Author Topic: PACL Q4-86 Research Report  (Read 39633 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Ipsy

  • Senior Dronie
  • ****
  • Posts: 67
  • Karma: +6/-0
PACL Q4-86 Research Report
« on: June 17, 2010, 11:30:33 pm »
This document has always been one of my favorite pieces of this story, but with the sensational appeal of the LAP, it's often taken a back seat in discussions of Isaac's posted material.

I thought it would be nice to see this document in a more polished format so I recreated it. onthefence was kind enough to post this on the DRT server, so here's the link.

http://droneteam.com/images/isaac/PACL_Q486_Research_Report_re-creation.pdf

It doesn't exactly match the scans, but it's pretty close.

While working on this, I noticed a few things that might spark some interesting discussion.

1) I know there was once a great deal of discussion about the typesetting and layout of these documents but I don't recall any conclusions. The fonts I used aren't exact matches but most letters are pretty close. The page headers user Arial Narrow, the cover and the section headers use Arial, and the body copy uses Times Roman. These are probably the most common fonts of all, and yet they match pretty well. In the Arial font the capital letter Q is different as are the numbers. Does anyone know if the actual fonts were ever identified?

2) The scans are all slightly distorted in a way that indicates the pages remained bound when they were scanned. Isaac didn't take them apart and scan them flat. They are each bent toward the center by varying amounts making exact measurements difficult. I identified the page margins as 1" top, 1" bottom,  1" center, .75" outside. As a result of the difficulty in measurements I had to stretch the characters and adjust the kerning to get it to fit in roughly the same positions. I may go back an re examine the scans to see if I can determine more precisely the margins, font size, leading, etc.

3) I'd be surprised if I were the first to notice this, but there's a typo on page 7 under 4.2.5 OVERVIEW of A2 AND A3, 2nd line. It says "(seen in in figure 4.3)".

4) The photos on the scanned pages, are cropped exactly the same as the sizes of the original color scans. What does this mean? I think we have to assume that the photos reproduced in the original document were black and white. If not that means Isaac made photocopies or otherwise converted them to B&W before scanning them. The scans are in color as evidenced by the light blue "T" that has been pointed out, ...a feature on the back of Isaac's scanner top that shows through the thin paper of the original under the bright scanner light. Besides color printing was no easy task in 1986 and would have been unnecessary for a document like this. I chose to use the color photos to make it look nicer as a trade off to authenticity. But how is it that the size of the color photos that Isaac posted exactly matches the crop of the same images in the document. Whoever prepared the original document would have used scans of these photos themselves. If Isaac has the actual original photos as he claims, how did he manage to scan them to the precise size used in the document, especially when the document page scans were very irregular? The only thing I can think of is that Isaac did not scan the color photos at all, but rather posted the exact same scans used in the layout of the original document. Could he have pilfered copies of these image scans on floppy disks? If so, he'd have had to convert them from some older image format into jpgs. But if he scanned them from original photo prints how could he maintain the exact same width to height ratio with the exact same crop area? Those images vary in size.

Lastly, I used OCR to convert the text from these scans. I had to correct many OCR mistakes, but I'm sure there are some I've overlooked. If anyone notices discrepancies and would like me to correct them, just let me know. One mildly interesting thing I noticed in the OCR data from page 5. The image area at the top of that page of course returned a bunch of gibberish, but among the gibberish was the word "gamma". Just a weird observation. Meaningless I'm sure.

Anyway, I just wanted to add my contribution here and hopefully generate some thought provoking discussion.

Offline onthefence

  • Administrator
  • Hero Dronie #3
  • **********
  • Posts: 1048
  • Karma: +50/-0
Re: PACL Q4-86 Research Report
« Reply #1 on: June 17, 2010, 11:52:14 pm »
Thank you for your notes.

Does anyone know if the actual fonts were ever identified?
I don't know, but this "WhatTheFont" tool might help:
  http://new.myfonts.com/WhatTheFont/


Offline Douglas

  • Hero Dronie #1
  • *******
  • Posts: 405
  • Karma: +36/-4
Re: PACL Q4-86 Research Report
« Reply #2 on: June 18, 2010, 06:42:25 am »
This document has always been one of my favorite pieces of this story, but with the sensational appeal of the LAP, it's often taken a back seat in discussions of Isaac's posted material.

1) I know there was once a great deal of discussion about the typesetting and layout of these documents but I don't recall any conclusions. The fonts I used aren't exact matches but most letters are pretty close. The page headers user Arial Narrow, the cover and the section headers use Arial, and the body copy uses Times Roman. These are probably the most common fonts of all, and yet they match pretty well. In the Arial font the capital letter Q is different as are the numbers. Does anyone know if the actual fonts were ever identified?

As I recall,  someone did trace all of the PACL type to one of those rather rare and very expensive newfangled typesetting machines that an agency like a US government Top Secret office could afford in the 1980s.  Was it IBM that made it or some other high tech company?

Back in those days many small  companies sent their brochures to type setting companies to compose and make the mechanicals for later printing.  But obviously since all of the PACL material was Top Secret it had to be done 'in house', so to speak.  Therefore they had their own machines.
« Last Edit: June 18, 2010, 06:54:16 am by Douglas »

Offline 10538

  • Administrator
  • Hero Dronie #2
  • **********
  • Posts: 826
  • Karma: +33/-0
Re: PACL Q4-86 Research Report
« Reply #3 on: June 18, 2010, 06:33:02 pm »
This document has always been one of my favorite pieces of this story, but with the sensational appeal of the LAP, it's often taken a back seat in discussions of Isaac's posted material. 
I so much agree with you.  Reading the Isaac posting simply blows me away every time.  I like the way he writes.  He has a definite personality that comes across.  I remember the first time reading it.  I have to admit I was very much caught up in drone mania at the time and when I began to read it I was preparing myself for a big let down.  I thought for sure this "Isaac" was going to let all the air out of the drone balloon so to speak.  But to my surprise as I began reading the second paragraph my jaw about hit the floor   :o

Quote
4) The photos on the scanned pages, are cropped exactly the same as the sizes of the original color scans. What does this mean? I think we have to assume that the photos reproduced in the original document were black and white. If not that means Isaac made photocopies or otherwise converted them to B&W before scanning them. The scans are in color as evidenced by the light blue "T" that has been pointed out, ...a feature on the back of Isaac's scanner top that shows through the thin paper of the original under the bright scanner light. Besides color printing was no easy task in 1986 and would have been unnecessary for a document like this. I chose to use the color photos to make it look nicer as a trade off to authenticity. But how is it that the size of the color photos that Isaac posted exactly matches the crop of the same images in the document. Whoever prepared the original document would have used scans of these photos themselves. If Isaac has the actual original photos as he claims, how did he manage to scan them to the precise size used in the document, especially when the document page scans were very irregular? The only thing I can think of is that Isaac did not scan the color photos at all, but rather posted the exact same scans used in the layout of the original document. Could he have pilfered copies of these image scans on floppy disks?

If I am understanding you, I think the answers are already in the Isaac post.

Quote
. I wanted to do this because I knew the day would come when I would want to write something like this, and I knew I'd regret it until the day I died if I didn't at least leave the possibility open to do so. So I started photocopying documents and reports by the dozen.
and
Quote
By the time I was done, I'd made out with hundreds of photocopies, as well as a few originals and a large collection of original photographs.

He scanned everything he uploaded with his color scanner from his home in '07.  I'm thinking the blue T was an artifact from the PACL copier because it's not in the color picture originals.  Does that mean the pacl copier was a color copier?  Could the blue shade be an artifact from Isaac's home scanner?

Offline Nodnunk

  • Junior Dronie
  • **
  • Posts: 17
  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: PACL Q4-86 Research Report
« Reply #4 on: June 18, 2010, 07:54:41 pm »
The text font is probably Palatino Roman

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palatino

It was/is available in the Adobe Postscript collection of fonts

http://www.adobe.com/products/postscript/pdfs/ps3fonts.pdf


Offline Ipsy

  • Senior Dronie
  • ****
  • Posts: 67
  • Karma: +6/-0
Re: PACL Q4-86 Research Report
« Reply #5 on: June 18, 2010, 11:18:10 pm »
I don't know, but this "WhatTheFont" tool might help:
  http://new.myfonts.com/WhatTheFont/

I prepared some files to upload to this tool this morning and it clearly identified the fonts in this document as "Franklin Gothic" and "Palatino", right on the money. There are a few versions of each of these fonts, but they both come in ITC flavor and Palatino in Linotype. I cannot confirm this, but I believe they both easily date back to the 1980's and would have been commonly used on the Xerox 8010 (likely what PACL would have been using). I'd like to see some other documents from that era that were prepared on that machine. I'd bet they share numerous similarities with the Q4-86 Research Report.




Offline Ipsy

  • Senior Dronie
  • ****
  • Posts: 67
  • Karma: +6/-0
Re: PACL Q4-86 Research Report
« Reply #6 on: June 19, 2010, 12:58:31 am »
10538,
I think my observation wasn't very clear. What I was trying to point out is that files Isaac posted (pacl-q486-photo-1-fullsize.jpg - pacl-q486-photo-4-fullsize.jpg) appear to be the exact same scans used in the preparation of the original document rather than different scans of the same photos.

I'm basing this on how closely the color photos match the ones in the document layout both in width to height ratio, and crop area. Look closely at the page scans and you can see that the photos in the document are cropped exactly like the photo scans Isaac posted.

The document pages that Isaac has are not in color. They are black and white photocopies of an original document that was also black and white. You can see the half-toning in the photos on the page scans. This half-toning must have been created in the original document. The photos would have been made in a studio there at PACL, probably on medium or large format film, then developed as negatives or transparencies which would have been scanned on a drum scanner. The resulting data would be stored on a file server to be accessed by the computer doing the document layout. Finally, the scan data would be converted to black and white with a process that introduced the halftone when it was printed. It would be very unlikely that this original was printed in color in 1986. I think color printing then would have required creating printing plates and running it on an offset press rather than the more likely xerox printer that would have been used.

Isaac having access to the original back in 1986-87 would have made a photocopy in the offices of PACL which he smuggled out and is now part of his collection. In 2007 he retrieved this photocopy from his collection and scanned it for us. The photocopies that he has are on a lightweight paper which is why we can see the T artifact when the contrast is adjusted. The scans are color, it's just that the material being scanned was B&W.

So if Isaac has both a photocopy of this document (apparently), and photographic prints of the original photos he sure did a careful job of scanning the photos to get them so close to their representation in the document, while the page scans he made seem quiet a bit less careful.

This all makes me wonder if rather than having photos, Isaac has digital files of those photos. Or he was just very precise when he scanned those prints. Or, he is the one who set up the document more recently than 1986 and used the exact same image files in his layout that he posted as being different scans.

Or, maybe I'm over analyzing it all. Maybe it's not so unlikely that the photos match as precisely as they do. I'm certainly not jumping on the hoax bandwagon, but it seems odd to me. I don't actually know what to make of it.


Offline onthefence

  • Administrator
  • Hero Dronie #3
  • **********
  • Posts: 1048
  • Karma: +50/-0
Re: PACL Q4-86 Research Report
« Reply #7 on: June 19, 2010, 01:44:47 am »
While the Xerox 8010 appears to have the ability to embed photo images into documents, it may have been easier at the time to just leave a rectangle on the page and have the photos cut and pasted onto the final printout like old newspaper and other printing done back then.

Manipulating a document with graphics does tend to be very time consuming on old computers.

The final copy stage on a decent copier would produce a single sheet of paper with hardly any signs of the edges of the pasted photos.

By the way, I have done this myself many times with very good results.

Offline elevenaugust

  • Administrator
  • Hero Dronie #3
  • **********
  • Posts: 1231
  • Karma: +34/-1
  • א ב ג ד ה ו ז ח ט י כ ך ל מ ם נ ן ס ע פ ף צ ץ ק ר
Re: PACL Q4-86 Research Report
« Reply #8 on: June 19, 2010, 08:13:45 pm »
I'd like to see some other documents from that era that were prepared on that machine. I'd bet they share numerous similarities with the Q4-86 Research Report.
Hi Ipsy,

Some interesting discussions already took place here about the Xerox 8010.

IPACO, the new tool for photo and video analysis is on-line! www.ipaco.fr

Offline Douglas

  • Hero Dronie #1
  • *******
  • Posts: 405
  • Karma: +36/-4
Re: PACL Q4-86 Research Report
« Reply #9 on: June 20, 2010, 01:14:55 am »
I'd like to see some other documents from that era that were prepared on that machine. I'd bet they share numerous similarities with the Q4-86 Research Report.
Hi Ipsy,

Some interesting discussions already took place here about the Xerox 8010.

Thanks for the repost elevenaugust.  Yes, that is probably the machine that PACL used to make the Isaac docs.

For Ted and new people following along.  Here is a quote from Dr. Edwards resume:

Below is a bombshell quote from Dr. Keith Edwards PhD. Resume.  This gives us a clue as to what he was working on at PARC in the early 1990s.  He worked at PARC for 8 years.

Quote:
"Iâ??m probably in some government file someplace because I ordered the Roswell Report online [Edited/Douglas: in 2007 the online Roswell Report was listed but was no longer avail.]. You can have a file on yourself too.   I work at PARC, where we actually get to use a lot of the technology that our government got from the small greys in the abductee-for-flying-saucer swap that followed Roswell. I also encountered evidence of alien visitation on my trip to Eastern Europe ."

He told me in a 2007 email that he was 'joking'.....no, you were not joking Dr.Edwards.  I wasn't born yesterday.
« Last Edit: June 20, 2010, 01:31:10 am by Douglas »

Offline ominoustruth

  • Major Dronie
  • ******
  • Posts: 247
  • Karma: +17/-0
  • aka Ted Connors
Re: PACL Q4-86 Research Report
« Reply #10 on: June 20, 2010, 03:55:15 am »
I'd like to see some other documents from that era that were prepared on that machine. I'd bet they share numerous similarities with the Q4-86 Research Report.
Hi Ipsy,

Some interesting discussions already took place here about the Xerox 8010.

Thanks for the repost elevenaugust.  Yes, that is probably the machine that PACL used to make the Isaac docs.

For Ted and new people following along.  Here is a quote from Dr. Edwards resume:

Below is a bombshell quote from Dr. Keith Edwards PhD. Resume.  This gives us a clue as to what he was working on at PARC in the early 1990s.  He worked at PARC for 8 years.

Quote:
"Iâ??m probably in some government file someplace because I ordered the Roswell Report online [Edited/Douglas: in 2007 the online Roswell Report was listed but was no longer avail.]. You can have a file on yourself too.   I work at PARC, where we actually get to use a lot of the technology that our government got from the small greys in the abductee-for-flying-saucer swap that followed Roswell. I also encountered evidence of alien visitation on my trip to Eastern Europe ."

He told me in a 2007 email that he was 'joking'.....no, you were not joking Dr.Edwards.  I wasn't born yesterday.
Wow, Thanks, facinating comments. One theroy i continue to subscribe to is that our government has this Alien technology and still dosen't quite understand how to operate it correctly. I tend to think this may have been the reason for my and other witnesses sightings. They continue to fly this stuff around and every once in a while it goes out of control and somebody catches a glimpse of one of these craft. These comments from Dr. Edwards just add even more fuel to that fire. I can't believe one of these craft hasn't crashed yet or maybe one has but was just not seen by anyone. Thanks for getting me up to speed on all this.
                                                              Thanks, Ted

Offline Douglas

  • Hero Dronie #1
  • *******
  • Posts: 405
  • Karma: +36/-4
Re: PACL Q4-86 Research Report
« Reply #11 on: June 20, 2010, 04:48:47 am »
Quote
Wow, Thanks, facinating comments. One theroy i continue to subscribe to is that our government has this Alien technology and still dosen't quite understand how to operate it correctly. I tend to think this may have been the reason for my and other witnesses sightings. They continue to fly this stuff around and every once in a while it goes out of control and somebody catches a glimpse of one of these craft. These comments from Dr. Edwards just add even more fuel to that fire. I can't believe one of these craft hasn't crashed yet or maybe one has but was just not seen by anyone. Thanks for getting me up to speed on all this.
                                                              Thanks, Ted

Hi Ted:

In reply to your comment about a 'crashed drone'.

I believe one of the Drones did somehow 'crash' and that's how we have this photo.  It's from the original Isaac release in June 2007. I am still very surprised that this photo has not been more widely published.  It has to be one of the most amazing photos of a 'ufo' to ever have seen the light of day in the past century. We have Isaac to thank for this photo.

When I first saw this photo in June 2007 my eyes almost popped out of my head.

Also, I  doubt that any government operates these crafts.  They are strictly controlled by extraterrestrials and have been for thousands of years, IMO. I also doubt we have been able to duplicate them due to the exotic materials used in their construction.  They are likely a thousand years beyond current earth technology.

Douglas
« Last Edit: June 20, 2010, 05:08:04 am by Douglas »

Offline onthefence

  • Administrator
  • Hero Dronie #3
  • **********
  • Posts: 1048
  • Karma: +50/-0
Re: PACL Q4-86 Research Report
« Reply #12 on: March 24, 2011, 04:08:51 am »
Just a note about handwritten lettering style:


I don't think that crossing the 7 or Z is native to everyone.

According to this answer/comment from "cardtapper" on Yahoo answers:
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080415202705AARvCdv
Quote
I learned to cross my 7's while living in Eastern Europe.
There, the number one is written by starting a little above the line, drawing an ever-so-slightly diagonal upward, and then coming straight down to the line. Sometimes they can look a little like an American (ie., non-crossed) seven.

I learned to cross my Z's years earlier when working for a manufacturing firm in California. Part numbers were a string of both letters and numbers. A cross on the Z eliminated any confusion with a two; Vertical stops on the ends of an S eliminated confusing it with a five.


The Leviathan

  • Guest
Re: PACL Q4-86 Research Report
« Reply #13 on: March 24, 2011, 01:41:00 pm »
We are firmly convince that the white line is not a expansion joint.  Our projection seems to show it is not parallel to the other expansion joints and it appears to have a shadow beneath it.  This is our opinion and we will continue studying it.
L E V I A T H A N

Offline spinnewise

  • Founding Dronie
  • *****
  • Posts: 119
  • Karma: +19/-0
Re: PACL Q4-86 Research Report
« Reply #14 on: June 23, 2011, 10:00:30 am »
Just a note about handwritten lettering style:


I don't think that crossing the 7 or Z is native to everyone.

According to this answer/comment from "cardtapper" on Yahoo answers:
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080415202705AARvCdv
Quote
I learned to cross my 7's while living in Eastern Europe.
There, the number one is written by starting a little above the line, drawing an ever-so-slightly diagonal upward, and then coming straight down to the line. Sometimes they can look a little like an American (ie., non-crossed) seven.

I learned to cross my Z's years earlier when working for a manufacturing firm in California. Part numbers were a string of both letters and numbers. A cross on the Z eliminated any confusion with a two; Vertical stops on the ends of an S eliminated confusing it with a five.

You don't have to go to eastern Europe.
In Germany  we learned to cross the 7's and Z's ESPECIALLY in scientific writing to make it clear and avoid mistakes.
Still looking for gorillas