[HOAX] Isaac CARET - Drones [HOAX]

Greetings everyone. I am a new member to this site, so let me tell you about myself. I am an engineering type who works in government. I have never believed in UFOs, because I consider myself a scientist and I have never seen any credible evidence to support a belief in UFOs. I have never seen anything during my career in the government that defied explanation or any antigravity technology such as that being discussed in this thread. In short, I’ve never seen anything out of the ordinary.

Three days ago, I stumbled upon the Isaac/CARET/Drone controversy. I initially considered it a ridiculous hoax until I took a close look at the actual CARET report. Since that time, I have obsessed and spent hours and hours poring over every inch of it. Luckily, my wife and kids have been out of town or they would have disowned me. I have done my best to familiarize myself with the online discussion, even though it consists of thousands of posts on numerous websites. So my disclaimer upon jumping in here is that I may say something that has already been said, or ask questions that have already been answered. Flame me if you must, but I think I can contribute to a part of this discussion that I feel is being overlooked and which has the potential to blow the lid off the extraterrestrial debate.

Now, the way I read this discussion, most of the debate centers on an attempt to determine whether this is a hoax by first linking together all the various elements. I’m pretty convinced of the link between the drone sightings and Isaac’s “disclosure”, but I don’t know that proving the drones are a hoax necessarily means Isaac is a fraud. Most of the discussion has focused on the sighting photographs and whether or not they are authentic. That discussion is way outside my lane, as it involves CGI and rendering and photography and things I know nothing about.

What I do know about, however, is engineering, military projects and procurement, and reports. I’d like to specifically focus on Isaac and his alleged disclosure, which I feel okay talking about because there are no classification markings on them, thank goodness. Here is my bottom line up front: If Isaac fabricated the documentation on the CARET program, then he spent years making it. It is absolutely flawless in its presentation of an engineering study. I have seen one or two contributors refer to the language in this report as ridiculous babble (or words to that effect). I would argue the exact opposite. Every word, every diagram title, every paragraph number, every drawing, every THING in this report is perfect. One contributor somewhere stated that it had a high degree of verisimilitude - I would say that is a good word to describe it. I have read many aircraft and military system manuals in my career, and this thing reads exactly like them. But beyond that, way beyond that in fact, is my belief that the science and the technical explanations within the report are rock solid.

For example, the descriptions of the modes of operation for the personal antigravity device are exquisite. This idea of a mode where it creates a general field that can’t have any concavity and is uniform throughout - any mathematician reading that can appreciate the technical purity of such a description, and any physicist can agree on the principles involved. And of course the component mode, which is used to hold the various components together, and the multi mode, which combines the functions of the two previous modes. These modes and the descriptions of them make perfect sense to an engineer. I was able to develop in my mind a crystal clear vision of this device and its operation from the document. Not once did I think, “well that doesn’t make sense.”
[continued]

[continued from above]
While I could go on and on about the sublime perfection of this document, there is one area in particular that really got my juices going. Take a very close look at the descriptive titles for the diagrams (figures 14.11 through 14.15). They are exact systems engineering descriptions of what is in fact depicted! Let’s use figure 14.12 as an example. I recommend calling it up and looking at it as you read this paragraph.

The diagram title says “Isolated view of a three-node AB-type semaphore cascade, extending from an exterior vertex of an octal function”. I ran across some post that said this was meaningless techno-jargon. I disagree:

1. “Isolated view”: standard phrase to show a close up of an earlier drawing, in this case a specific portion of figure 14.11.
2. “three-node”: There are in fact three nodes depicted (the three solid circles extending from the larger flower-shaped circle at the top).
3. “AB-type”: A common systems and electrical engineering notation, perhaps referring to the actual function of the node. If anyone sees the AB reference graphically, speak up.
4. “semaphore”: “a system of sending messages by holding the arms or two flags or poles in certain positions according to an alphabetic code.” I’d say these three nodes do indeed resemble a type of semaphore, making it a precise descriptive term.
5. “cascade”: “a succession of devices or stages in a process, each of which triggers or initiates the next.” Note how the three nodes shown depict a “cascading” effect, with each slightly farther from the main node. Or perhaps the cascade is along each arm, as information/energy/whatever flows to the node at its respective end.
6. “extending from an exterior vertex”: See how the lines connecting the three sub-nodes connect to the main node at an exterior (as opposed to interior) vertex (which means “a meeting point of two lines that form an angle”)?
7. “octal function”: the main flower-shaped node, or function, does indeed have eight (octal) “sides” or “petals”.

OK, I won’t do this for every diagram, but I could! They are all perfect engineering descriptions of what is depicted in the diagram. Can you see the amazing degree of detail evident in this whole document? I’m only scratching the surface of all the correlation I’ve done in the past three days. It is EVERYWHERE throughout this document. I have been in absolute awe for the past three days the deeper into this I dig. If this is a hoax I will bow down and kiss Isaac’s feet just for the amount of effort and knowledge that went into this.

Now, here’s the way I see this whole thing. In order for this to be a hoax, the perpetrators must have been working on it for years, literally. I’m not saying it’s impossible to pull off, but the perpetrators must be a highly educated team of individuals having the following:

-PhD level education in systems and electrical engineering, math (anyone else see fractals?), and physics at a minimum.
-Experience working with military contracts and reports (I know I didn’t get into this, but I’m trying to keep the length of this post manageable. Trust me when I say that the format, voice, tone, vocabulary, and overall “feel” of this document is spot-on for what it purports to be.)
-Hollywood-level model making capability and/or CGI experience and/or photography
-A deep familiarity with the UFO community. I’m sure someone else has noticed this, but there is a ton of Roswell testimony describing “I-beams” with “hieroglyphics”. A good link is here: roswellproof.homestead.com... You’ll be amazed at how the testimony describes items similar to items A2 and A3 from the CARET report.
-An understanding of hoaxes in general and how to pull them off.

[continued]

[continued]
There are other directions this discussion should lead, but here is a partial list:
-The history of mathematics. It is an interesting coincidence that the maturation of Fractals occurred during the 70’s and 80’s. My guess would be that--if this is not a hoax--the math was developed/refined to help explain the self-repeating patterns described. I took a look at Benoit Mandelbrot’s biography on Wikipedia and see lots of opportunity for government work.
-Descriptions of the Aurora and other advanced propulsion systems.
-Recent descriptions/discussions of visual cloaking and camouflage systems that mimic their background (recorder/projector mentioned at the bottom of page 2 of the report but not further discussed)
-The collapse of the Soviet Union over “Star Wars” (maybe this is a stretch, but the timing would coincide, and Gorbachev did just “give up”, right? What was really discussed at Reykjavik?)

There are so many other areas. The implications are bewildering. I consider myself a rational man, and this is scary stuff.

I’ve pored over all the “alien writing” looking for a hoaxer’s signature. If I were hoaxing, that’s where I’d put it. The only thing I found resembling a name was “Elfisss”, which, when googled, reveals the screen name of some guy who likes to play a lot of online poker. Someone may want to chase that, but it was a stretch to get “Elfisss” out. I had to flip the image on photo 3, and found it on the side rail of the longer I-beam.

Isaac, if you are reading this, please listen: Do the world and humanity a service and release everything you have. Your information is the key to all of this. If you are who you say you are, give us everything and let us see if it is real. If you can’t produce the rest, then we will have no choice but to assume that this is a hoax, albeit a really, really good one.

All right, I’m tired of droning on, but I wanted to add to this discussion and I noticed that there was not much talk about the CARET report itself. To me, that report is what makes this whole thing the least bit plausible, and has me so terribly excited. Any other government guys, engineers, or math types want to weigh in on specifics of the CARET report? I can’t find a single inconsistency. Anyone familiar with hoaxes who can remember something so technically accurate? I noticed that a Northrop-Grumman manager, Jack A. Sahakian, made a statement about this whole thing. I will reserve judgment. I want the rest of the report. If an entire report comes out and is as good as the pages we were given.... Well, I don’t think I could deny it any longer.

Thanks for reading and let’s get this thing figured out. I need to get my damn life back.

And oh by the way, just because our ability to recreate real things with modern computers has progressed to the point that no one call tell the difference, that does not mean that real things no longer exist.
Cheers all.

Hi Engineering type,

Just to take issue with a couple of things but there has been plenty of mention of the CARET documentation a long way back, nice to see a fresh take on things though so don't take that as criticism.

(just as an aside here I just took a look at another forum where arguments are going back and forth about the bleach bottle pic and specific wording of the report - hopefully we can keep this moving forward rather than back)

I would argue that given a diagram, any diagram, within 30 minutes I could give it a plausible engineering descriptive that would hold up under analysis, especially after the ground rules that they will be described in terms of electronic engineering in the 80's.

I don't like the straw man argument generally but am going to have to say that, as the Rajman pics can be directly linked to the CARET document, unless a plausible explanation for demonstrated shadowing inconsistencies can be given, this does cast serious doubt on the veracity of Isaac's claims.

Thanks for the thorough and well-thought out report, E.T. (oops - A little Freudian slip there....)

I agree the key to an answer we can all sleep with must come from the report, albeit the 'missing pages' of the report is the padlock the key must fit. Yes, Isaac needs to either step up and provide something more if we are not destined to be suspended in a Drone Purgatory.

Your analysis is refreshing and though some points, as you inferred, have indeed been covered in the previous 12x12 pages of this thread and its brethren threads here at ATS and elsewhere, your encapsulating an engineer's perspective added some insightful reflection. Its always nice to have a fresh pair of eyes on the subject - especially when our own eyes have become somewhat bleary examining the same evidence over and over for these many weeks.

Allow me to extend, on behalf of my fine fellow investigators at ATS and myself, a hearty welcome, sir. Please continue to carefully observe along with us, contemplate as we have, and contribute as you see fit. You'll discover that this is pure teamwork at its best, and we encourage thoughtful participation from as many talented new team members as we can get.

I can tell you're excited by your findings - Bravo! We're excited too - your testimonial added a needed dose of validity and credibility -whether we are ultimately dealing with deranged band of genius hoaxer(s) or...?

So Glad to have you aboard E.T.! (sorry - can't resist it). I, for one, think ATS is lucky to have you opine as you have - and we look forward to more of the same....



[edit on 7/24/2007 by Outrageo]

Thanks, Chunder. I don't disagree with any of that. What I'd like to see is a focus, perhaps in a new thread, on the CARET document. While I am no expert in CGI and photography, it seems to me that discussion has settled into a difference of opinion or conviction. I haven't seen a good discussion about the CARET document. It should be pretty easy to find some inconsistencies there if this a hoax, right? But no one has found any. So many disciplines had to come together to create that report. I really think that if the UFO community (of which I have never been a member) is serious about getting this figured out, it needs to take a systematic approach to examining all the different aspects of this. It is too complex to solve in this haphazard way. Just the point of view of an outsider looking in. By the way, where have you seen discussion of the CARET document? I must have searched for two days! Guess I'm no good at searching....

Well I been doing some search and I came to this website www2.parc.com... as you can see is almost the same with Isaac picture, maybe somebody understand this more then me. It look part of the picture and Isaac epxplain about a language that have million of meaning. I will search more to help on this Hoax or real UFO dilema.

Originally posted by Amberite
Are you kidding? Look at the high res big-basin scan and tell me you can rig that thing up in a short amount of time. The complexity is staggering, even in a 3D program. You're talking about cutting, fitting, gluing and assembling hundreds of pieces of wood, most of which have to be an exact shape and size replica to others (for example, the teeth, the rings, the statue of liberty spikes, etc). The amount of work you'd need to do is above and beyond anything you're thinking.

No joke, it could be done in a short amount of time, depending on the materials used for a determined artist. The big-basin scan may look complex to you, but to an artist it may seem like circular repeated patterns with room for simplistic variations. We could say the Chad drone is the base or foundation of the design, it's repetitive with slight modification.

Mutating the circular model with teeth, rings and spikes is really not that complicated if you have a base to work from. And thats even true with CGI.

Originally posted by Amberite
You know there are modeling conventions where people present their works which are MUCH smaller than this, and much less intricate, and yet still takes them months to assemble. In the comment I posted earlier, I didn't make these claims up. I took them from an alleged professional modeler who said those things early in this thread.

I'm sure some craftsmen would take months to design their model, probably because most are perfectionist, BUT the drone is not as complicated. It took less than a week to redesign Chads model in CGI. If a model craftsmen has the parts lying around, uhmm... like Garbage can lid lol.... Meier style, it would take minutes, speaking of which he was very creative and intricate with stones an jewellery lol. And that was with one ARM!

However if it's computer generated it's not confined within limits, especially when used with circular or ringlike objects, hence the geometric patterns make it less burdensome for addition.

Anyway.. my point is, it can be done with cheap stuff.... I must see it different from you, no need to beat this drum again if you view it "complicated."

Engineering Type,

word. cool to read your contribution which is a breath of fresh air. I too was astounded to read the document. Myself i create such manuals and illustrations (far less creative, just for lowly copying machines and printers) and i have been convinced that basically, one does not just come up with this. furthermore, why would you want to?

I'd like to see some more discussion on the psychology behind a possible hoax given the accuracy and detail of Isaac's document. Surely someone with such talents has money to earn instead of faking this stuff..

anyway, thanks. your enthusiasm just woke me up more than the 6 coffees ive poured in my gut.

cheers
Jay

[edit on 24-7-2007 by shadow fax]

Engineering Type, thank you for finding the words that have eluded me! You're probably right about diverging into another thread, if we were really approaching this scientifically, we'd have individual threads for every item of evidence, in order to discover any flaws (if indeed there are any).

The diagrams/software/hardware are the part of this that has me wound up too, there is something extremely subtle there, just beneath the surface, that feels quite intuitive when you look at it. I almost get the sense that if I was sitting in a vehicle with panels like that in front of me, that I'd somehow have a sense of what was happening, how it all functioned and how to operate it. It's almost as though one is looking at an almost self-manifesting diagram that, in nature, could be no other way!

I'm becoming much too "mystical" about this, I know, but it's a struggle to put into words faint abstractions that strain the very boundaries of one's intellect. These hyper-pictograms aren't just a random (or even artful) arrangement of "cool" looking language, lines and symbols, they are an extraordinary *projection* or blueprint of the DNA of power and control and I maintain that there's something either not human about them or if human, they're proof of someone's rather remarkable intelligence.

I just happened to log on here shortly before you did, and if you look back a page or two, you'll see that some of our thoughts coincide quite profoundly. I can tell that you feel a similar resonance to the diagrams that I do, and I suspect that you might feel that you're looking at a rather strange form of "energy" (for lack of a better word) that you've never seen before. The photos of the drones are almost a distraction from the other items, there's just too much going on there to focus properly. The language of the reports and the images of the diagrams are clearly beyond the amateur hoaxer and if they are fraudulent, they're the product of a group of (very) professional types. I'm hoping that someone can provide some reasoning that would give credence to the notion that scientists would choose to produce something this misleading...because if they haven't, we've crossed through a barrier that is entirely new to humankind.

Anyway, what you've said so far has been enormously compelling and I urge you to apply your specialized knowledge to help dissect the evidence, perhaps starting with the report language that others have dismissed so lightly. Thanks for posting, by the way!

Originally posted by newkid
Well I been doing some search and I came to this website www2.parc.com... as you can see is almost the same with Isaac picture, maybe somebody understand this more then me. It look part of the picture and Isaac epxplain about a language that have million of meaning. I will search more to help on this Hoax or real UFO dilema.

Hi, I came across this a while ago when looking at links between Xerox and commercial applications that could have followed on from work on this kind of technology. I think a search on one of the words used in the report threw it out. It's vaguely similar but then I guess so are crop circles and a whole host of other flowcharts and diagrams. Does it mean anything, to me probably not but who knows and please keep on searching.

Originally posted by EngineeringType
What I'd like to see is a focus, perhaps in a new thread, on the CARET document.

By the way, where have you seen discussion of the CARET document? I must have searched for two days! Guess I'm no good at searching....

I asked the same question a long way back and I think a moderator (Springer) responded that there were too many different threads allready.

Early on in the piece there was quite a bit of discussion about the grammar, terminology used and presentation of the report (many of my earlier posts and many others were along those lines so if I get a chance I'll post a link) and some of the clues possibly in Isaac's covering statement about where PCAL could have been located, were explanations plausible etc. The debate did then turn to the pictures in the report and whether CGI or not and then back to the drone pics and likewise.

All angles are worth exploring but I don't think there is any getting away from the fact that if any pic is proven faked the report text and Isaac's statement are likely fake also. Vice verce probably applies with the exception of the Inventory Report, which may be a real photo of something else.

Could there be a small truth hidden in a big lie, could there be an element of deliberate disclosure or preparation for something else - any number of theories could be true. Fact is if one part is tainted the rest will always be without concrete evidence and an explanation as to otherwise.

www.coasttocoastam.com...

So Coast to Coast are moving ahead with our Isaac and LMH is going to chat to some Engineer who really thinks the Caret documents are plausible. I guess it's worth a listen but i'm UK based, perhaps it will come out as a recording after the show.

I really hope some new information comes from this, can the public phone in do you think? If they can i would like a good chat with Linda and ask her why no more Hi-res images are here, i hate being drip fed.

Originally posted by EngineeringType

For example, the descriptions of the modes of operation for the personal antigravity device are exquisite. This idea of a mode where it creates a general field that can’t have any concavity and is uniform throughout - any mathematician reading that can appreciate the technical purity of such a description, and any physicist can agree on the principles involved. And of course the component mode, which is used to hold the various components together, and the multi mode, which combines the functions of the two previous modes. These modes and the descriptions of them make perfect sense to an engineer. I was able to develop in my mind a crystal clear vision of this device and its operation from the document. Not once did I think, “well that doesn’t make sense.”

There seems to be a problem in that the crafts design looks like it is using a high-voltage Ion-Wind/Biefeld-Brown Effect to lift it in the air, (Didn’t one of Linda M. Howes witnesses say he saw a wind blowing down from the drone moving the leaves of a tree?), this technology is not considered to be anti gravity, yet the CARET paper refers to anti gravity. Most physicists would describe these processes using mathematical equations, yet none are presented. The power source is not mentioned at all, batteries, nuclear, solar, or vacuum energy? How do we interface with the objects to alter the programming, what type of computers were used to work with the objects and how were they connected? The CARET report glosses over the most important issues.

i think like most everyone here, Engi is excited about the possibilities if this is indeed not a hoax, i think the difference though is that i have a very heavy lean torwards his points,lets all just agree, he really does have some very valid points. Ive been fence sitting on this a long time, reading what little new info has been provided and at this point i was ready to keep an ear to the ground but start leaning torward it being hoaxed. Ill maintain that stance because there isnt much new information to lead us anywhere but id like to say that Engi has experience that shows in his articulations of points of interests and though im not an engineer or a cgi specialist of any sort, his words lend potency to the possibility of the caret document having authenticity.
Awesome stuff man

Originally posted by EngineeringType

I’ve pored over all the “alien writing” looking for a hoaxer’s signature. If I were hoaxing, that’s where I’d put it. The only thing I found resembling a name was “Elfisss”, which, when googled, reveals the screen name of some guy who likes to play a lot of online poker. Someone may want to chase that, but it was a stretch to get “Elfisss” out. I had to flip the image on photo 3, and found it on the side rail of the longer I-beam.

Funny, after googling rajman1977, I tried "chad1977" and got an online poker site

Also
Although they may seem an exact systems engineering descriptions; it’s is not an electrical schematic is it ?, but a magical set of advanced alien computer instructions that carry out their function by merely being placed on the drone , shouldn’t it be more like “if then ,but ,if greater than, if = then” ?
I’ve said before I believe this to be based on a half truth, I don’t doubt that “Isaac” is an electrical engineer

hmm that is interesting indeed. i think moon king is probably right in some way. i deffinately feel theres development involved and whoever is in on this if they are hoaxing are very skilled in areas pertinent to the caret stuff. who knows how many people, though i suspect they wouldnt want anymore than necessary to fullfill the goals. which leads me back to this, whats the motivation for hoaxing at this level? wheres the money or the incentive...

Originally posted by RING0
There seems to be a problem in that the crafts design looks like it is using a high-voltage Ion-Wind/Biefeld-Brown Effect to lift it in the air, (Didn’t one of Linda M. Howes witnesses say he saw a wind blowing down from the drone moving the leaves of a tree?), this technology is not considered to be anti gravity, yet the CARET paper refers to anti gravity. Most physicists would describe these processes using mathematical equations, yet none are presented. The power source is not mentioned at all, batteries, nuclear, solar, or vacuum energy? How do we interface with the objects to alter the programming, what type of computers were used to work with the objects and how were they connected? The CARET report glosses over the most important issues.

Just wanted to comment here that when I first saw the Chad drone (before I even read his testimony) besides thinking "what the hell" I thought “this is base on those ion models” you know the ones you see made with tin foil www.blazelabs.com... Like you I thought because of they way the center of the craft looked that it was an aerodynamic craft with ion propulsion generated and forced down threw the middle

edit , Just thinking , maybe this is what the "Chad & Raj" maker wanted us to think , but then isaac and the big basin gang came along and screwed it up with their anti gravity !

[edit on 24-7-2007 by moonking]

[edit on 24-7-2007 by moonking]

Avery what is the incentive??? did you look at how many pages of coverage this got? pure ego is the incentive to have people believe in something they completely fabricated...If it is real i highly doubt it would be of any E.T. origin probably an earth based project, only a primitive society would make something so large as to be just a drone... What do you think would be the best way to spy and observe a civilization 1 gigantic drone floating around looking at specific areas??? The more plausible way to send drones would have them be insect like and to have thousands floating around observing many different areas relaying the information to one source thus not being detected in any way...

I’m willing to look at the Isaac document anytime
Quote from Isaac

“The sheer volume of details to keep in mind while working with the diagrams was enough to challenge anyone's sanity, and I was really at the end of my rope with the military's attitude towards our “need to know”. Our ability to get work done was constantly hampered by their reluctance to provide us with the necessary information, and I was tired of bureaucracy getting in the way of research and development”

I hear you brother, “The need to know” is the best way to keep anyone from getting the “Big Picture”, and you just don’t want the right hand knowing what the left hand is doing. That it is the military way isn’t it?
Which really makes me wonder about this part if the “Caret Report”



Seems that’s way too much info to release to a division that is working on the commercial aspects of the technology?
I mean if it’s a “need to know” why is the problems the military’s having with top secret anti gravity crafts a “Need to Know” for the “Caret” project that's working on commercial aspects and to think that it got publish it in a caret document!