[HOAX] Isaac CARET - Drones [HOAX]

thanks 11 11! i was at work so i couldn't get to photoshop myself.

do i get bonus ATS points?

[edit on 28-6-2007 by an0maly33]

Craft and Crafts

I first thought of this reading Isaac's posting concerning his story and involvement in the CARET program. He uses the word "crafts" in reference to multiple vessels (in his case alien ones). This is just plain wrong, we all know this, when referring to multiple vessels, the correct form to use is "craft", not crafts. Example: "There were many small craft visible along the horizon from our vantage point."

Now with this said, okay, no biggie, he's making an error in linguistics and making an error an engineer or technical person should not make...But then I thought, okay, if this person who wrote the backstory, his involvement in the CARET program, is the SAME PERSON who wrote the supporting documents (and thus fake documents), WE SHOULD SEE THE SAME TYPES OF writing style, the same kinds of errors as well if coming from the same author.

So do we see this obvious error in the CARET documents? YES. The author of the CARET documents interchangeably use the terms "craft" and "crafts" in the few pages that we have of the documents.

crafts
5. a ship or other vessel, a single aircraft
6. a number of ships or other vessels taken as a whole: "The craft were warned of possible heavy squalls."

crafts
Any of a number of items produced using original art techniques are today considered fine art crafts;

Here's the Isaac writings and his error of the word "crafts":

originally by "Isaac":
►I should first be clear that I'm not directly familiar with any of the crafts seen in the photos in their entirety.

►However, I have worked with and seen many of the parts visible in these crafts...

►These crafts have probably existed in their current form for decades, and I can say for sure that the technology behind them has existed for decades before that.

►Much like the technology in these crafts themselves, the device capable...

But then in the title of his backstory, Isaac uses the word correctly here:

originally by "Isaac":
Explanation of the Recent "Strange Craft" Sightings

Now looking at the CARET DOCS...



Using the word crafts AND THE word CRAFT in the same paragraph, only one version of the word is correct. Isaac does the same thing in his authorship of the backstory. We can see other similarities in his writing style as well.

Here are some other errors made in the document. Errors that would be made if someone is a hoaxer and not really an engineer or technical person...



An engineer or technical writer or really anyone WOULD NEVER DIMENSION SOMETHING interchanging units of measurement like that in an eng. drawing, document, or really anything technical - EVER.

The author mixes feet and inches in the dimension, this is terrible. lets say you have a beam and give the length as such: beam length is 1 foot, 10.3 inches. Is it clear or muddy as to the dimension of this beam, is it 1 foot, or is it 10.3 inches, or is it 22.3 inches? This is why no one dimensions things like this, its silly! It would be like the following with other units:

Length is 1 meter, 22.5 mm

Diameter is 30 cm, 1.5 mm

See how bad that is? The correct way to dimension is to keep the units the same, in the above beam it would be length equals 22.3 inches. The only time we use this weird form of dimensioning is in construction or when describing our HEIGHT, ie: I'm 6 foot, 1 inch.

So me thinks that our hoaxer is not too keen on all aspects, the details again, of engineering and the only right way of dimensioning, he's assuming that describing the dimensions would not be any different than how one describes their height.

And finally Just a quick other error, this image is labeled humorously, Top view "shot", it would just be "Top view" or "Side View", leaving out the shot in the description.

Just another "DEVIL IS IN THE DETAILS" example that hoaxers fail on...I feel that our Isaac is the same person that wrote the CARET OFFICIAL documents, and thus is our hoaxer. The use of the same writing style, the same little errors, the lack of specific knowledge in engineering lead me to believe that the Isaac website is just another method to lend support for the HOAX.


[edit on 6/28/2007 by greatlakes]

Personally I think this is Viral marketing for the new Star Trek movie...

I find it really funny how people who are out to prove something is a hoax suddenly transform into bona fide alien technology experts when it comes down to proving their point.

Now, I'm not saying I think this is real. I'm keeping my mind open and am on the fence. But some of the assumptions and conclusions being brought up are laughable.

This mirrored object connection is by far the funniest. I've looked at this picture VERY carefully, and aside from the mirrored and inverted "language" elements, I see nothing strange about this photo. Cars are symmetrical, our bodies are symmetrical (mostly), in fact almost every element in nature is symmetrical. As for the "language" elements, Isaac said very specifically that this is not really a language, and because of this we, the readers, have no idea whether orientation or direction has any contextual meaning like in regular languages. It could very easily be that orientation, or even inverted characters, have no discernible effect on their functional use.

What I'm trying to say is that if such technology existed, at this point in time not one person on these forums is capable of saying what will and what won't work with it.

So please, stop these ridiculous "it's inverted! That means its CGI because **I** do it in my projects!" posts. It's laughable. Focus on something more concrete than your supposed understanding of a technology that, if it existed, is probably 1000s of years outside our comprehension.

[edit on 28-6-2007 by Amberite]

Very nice analysis, this thing is falling apart faster & faster..
I especially liked this part "And finally Just a quick other error, this image is labeled humorously, Top view "shot", it would just be "Top view" or "Side View", leaving out the shot in the description."

Im thinking its someone who works in TV or Movie production, given the technical savvy but that language of using the word "shot" points towards an artist working in 1 of those realms..if it was me I woulda made the same mistake..

admin edit: PLEASE DO NOT quote entire posts.


[edit on 28-6-2007 by wildone106]

[edit on 6-28-2007 by Springer]

No, this is a clear giveaway and its highly likely based on all the other evidence you just skipped past its not real. You probably would'nt think there's anything wrong with the image because its rendered so well..BUT I dont think you have any experience with 3D modelling, rendering to really say for sure. Not your fault its just the way it is. But there ARE many things not right about the image...

You said "Isaac said very specifically that this is not really a language, and because of this we, the readers, have no idea whether orientation or direction has any contextual meaning like in regular languages. It could very easily be that orientation, or even inverted characters, have no discernible effect on their functional use. "


Your actually buying the story to justify the errors in the image..dont you think this is somewhat off!?! lol

Originally posted by Amberite
I find it really funny how people who are out to prove something is a hoax suddenly transform into bona fide alien technology experts when it comes down to proving their point.

Now, I'm not saying I think this is real. I'm keeping my mind open and am on the fence. But some of the assumptions and conclusions being brought up are laughable.

This mirrored object connection is by far the funniest. I've looked at this picture VERY carefully, and aside from the mirrored and inverted "language" elements, I see nothing strange about this photo. Cars are symmetrical, our bodies are symmetrical (mostly), in fact almost every element in nature is symmetrical. As for the "language" elements, Isaac said very specifically that this is not really a language, and because of this we, the readers, have no idea whether orientation or direction has any contextual meaning like in regular languages. It could very easily be that orientation, or even inverted characters, have no discernible effect on their functional use.

What I'm trying to say is that if such technology existed, at this point in time not one person on these forums is capable of saying what will and what won't work with it.

So please, stop these ridiculous "it's inverted! That means its CGI because **I** do it in my projects!" posts. It's laughable. Focus on something more concrete than your supposed understanding of a technology that, if it existed, is probably 1000s of years outside our comprehension.

[edit on 28-6-2007 by Amberite]

[edit on 28-6-2007 by wildone106]

i think it's funny how people who want to believe in something blindly refuse to accept pretty decent *evidence* (not proof) that something isn't real. i wanted to believe in this thing, but for me the symmetry is too far outside the realm of believable. my challenge to those who still think it's real is to offer matching evidence that supports that it may be real.

I find it really funny how people who are out to prove something is a hoax suddenly transform into bona fide alien technology experts when it comes down to proving their point.

Now, I'm not saying I think this is real. I'm keeping my mind open and am on the fence. But some of the assumptions and conclusions being brought up are laughable.

This mirrored object connection is by far the funniest. I've looked at this picture VERY carefully, and aside from the mirrored and inverted "language" elements, I see nothing strange about this photo. Cars are symmetrical, our bodies are symmetrical (mostly), in fact almost every element in nature is symmetrical. As for the "language" elements, Isaac said very specifically that this is not really a language, and because of this we, the readers, have no idea whether orientation or direction has any contextual meaning like in regular languages. It could very easily be that orientation, or even inverted characters, have no discernible effect on their functional use.

What I'm trying to say is that if such technology existed, at this point in time not one person on these forums is capable of saying what will and what won't work with it.

So please, stop these ridiculous "it's inverted! That means its CGI because **I** do it in my projects!" posts. It's laughable. Focus on something more concrete than your supposed understanding of a technology that, if it existed, is probably 1000s of years outside our comprehension.

All these mistakes in the technical documents, did he ever claim to have authored those? I mean maybe the company had a summer intern who did those or maybe it was someone who is not an engineer and doesn't speak english as their native tongue?

Originally posted by Amberite
This mirrored object connection is by far the funniest. I've looked at this picture VERY carefully, and aside from the mirrored and inverted "language" elements, I see nothing strange about this photo.

This is why I wanted to approach this hoax from a different perspective, one that is linguistics related. CGI images and such are very subjective. The use of the not too common error of the word crafts to mean the plural version of the word craft, to me clinches and sinches the deal of calling this HOAX.

Now as to whether this is related to the entire other CHAD images of the drone is another question, but in my opinion it is connected.

Originally posted by wildone106
No, this is a clear giveaway and its highly likely based on all the other evidence you just skipped past its not real. You probably would'nt think there's anything wrong with the image because its rendered so well..BUT I dont think you have any experience with 3D modelling, rendering to really say for sure. Not your fault its just the way it is. But there ARE many things not right about the image...

Actually I've read every page of this thread over the last few days and so I've glossed over all the "evidence." I think the mirrored and inverted argument is silly, regardless, for the reasons I explained. I could care less that its a 3D and CGI modeling technique. It proves absolutely nothing.

And I know everyone here is trying to find the *slightest* thing wrong in order to verify it as a hoax. However, sorry to say but people, organizations, businesses, the military, and, probably at an even higher level, the government is not perfect. There will be mistakes in sentence structure, wording, etc. You can take any real military document of this nature and find these kinds of mistakes too, I am sure. Keep in mind that this document looked like it was written by the scientists themselves as a "progress report" for managerial people. It is not a scientific journal entry, and it is not a PR assignment. I'm sure these kinds of documents in the real military are not very strictly edited and often employ the language of the scientists who work together on these projects. In Isaac's case, if he used the term "crafts" and "craft" interchangeably at work, probably others did as well.

its ridiculous...

Originally posted by an0maly33
i think it's funny how people who want to believe in something blindly refuse to accept pretty decent *evidence* (not proof) that something isn't real. i wanted to believe in this thing, but for me the symmetry is too far outside the realm of believable. my challenge to those who still think it's real is to offer matching evidence that supports that it may be real.

[edit on 28-6-2007 by asala]

I too, am of the 'skeptical but interested' camp. I agree that at the moment the evidence points to an elaborate hoax and not a genuine revelation, but I think the evidence is by no means irefutable.

My counter argument to the hoax theory is beginning to become: if aspects of this are so incredibly well done, why would somebody if with so much time and attention to detail make schoolboy errors?

I agree that the photos have a CGI quality to them, and the texture issue is also duly noted. But Isaac has presented us with other things that make me wonder if whoever did this would allow such an error to slip.

External Image

This picture, for example, shows objects on a hangar floor or something similar. Now, to me, if I was carrying out this hoax, I would take one look at the other photos of the black objects and say "something about them doesn't look right, render them sitting on the hangar floor". It could be done, it has been done in the above picture, so why would Isaac let shoddy CGI slip into what is otherwise a great set of sources?

If you're capable of creating that sort of CGI, surely you're also capable of judging how convincing it looks? That, coupled with the fact that the above photo is of objects on a hangar floor, just doesn't quite add up to me. It's almost like, if this was a hoax, why would you let something so silly slip when you've gone to great pains to make other, more complicated aspects, look so realistic? As I said, I'm not necessarily a believer in this, I'm just saying that what looks CG could very easily have looked much more real, and the 'hoaxer' has already proved as much in another photo. Why make one photo look so good and accidentally make another look so bad, unless you're not covering anything up?

And also, with regards to the 'mirrored' CG image - I personally don't feel that's a particularly strong argument. Can anybody tell me how the objects work, or what they are constructed of? Can anybody point out individual parts and explain their functions? Real or not, the concept of this object is so truly alien to us that can the whole thing be brought down on the argument that it's "perfectly symmetrical"? I'm not saying that the argument is wrong, I'm just saying that it doesn't really present the smoking gun, by a long shot. And again, my above argument feeds into this one. Surely somebody clever and patient enough to model and construct all these photos and reports would notice the symbols are mirrored? I don't think this is the sort of error our potential hoaxer would make.








[edit on 28-6-2007 by corda]

Originally posted by an0maly33
i think it's funny how people who want to believe in something blindly refuse to accept pretty decent *evidence* (not proof) that something isn't real. i wanted to believe in this thing, but for me the symmetry is too far outside the realm of believable. my challenge to those who still think it's real is to offer matching evidence that supports that it may be real.

Actually, like I said, I do not believe in this, and I'm on the fence. I'm trying to look at this RATIONALLY and with a cautious eye, however, and not jump to rash conclusions just because I believe I know how something works.

I don't believe in this for several reasons but mainly because of the "photo scans" which are not scans at all,they are Computer generated imagery...at least to my eye they do not look real enough. In my view if he is lying about the scans he is lying about the rest of the story.

I dont know if anyone brought this up but anyone noticed the great condition of the photocopied material from the 80's?? All the stuff i own from the 80's is in real bad shape showing it's age, compared to those neat documents, that were taken from inside this person's shirt during the 80's...

I'm not an expert in linguistics but is anyone able to figure if the speach match technical reports from the same time?

Another point, take a good look at the crop circle inspired diagrams with the strange markings, look how neat and vectorized those lines look, how even in weight and how perfect...something like that could only be Vector design...wasn't technical drawing something really hard to pull during the 80's, i can be mystaken but i thought technical illustrations in manuals of that period were hand drawn by artists hand with actual tech-pen (something like Rotrin rapidograph) and indian-ink. Guessing that during the 80's such tight illustration would be hard to pull, I made a quick check up on Computer aided design (CAD) in wikipedia

Computer-aided_design

AutoCAD was the tool of the moment during the 80's, but doing a little more digging and according to this AutoCAD templates only came out on AutoCAD R14 which came out only in 1997. Unless i'm wrong the early versions of AutoCAD would not allow 2D vector drawings this good, please someone correct me.

Hope my points hold some ground.

Originally posted by PsykoOps
All these mistakes in the technical documents, did he ever claim to have authored those? I mean maybe the company had a summer intern who did those or maybe it was someone who is not an engineer and doesn't speak english as their native tongue?

Err we're *s t r e t c h i n g* now, a summer intern to work on ultra top secret, *world changing information if it ever got out* project???

Basically we have Isaac claiming to be an engineer with grad and post-grad work (see below Isaac quote), so if you are using the argument that *maybe* Isaac is the author (legitimately) of the CARET documents (tasked by the group to write a summary of the work there), you STILL have the MAJOR problem of all of the engineering type nomenclature and rules ERRORS made in that document, errors that would not be made by an engineer, even one fresh out of college, and unspeakable for one with graduate and post-graduate degrees.

ISAAC QUOTE:
My story begins the same as it did for many of my co workers, with graduate and post-graduate work at university in electrical engineering. And I had always been interested in computer science, which was a very new field at the time, and my interest piqued with my first exposure to a Tixo during grad school. In the years following school I took a scenic route through the tech industry and worked for the kinds of companies you would expect, until I was offered a job at the Department of Defense and things took a very different turn.

[edit on 6/28/2007 by greatlakes]

I guess my Land Rover model is REAL??

They are just human mistakes, we're pretty nit picky here and it'd take a genius to cover all his bases. But they are mistakes someone who is has a working knowledge of 3D is likely to make if he's gonna make any at all?
The text flipping issue is a big deal and a very very good sign its not legit, that he probably thought no one would notice (and they almost did'nt!)
or it did'nt matter..but in fact it did. He got lazy and just duplicated the object and turned it 180 then stuck it back together. There's no reason for the text to be flipped other than that.

Originally posted by corda

My counter argument to the hoax theory is beginning to become: if aspects of this are so incredibly well done, why would somebody if with so much time and attention to detail make schoolboy errors?

I agree that the photos have a CGI quality to them, and the texture issue is also duly noted. But Isaac has presented us with other things that make me wonder if whoever did this would allow such an error to slip.

isaaccaret.fortunecity.com...

This picture, for example, shows objects on a hangar floor or something similar. Now, to me, if I was carrying out this hoax, I would take one look at the other photos of the black objects and say "something about them doesn't look right, render them sitting on the hangar floor". It could be done, it has been done in the above picture, so why would Isaac let shoddy CGI slip into what is otherwise a great set of sources?

If you're capable of creating that sort of CGI, surely you're also capable of judging how convincing it looks? That, coupled with the fact that the above photo is of objects on a hangar floor, just doesn't quite add up to me. It's almost like, if this was a hoax, why would you let something so silly slip when you've gone to great pains to make other, more complicated aspects, look so realistic? As I said, I'm not necessarily a believer in this, I'm just saying that what looks CG could very easily have looked much more real, and the 'hoaxer' has already proved as much in another photo. Why make one photo look so good and accidentally make another look so bad, unless you're not covering anything up?

And also, with regards to the 'mirrored' CG image - I personally don't feel that's a particularly strong argument. Can anybody tell me how the objects work, or what they are constructed of? Can anybody point out individual parts and explain their functions? Real or not, the concept of this object is so truly alien to us that can the whole thing be brought down on the argument that it's "perfectly symmetrical"? I'm not saying that the argument is wrong, I'm just saying that it doesn't really present the smoking gun, by a long shot. And again, my above argument feeds into this one. Surely somebody clever and patient enough to model and construct all these photos and reports would notice the symbols are mirrored? I don't think this is the sort of error our potential hoaxer would make.







[edit on 28-6-2007 by corda]

[edit on 28-6-2007 by corda]

[edit on 28-6-2007 by corda]

[edit on 28-6-2007 by asala]

Yea I tried to show them other examples. They did'nt believe me either..
Nice rendering, is that Maya/Mental Ray?


-Theres NO WAY that land rover can be fake!?? Look at the relfections!!! Its REAL!!

Originally posted by 11 11
I guess my Land Rover model is REAL??

[edit on 28-6-2007 by wildone106]

Originally posted by rwiggins
Please, PsykoOps, don't even go there. Have you bothered to investigate what a Linguist is? I rather doubt it, seeing your statement.

Why is it that some here will bend over backwards to uphold someone's outrageous claims, but fight to the death anyone who approaches with a hint of common sense? Instead of making excuses for someone you don't know, i.e. "Isaac", or outrageous claims, in which you cannot substantiate, you might think about a more neutral approach.

"Isaac" claims to be a Linguist and an Engineer. Why, oh why, cannot you look at those very claims and compare them to real-world examples?

Originally posted by PsykoOps

Originally posted by rwiggins
I don't think that this case requires any study into photographs or documents as "Isaac" has provided the pertinent details necessary for an analysis into the veracity of his claims and story.

Claim 1: "Isaac" is a Linguist.

His diction, grammar and spelling are atrocious. Look up Linguist and Linguistics, if you will. After doing so, examine "Isaac's" material. Compare them with works published by real Linguists. Judge "Isaac's" material by the same standard.

Maybe his native tongue isn't english?

As far as I know linguist are not bound to english language and they infact are found in most countries around the world. Some as far as I know dont even study english or speak it. The claim that the english on the site is bad proves nothing

Originally posted by wildone106
Yea I tried to show them other examples. They did'nt believe me either..
Nice rendering, is that Maya/Mental Ray?

I used 3D Studio Max 8 / Mental Ray.