
However, this is a very cool story, but I have serious doubts about it being real, a lot of the information seems a little dubious. The close up shots of the markings on the ship just seem far too unusual for me.
August 19th, 2007 at 5:44 pm
snowblind,
Thanks for the info. I agree that the case against a marketing campaign is pretty good. You might be interested in another post on this regarding the symbols.
November 13th, 2007 at 12:12 pm
uv777bk said:
“There are elements of the design that are purely for looks and nothing else. Hardly a tech schematic.”
If you can conclude there are elements of the design that serve no function, you must be the architect!
Since you are the architect and can tell which parts of an alien schematic are real and which parts are just “for looks”, that means you can decypher them!
This is incredible! Please: tell us more, you seem to be “in the know”!
In fact, you should bring your findings to CNN!
/sarcasm
My point is this: we have no way of verifying his claims. But if we’re going to excercise judgement of our own, lets not make erroneous conclusions based on a false premise: that these drawings are understandable by us.