[HOAX] Isaac CARET - Drones [HOAX]

I cant help but think of the artifact in Spielburgs "Taken".... didnt that thing have writing on it that made it work? Wasnt it supposed to be a recording device of the events over the whole few decades.... hmmmmmm

I guess my point would be to get people ready for disclosure wouldnt they saturate the media , movies and internet with "stuff" ill call it for now.....

just thinking

[edit on 26-6-2007 by geemony]

The comparison with the crop circle only serves to underscore the differences in my mind. Examine the symbols carefully and the complexity that is revealed is astonishing. There are few simple lines and circles in Isaac's symbols whereas the crop circle is nothing but simple lines and circles.

The most glaring improbability in Isaac's story seems to me to be the selection of a research facility in Palo Alto. I suppose it could be done as I am aware of certain CIA false front operations that were similarly situated but the operation he describes seems rather large. Why not just shuttle your employees to a secure location such as happens every day from Vegas to Groom Lake?

Originally posted by solarwind
The comparison with the crop circle only serves to underscore the differences in my mind. Examine the symbols carefully and the complexity that is revealed is astonishing. There are few simple lines and circles in Isaac's symbols whereas the crop circle is nothing but simple lines and circles.

Possibly. But, the features that I'm referring to is highlighted in the image below, the stepped circular feature, surely not too common of a design.

Also, when looking at the C2C drone evolution as the different cases have popped up, may point to the addition of complexity to the design, if hoaxed, to possibly ADD validity to the drone model. We may be seeing this in the isaac case as well. Of course keeping an open mind on this one, the material is really well done and very believable looking, if hoaxed, it took lots of time and effort.

Originally posted by keeb333
It occured to me that (assuming, of course, that this is not a hoax) some of the unexplained crop circles out there might correlate with elements of thier technology.

This isn't supportive evidence of *anything*. You can't point to one dubious bit of esoteric conspiracy belief (that lack of human confessions on some crop circles probably means they're from aliens) as evidence for another dubious bit (these drone claims). Reminds me of folks who will give extra credence to a particular UFO story because a psychic "backed up the claim". What kind of logic is that? Psychics aren't real. Crop circles are all man-made. If you believe otherwise, prove it. But don't connect up tenuous threads between the belief systems in your head and think they constitute reason to take this story seriously.

And let's see if this Palo Alto document guy provides corroborating evidence. And by evidence I don't mean, "STuff that looks like and sounds like things we already believe in, therefore we're gonna believe in this."

Regardless of its authenticity, you have to give the author extremely high marks for the inventiveness of the anti-grav tech and the design language, e.g. "But upon [much] closer inspection, we began to learn that it was actually one big holographic computational substrate - each "computational element" (essentially individual particles) can function independently, but are designed to function together in tremendously large clusters."

I don't really know what this means but it sure as hell does sound cool!

Originally posted by Sophismata
Psychics aren't real. Crop circles are all man-made. If you believe otherwise, prove it.

We don't understand everything in our universe nor everything even on our little blue marble we call the Earth. There are many unexplained paranormal or psychic events that are documented, check my remote viewing threads for some insight there...but anyway not to derail the thread...back on point.

Originally posted by keeb333
Anyone else notice a rough similarity between the 3 "semiphore" sections in the the drawing from the language primer and elements from some crop circles. It occured to me that (assuming, of course, that this is not a hoax) some of the unexplained crop circles out there might correlate with elements of thier technology.

For example:




Does anyone know if the above crop circle was admitted to have been manmade? If not, there may be some relation to the ET tech.

Food for thought, anyway.

hhmmm interesting correlation keeb. have done a fair amount of research on crop circles and while yes, SOME of them are man-made, not all of them are and some are certainly of unexplained origin – read Freddy Silva’s work on crop circles, he has some very interesting things to say on the topic.

But IF a crop-circle link can be further substantiated then it will go a long way to proving this to be the real deal.

My personal opinion – well im not sure. If I was a betting man you’d have to go with hoax. BUT just upon reading this stuff, it could VERY well be real.

And what if the spate of ‘hoaxey’ posts over the last week are masking one true story here? Flood the boards with junk so that the one piece of true disclosure will get lumped in with the rest…… just a thought

oh and people, don't forget that Isaac said the Chad drone isn't the exact thing he is talking about, but it looks similar to what he encountered in the 80's.

Originally posted by solarwind
Regardless of its authenticity, you have to give the author extremely high marks for the inventiveness of the anti-grav tech and the design language, e.g. "But upon [much] closer inspection, we began to learn that it was actually one big holographic computational substrate - each "computational element" (essentially individual particles) can function independently, but are designed to function together in tremendously large clusters."

I don't really know what this means but it sure as hell does sound cool!

I wonder if this is technology on the same plane as "quantum dots". Perhaps this is many generations past that.

But it does sound cool.

You want to get a feel for the richness of this potential hoax? Examine the symbols in the "Linguistics Analysis Primer" at fullsize. They are absolutely beautiful and captivating in the denseness of the detail. Whoever created these designs had a certain creative genius and waaayyyy to much time on their hands. I've never seen anything quite like them and to create them solely for purposes of an obscure internet hoax is, well, stunning.

i just got done reading the letter and I am still trying to comprehend it all but I do have a observation on this thread if I may.

I keep seeing people say "If this is a hoax it is a really good one and still a fun read" etc. stuff like "That was a great read, true or not."

I am not intending to flame any one or starta big bruhaha but can we all agree on one thing here.

That if it is a hoax, it is in NO WAY a 'good' hoax. There is no such thing as a 'good' or 'well' done hoax in my mind.

We all want to get to the truth of this issue and we all want some one like this to come out and provide this information but we don't want to incourage people to invent elaborate hoaxes because people find them to be a good read.

It just causes all sorts of problems and really is nothing more than hogwash. Think about it, if people become encouraged to keep coming up more and more elaborate hoaxes it will not only become a waste of everyones time it will cause extreme confusion on what to believe and what not to believe so IF and when some one does decide to disclose the truth with information we will all be so jaded over past hoaxes we may just automatically label it as one.


So with that said I am not attacking any one of you I am just trying to point out a disturbing trend that I have noticed with this thread and the E.T. false flag operation thread.


Ok hope you guys don't hate me now.

Originally posted by greatlakes
Do we have any FONT experts on this board, what font is used in the document that Isaac has posted. Particularly the font in the figures and text seem to be unique, and not familiar with it. Maybe its common, but maybe its an outdated one as well. This doc is supposed to be from the 80's, so if any discrepancies are found with it ....well you know...

My best guess would be Book Antiqua font - see comparison below:

Top is from Word, Book Antiqua Font, Size 23

Bottom is excerpt from photograph of the report







[edit on 26-6-2007 by stealthyone]

[edit on 26-6-2007 by stealthyone]

[edit on 26-6-2007 by stealthyone]

Originally posted by srsen
But IF a crop-circle link can be further substantiated then it will go a long way to proving this to be the real deal.

It will not. I'm not gonna let this go. This is really poor reasoning. We could see pics and docs of Chad drones with all kinds of crop circle patterns involved, chakra diagrams, kabbalistic tree of life stuff, Pink Floyd lyrics encoded in binary... None if it would lend authenticity IN THE LEAST to this story as those other things already exist and anybody can add them to their hoax story. The ONLY reason you think crop circle similarities to patterns in these documents supports the genuineness of these docs is because you ALREADY believe that crop circles are not all man made. A point which HAS NOT BEEN PROVEN and is not AT ALL widely accepted outside the UFO belief and conspiracy communities.

Gotta say, also, that the photo of the "antigravity generator" a/k/a A1 is also stunningly cool. Especially the photo that appears to show the two I-beams suspended in air when the device is turned on. And the notion that the anti-gravity generator not only propels the craft, but apparently holds all of its parts together in a highly precise configuration, is highly original.

Originally posted by solarwind
They are absolutely beautiful and captivating in the denseness of the detail. Whoever created these designs had a certain creative genius and waaayyyy to much time on their hands. I've never seen anything quite like them and to create them solely for purposes of an obscure internet hoax is, well, stunning.

Well said, those were my thoughts as well.


Sophismata: my point is exactly the opposite. IF this paticular disclosure happens to NOT be a hoax, then it would go a long way toward explaining some of the crop circles.

Originally posted by stealthyone
My best guess would be Book Antiqua font - see comparison below:
Top is from Word, Book Antiqua Font, Size 23
Bottom is excerpt from photograph of the report

Definitely looks close, same type of font (family?), but not exact. My point is if this is a hoax, the person must have used a certain font in typing out the document, this font has to be able to be found, unless its obsolete, outdated, which would lend on the side of NOT HOAX. Of course a really thorough hoaxer would create modifications to existing fonts, which is in itself alot of work. You basically have to create each letter and symbols to match...

Good work BTW, I'm terrible with fonts and such Let us know if you're continuing the search and find anything.

[edit on 6/26/2007 by greatlakes]

Been following this for a while tonight, and I can reasonably state these photos were definatley scanned into a computer, and after looking at the reflections off of the objects, they are definately real objects.

If you look in photo 3, the left I-beam has a piece of lint that is perfectly visible. This is virtually indisputeble evidence they were scanned in to the computer, not simply created with an image creater.

These are where I am at no and am not ready to begin speculating what they are or could be. However, should this prove to be yet another hoax (I reiterate it is far too early to even begin balancing either way, this one certainly goes above and beyond.

There are some areas I feel we should branch out in. First, we need to either confirm or deny that PACL plausibly existed, or still does. If said thinktank did/does exist, can we confirm that CARET may have occured during the time stated. If we all continue to just stare at the photos (which are certainly of excellent quality), we will wind up divided. We know the good old google search revealed nothing in the way of PACL or CARET, and sadly, for many people that may that may be the end of the line, so we may have to kick it "old school" and hit the old library.

I know I probably said a lot of things that may or may not have been considered, but that is becaus we must think both skeptically and as open mindedly as pausible. That's tough to do, but I think the rewards, regardless of how this turns out, will be directly proportional to the amount of effort put in. Deny ignorance, right?

Originally posted by greatlakes

Originally posted by stealthyone
My best guess would be Book Antiqua font - see comparison below:
Top is from Word, Book Antiqua Font, Size 23
Bottom is excerpt from photograph of the report

Definitely looks close, same type of font (family?), but not exact. My point is if this is a hoax, the person must have used a certain font in typing out the document, this font has to be able to be found, unless its obsolete, outdated, which would lend on the side of NOT HOAX. Of course a really thorough hoaxer would create modifications to existing fonts, which is in itself alot of work. You basically have to create each letter and symbols to match...

Good work BTW, I'm terrible with fonts and such

Let us know if you're continuing the search and find anything.

[edit on 6/26/2007 by greatlakes]

Im a graphic designer, work with fonts for a living and a lot of time I have to match fonts to go with projects.


What stealthyone is showing might be an exact match. Now im going to try to fine the date that font was released.

I know Palatino is closed, but i havent compared them yet. Im going to do that.

[edit on 26-6-2007 by xstealth]

HOAX..those perfect renderings of the device parts is right out of Alias Maya or Renderman, holy cow perfect pristine CGI renderings that are supposed to be photographs..are we that stupid to this dude?

Furthermore, if he knows so much about advanced tech..he should submit himself to some kind of scientific review on what he actually knows and see if his knowledge about advanced material has any credibility..only THEN would I even consider this..but Im guessing he wont because all he knows how to do is render CGI objects.

What a tool..