It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


[HOAX] Isaac CARET - Drones [HOAX]

page: 33
<< 30  31  32    34  35  36 >>

log in


posted on Jun, 28 2007 @ 08:00 PM

Originally posted by The Coward

I truly believe that we are dealing with the Master Mind of this Hoax! I mean, the pics that Isaac presents to me look like parts of the model he used in the pics. They seem to be the parts that he puts together and constructs a small model and then takes pics and probably photoshops them into other pics.

I totally agree. Same white background and everything.

posted on Jun, 28 2007 @ 08:07 PM

Originally posted by greatlakes
Right, the wrong use of the word in the Documents or from Isaac ALONE would not mean too much, but now correlate the two together, the same error made in both sources on a not too common grammatical error. Couple the other non-engineer errors to help paint this a hoax, along with the lack of security markings, the haphazard style of the supposed important document all clearly point the direction.

[edit on 6/28/2007 by greatlakes]

What I was trying to show was that the use of "crafts" is not uncommon at all. Also you have to realize this is not Microsoft. As cliffdweller said, and even as Isaac has said, there were a very limited amount of people (outside of soldiers) who worked in this facility. In ADDITION, the part of the document that Isaac shows us is very specific to his area of expertise, even further narrowing down the potential candidates who can write this document. In the end, you're probably looking at a group of 30 or 40 people who know each other well and probably all use the same jargon ("craft", "crafts").

Another mistake is to call this document one of supreme importance. From what we've seen, this looks like a very routine quarterly "inventory report" and "progress report." This report is not important past the several days that it circulates around the brass. After that it would be filed away. That, along with the fact that the creative talent pool from which to choose someone to write this document means that a) mistakes could very well happen - there was probably no editor b) the language being used in the document is the same language (or jargon) being used by the employees and c) it is probably pretty hastily put together.

posted on Jun, 28 2007 @ 08:13 PM
Originally posted by Amberite

What I was trying to show was that the use of "crafts" is not uncommon at all.

I can't believe I'm even saying this.

Try saying "crafts".
Try using it in a sentence.

Most people (not all, mind you) most type as they speak.

"Crafts" just isn't usable in this context.

Now, use it with "arts and crafts".

More comfortable, yes ?


posted on Jun, 28 2007 @ 08:38 PM
As a proofreader, I have a comment on the grammar issues:

Originally posted by greatlakes

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.

1) it's not just plain wrong, and 2) that's why we all don't know this.

"A few commentators remind us that when the noun craft means boat, aircraft, or spacecraft, the plural is usually the uninflected plural craft, although crafts is sometimes also used." Webster's Dictionary of English Usage, Merriam Webster 1989

Originally posted by greatlakes
The author of the CARET documents interchangeably use the terms "craft" and "crafts" in the few pages that we have of the documents.

He's not using them interchangeably. He's consistently using "crafts" as plural, "craft" as singular.

Originally posted by greatlakes
But then in the title of his backstory, Isaac uses the word correctly here:

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

It is correct, but not for the reason you're implying. He's using "Strange Craft" as an adjective. When nouns are used as adjectives, usually the singular is used; e.g., "book mobile," not "books mobile" or "UFO study," not "UFOs study." So he's being consistent.

Originally posted by greatlakes
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.

Not true. He is referring to both single and multiple objects, and differentiating the plural with an added "s."

Your other points might be true about it being the same person and the measurement conventions being incorrect; I just wanted to clarify that point.

[edit on 6/29/2007 by yuefo]

posted on Jun, 28 2007 @ 08:58 PM
Breakdown of evidence I have found for the documents to be fake:

1. We have seen many related models which look extremely similar to the produced photographs.

2. Those photographs (not scans) are at way higher resolution that available in 1980's. In fact, they didn't even have digital cameras (obvious).

3. Poorly named parts really never happens in the world of engineering because everything has a real scientific name that can pretty much describe anything without the use of "making up words".
(... relation to A1's centroid)

Centroid? It is the center.. of a droid.. People working on anti-gravity extra-terrestrial technology couldn't come up with a better word to name the core of the device?

4. In the textbook, there was a picture of this..

Funny, he must've been there when they made this textbook! And ALSO had to have been lucky enough to travel in the past with his 6megapixel digital camera to snap a quick shot before the guys in charge come back from thier lunch break!

5. "A page from an inventory review with a photo that appears to depict one of the parts found in the Rajman sighting and parts very similar to the Big Basin craft"

You worked on these Anti-gravity parts and you can't identify them all of a sudden?

6. You're trying to make me believe that anyone human on this planet looked at this:
...and was able to decipher it to the point that he wrote a computer code out of it capable of making an anti-gravity macheine which functions on its own with no remote control device, nothing powering it, casually floating around California. Thats right ladies and gentlemen, a paint job that not only makes your car run, but drives it for you too.



6.1 This apparent "scan" here has a blue watermark running completely 100% vertical, while the actual document is tilted at 30degrees clockwise.
*note: put your mouse on the top of the blue line, scroll with mouse wheel, watch it line right up.

7. When the DPI is cranked up you can clearly see this aircraft is doing one hell of a maneuver, 10 inches above the power lines. And look at that, no interference or anything. That device must be MAGIC.

8. The "A1" supposed device which makes the anti-gravity work, is not present on any of the photographs.

[edit on 28-6-2007 by blowfishdl]

[edit on 28-6-2007 by blowfishdl]

[edit on 28-6-2007 by blowfishdl]

posted on Jun, 28 2007 @ 09:02 PM

Originally posted by Amberite
In the end, you're probably looking at a group of 30 or 40 people who know each other well and probably all use the same jargon ("craft", "crafts").

Even if you personally want to discount the craft vs. crafts grammatical error found in both texts (I wouldn't), the glaring error in dimensioning hasn't been addressed, how would you explain this one away? (ref my post above)

Keep in mind that no person in science, engineering or other would write the dimension in such an ambiguous way, its just plain wrong, no matter what country you are native to. It's unclear, and confusing, people really don't even have to unlearn this behavior, because its just not done.

You also say that "30-40 people who know each other well and use the same jargon", do they also have similar educational backgrounds? If so, like our Isaac states, he holds multiple degrees, undergraduate and graduates ones, in engineering.

I think you're *grasping at straws now* with your explanations of the document errors.

[edit on 6/28/2007 by greatlakes]

posted on Jun, 28 2007 @ 09:07 PM
I've been carefully absorbing every post on these, what? 33+ pages now and I must say this has been one of the most engaging, entertaining, and enlightening threads I've seen on ATS in a long time.

The other drone threads were intriguing in their own right, and what a prologue they collectively made to this "Isaac" extension. What could possibly top this?

Just a word of caution: some here seem to be expressing their frustration in a rather disturbing pattern of condescending, demeaning, disrespectful banter targeted at anyone who is not immediately accepting of their argument.

OK, so you think it's CGI and nothing else - that's fine. Or you may be irritated by semantics or syntax and to you that proves hoax and nothing else - that's ok too. Others are pressing their own theories regarding correlations of pseudonyms, similarities in archaic typefaces, presence of symmetry, inconsistencies in presentation, or any number of other equally plausible (or deniable) hypotheses.

These are all welcome and I, for one, enjoy considering them all - even those I may consider far-fetched, not very persuasive, or effectively counter-argued elsewhere.

So keep it coming, friends. Just try to maintain a quasi-professional decorum and a bit of humble civility when making your case or refuting another.

I have a feeling that with the fine minds here at ATS (as opposed to the rather sensationalized exchanges found elsewhere), that we will, together, get to the bottom of this.

Your contributions (and yes, your opinions as well) are all encouraging. Keep it up!

Just remember that on the chance, however slight, that this type of technology or device may someday prove to be genuine - it means that all of your comments and 'attitude' will have been duly noted. Everything you do has a consequence, and, as the world turns, you only get one chance to build a good reputation. So try not to embarrass the rest of the human race too much, will you? Thanks.

Like many of you, I'm forming my own conclusions regarding these drone craft (or "crafts" as the case may be). They are not yet refined or even much more than ethereal hunches. I'll share when I feel I have something more meaningful to contribute. In the meantime...

please... carry on

posted on Jun, 28 2007 @ 09:17 PM
Is it just my cpu or the links are all gone...? Can anyone confirm this please. They were up today when I was at work.

posted on Jun, 28 2007 @ 09:25 PM

Originally posted by blowfishdl

Originally posted by tsloan
Is it just my cpu or the links are all gone...? Can anyone confirm this please. They were up today when I was at work.


I should get mad points for that come on ATS I just funked this one over.

[edit on 28-6-2007 by blowfishdl]

And as soon as they read that the links were working again.. Am I just paranoid? Is this an ATS member ploy to boost hits on the site (please dont warn me again

posted on Jun, 28 2007 @ 09:35 PM

Originally posted by blowfishdl
And as soon as they read that the links were working again.. Am I just paranoid? Is this an ATS member ploy to boost hits on the site (please dont warn me again

Its a 'free' site, I'm sure its not all that reliable, beggars aren't choosers you know...With all of the hits and downloading from here and elsewhere, I'm sure theres gonna be some snags there. Not sure if that site has a bandwidth limit either, don't think so though....

posted on Jun, 28 2007 @ 09:50 PM
If he gave this package to coast 2 coast am to produce,.. why isn't it on their own ftp? instead on a free one? why?

posted on Jun, 28 2007 @ 09:51 PM
I wanted to comment on the photo of the device. I read where someone suggested that it could be plastic from a mold. I am a mold maker and work with stereolithography builds and 3D printer parts. I am an expert model builder. The complexity of the device pictured would not be an easy construct even if it were built by film industry professionals. Molding and casting such an elaborate device to foster a hoax seems to me to be to costly to consider. If the object is rendered in a CGI format that is outside of my knowledge. If the object in the photo was a model someone went to alot of trouble and did quirky things with odd angles to pull it off. It looks very real to me. If someone used a computer program and actually built this object from currant rapid prototyping technology that person spent a tremendous amount of money to preform a hoax. I suggest that those who truly know CGI investigate the tell tale signs of that process. Trust me if the object in the photo is a real three dimensional object it is truly a remarkable piece of work.

posted on Jun, 28 2007 @ 09:57 PM
I too think the discussion is engaging, but I still think we are being thrown for a loop.

Besides the similar themes each time a thread pops up regarding new 'drone' info, and the extention of resources to try to solve the puzzling nature of the story, I feel like we are pacing a hole in the floor.

Each time some new data on this appears the growing hype piques the interests, and the membership works into a frenzy, often repeating the same themes:

1. They are real, and we are either back-engineering them terrestrially, or they are coming from elsewhere.

2. They are hoax images and tall tales, and either the work of a a very busy person/group working in conjunction, or people seperately, adding to the story as it goes along.

3. They are manufactured stories and photos with the intent to distract the ufo community/conspiracists at large from something that is really happening that 'they' don't want us to see.

4. They are part of a marketing campaign to advertise for a movie or video game.

Can anyone else think of any other major 'theme' that has been discussed here regarding these images?

So unless these 'drones' are actually small enough to fit into a fullsize van, I do not think that they can be real (number 1), and not have been seen more often in a state with 33 million people. So to me it either has to be 2, 3 or 4, with 4 more likely being related to Halo3 now than Transformers. But if it is a sort of combination of 3, 2 and 4 (and I don't mean 9!) and it is done by disinfo agents to distract us with red herrings to keep us from some other truth.

I don't know. But I am not sure that we are actually making much progress from a month ago besides a lot of "well, its not...", and angry "dancing" with each other. Where is some real "IT IS" information. I find it so strange that the release of the new documents and photos seems to follow a weekly pattern, and when a few of us mentioned the dates we expected the new information to arrive, it was a day late. This made us even more excited to see the info that was presented, which has been a doozie...

What I would like to know, if this are some sort of shadow gubmint/military reverse enginnering projects, where are all the ATS aviation skunkwork types with any support for the Caret project? Not that I really know what he is talking about, but I have read some stuff from a member named Tom Bedlam (or something like that) that makes me 'trust' his opinion way more than "Issac" from C2C fame. Maybe Tom has heard of Caret... I doubt it though.


posted on Jun, 28 2007 @ 10:04 PM

Originally posted by Nulifier
It looks very real to me. If someone used a computer program and actually built this object from currant rapid prototyping technology that person spent a tremendous amount of money to preform a hoax.

Never underestimate the amount of time and work a HOAXER will go through to make his/her particular project believable and to garner attention. There are many examples of elaborate hoaxes that until found out, were believed almost religiously.

posted on Jun, 28 2007 @ 10:14 PM

The links on my past reply have been taken down by the hoaxer. They are in this thread and they are watching what we say. Report photo 4.4 and page 120 have been removed from the site completely!


Because report photo 4.4 had shown the exact same photograph in the very last page of "scanned" documents, only in resolution bigger than 1600x900 (my monitor size), and full blown color with solid white background (evidence of 3-d render).

Also note:

Why would the reports cut off these magnificent pictures? If they were official "blueprints" for some type of computer program you can't do squat unless you have the whole thing!

[edit on 28-6-2007 by blowfishdl]

posted on Jun, 28 2007 @ 10:26 PM

As promised earlier, I have gathered all my notes together and am going to post them for you now. If you have not yet read my introductory post, please do so, as it is only about a page prior to this one. These notes and ideas are somewhat thorough, and will most likely take up several to tens of posts to type them out. I will start each of the posts with it's respective page marking as "PART #" so that you can easily follow through and find them. These particular notes, thoughts, and ideas are in no particular order. They have been written first with pen and paper in response to the thoughts and ideas already conveyed in this thread. Some, however, may not be related and are just my own ideas. Although I feel this is more based in truth than fiction, I have included my thoughts on both sides of the fence. I apologize for the lenghty introduction.


Some people have brought up the relevancy of the typefaces with respect to the time period in which they have been allegedly used. It has been established that the most prevalent typeface is most likely Palatino. Apple has utilized this font as far back as I can remember them having a GUI
(Graphical User Interface). Xerox was also leader in the computer and digital industry, as well as the pioneer of the GUI and the mouse. Based in the Silicon Valley, Apple has always been at the forefront of personal computer technology. There is no reason to think that XPARC wouldn't have had access to the best computer and digital printing equipment of the time. The typeface corrolation between the CARET report and the typography available during that decade is confirmed.


The majority of people so far have said it is a hoax. They say prove it's real. I say prove it isn't real. If it were so easy to debunk, it would have been debunked by now. Innocent until proven guilty, and noone on this forum (and I mean NOONE) has proven any elements of Isaac's story, report, diagrams, and photos to be fake. What they have proven is that they know how to makes fools of themselves with all the heresay.

First of all, without getting your hands on any of these alien parts, or seeing them operate with your own eyes, it is impossible to say whether this is real or not. All of the intelligent people in this forum will concede to that. So the burden of proof, or should I say disproof lay with the debunkers. Ok, great, so now what?

I've seen claims such as "oh that's easy, it's CGI and can be easily done." Fine. If it's so easy, do it. Put up or shut up. So far, none of the CGI images I have seen come even close to the realism of these devices or parts, and I've been in the graphics industry for a very long time. How does one know that there aren't advanced CGI-like systems that an alien race would use to design one of these things in the first place? But I'll talk more about any minor discrepancies I have with the images in other notations.

(continued in next post)

posted on Jun, 28 2007 @ 10:30 PM


One of the major questions put before us on this issue, if it is a hoax, is who is behind it. Where is the money coming from to fund this project, and would such greath lengths be taken to stir up the ufology community?
As said in my first post (which is PART 1, but was untitled as such), there are 4 groups or parties which could be responsible for it, as I see it. I do not believe this could be the sole work of just one person as there is way too much background and knowledge put into "Isaac" for one person to have.


This party, in my opinion, is the least likely of all parties to be responsible for something like this. How could enough revenue be generated from something on this order of magnitude? Perhaps hopes of it leaking into the mass media is one way. Word of mouth and through website links is yet another. I'm certainly no video game expert as I gave that up when I was a young teenager, but from what I have seen of these photos and diagrams, they aren't very similar at all to Halo 3 or Transformers. If anything, I think Halo 3's logo could have been inspired from a crop circle, which came long before the drones. I don't see any connection to Transformers at all. If this turns out to be viral marketing, it would be for something like the new Star Trek. But I don't see a major movie studio
risking their image by insulting and pissing off their target audience, which is exactly what would happen.


I could potentially see this being a project by a class, or an individual's thesis project that includes the help of several others. Obviously they would have to be students with a very serious skillset in order to illustrate their talents to the professor. I don't find it likely that it would be a project of a science class, but more along the lines of morals and ethics in the media.


This would be one of the most likely scenario of a hoax as grand as this. They have the personnel and the funding to back it up. Their members/employees consist of skillsets from all walks of life, including military higher-ups, medical and psychological doctors, researchers, to NASA engineers and diplomatic liasons. I know this because I use to do graphic work (which included setting up their business cards which contained names and respective titles) for one of the major think tanks called RAND (which stands for Research And Development). I can't think of a reason for their motivation to conduct a stunt such as this, unless they were highered by a company in the private sector or military agency - which brings me to the final of the four.

(continued in next post)

posted on Jun, 28 2007 @ 10:32 PM


Another one of the possible parties responsible for a stunt like this would be a military agency. And the only reason for this to happen is if there are elements or wholes of truth to CARET. If there have been documented photographs and eyewitnesses of these drones, followed by the "Isaac" memo, they may be trying to disseminate this information into the public. But why? I'll tell you why.

Let's assume the first craft that they found crashed in Roswell. If they have been working on this technology since 1947, why hasn't any of it shown up in any military aircraft, including Aurora? If anti-gravitational methods were possible and they knew how harness them, surely you wouldn't be seeing donut-shaped contrails from a Pulse Detination Wave Engine showing up on weather radar from one coast of the U.S. to the other. Ok, so then what?

Well, let's assume the engineers they have hired over the past 60 years haven't been able to reverse engineer this alien technology. How would they put their feelers out for potential employees? They aren't going to post an ad on that says "UNCLE SAM NEEDS UFOLOGIST ENGINEERS TO WORK ON BLACK OPS PROJECTS". They would put their feelers out by creating a UFO sensation in places where they know ufologists go. They will wait for people to post their theories and ideas, their thoughts on the subject matter, and then if they see some that they like, they will locate you - you don't locate them. With the internet and IP addresses, it is very easy to find out someones identity, especially for the military. This is a very likely and probable scenario, perhaps moreso than
"Isaac's" necessity to get this off his chest.

A LOT MORE TO COME LATER, as I am still typing it up.

(continued in next post)

posted on Jun, 28 2007 @ 10:36 PM

Originally posted by blowfishdl

The links on my past reply have been taken down by the hoaxer. They are in this thread and they are watching what we say. Report photo 4.4 and page 120 have been removed from the site completely!

What are you talking about? I think you should stop posting these things until your computer goes back to normal. The site works fine. Please stop jumping to crazy conclusions and assumptions.

posted on Jun, 28 2007 @ 10:57 PM
Just a thought about the writing...
As the writing appears on the alleged nanobotic substrate it could serve a duel purpose. While informing the operator of the specific operation properties of the particular part, it would also inform the nano substrate how to perform. This duel purpose label would ensure there was no misunderstandings. After all, the part could be labeled "Popcorn Maker" on the outside but the substrate is running a "Time Distortion Converter" imagine the confusion this would cause.
My point is that the multi purpose use of the language would be very sensible.
Having different meanings for the same symbol is not to far fetched either. Look at our own numbers. Look at the meaning of the number 4 in the following example:


Each time the 4 is used it denotes a completely different quantity. A dozen symbols in different combinations could spell out billions of meanings.

Truth is stranger than fiction, and when the real answer of this mystery is produced it will be labeled as fraud.

new topics

top topics

<< 30  31  32    34  35  36 >>

log in